11 ms·

Some people are better athletes than others, but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential. I see creativi

Some people are better athletes than others, but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential. I see creativity along the same lines. Many folks are conditioned to memorize, follow processes, follow norms and paths laid by others, it may not occur to them to seek out originality. It is another form of learned helplessness. Creating is hard, especially when judged in a commercial context. Sure, if I make my own bread it will not win a prize but I made it, it is mine and therefore special to me in ways that are not reflected by the market. Too often emotional value is dictated by market value, with the logical conclusion being "what's the point of making when I can buy something better" -- and you may respond, that is the correct view but it misunderstands that creativity is a process, a worthy act in its own right but also a journey that may end up in interesting places that are not explored by commercial venture.

jamesrcole 9y ago
I think of creativity as a kind of skill, that you build through practice.
- jrs235 9y ago
  I think creativity comes from exposing oneself to different disciplines/topics and finding ways to connect what you learn in one domain to another. It's like the cafeteria concept employed my companies. You want cross pollination of ideas to find creative solutions. Reading is a great way to learn new things from different domains.
Judgmentality 9y ago
> but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential I disagree. The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do.
- felipemnoa 9y ago
  A You that trains will be better than a You that does not train.
  - eachro 9y ago
    This is what people should take away from this, not that there might always be someone out there better than you no matter what. In the end, you can only control your own circumstances so do your best, prepare/train for whatever it is you're doing and whatever happens happens.
    - projektir 9y ago
      We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake. You are pushing a highly individualistic philosophy that not everyone even agrees on. We live in societies and we have governments beholden to us and it's very important how these things function, much more important than what you individually do. If these systems and structures do not properly serve us because we overestimate personal agency and underestimate circumstance, that's a major problem. The investigation to find what is true (why are people creative?) with figuring out how to improve the station of some person (why am I not creative?) is a conflict of interest, do not mix these unless you like believing in things that are just plain wrong.
      - eachro 9y ago
        "We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake." Ooh, interesting. Can you elaborate more on what you thing the "whole problem" is? What things are you talking about? What is at stake? Let me say what my actual opinion on all this is, since you seem to be assuming a lot of intent("You are pushing...") from my 2 sentence original post. Many people ask: "why is X more creative than me?", "why is X better than me at Y?" and often the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies. In these cases, this kind of thinking is unproductive because the explanation(something something brain connections blah blah blah) is out of their control! Exactly what you're saying with this being a "conflict of interest." And to these people I say, IF you care about being more creative, IF you care about being the best in your field: control what you control, and whatever happens happens.
tacomonstrous 9y ago
>I see creativity along the same lines. Many folks are conditioned to memorize, follow processes, follow norms and paths laid by others, it may not occur to them to seek out originality. It is another form of learned helplessness. The same applies in the academic setting as well. When I was doing my PhD, I found myself trapped in exactly this kind of paralysis. I was very good at learning things, so everyone expected me to do well, but I had never created anything, and the idea that I ever could was so overwhelming and foreign that I couldn't even get started. It wasn't until a little over a year before graduating that I managed to get it together, and was lucky enough to pull it off in time. Part of the problem is the romanticization of creativity, at least in my mind, as if it were an act of heroism or exceptional ability. On the contrary, it's mostly a matter of working and thinking and not giving up. Once you get enmeshed deeply enough in something, you stop wondering about if you're any good at it.

jamesrcole 9y ago

I think of creativity as a kind of skill, that you build through practice.

jrs235 9y ago
I think creativity comes from exposing oneself to different disciplines/topics and finding ways to connect what you learn in one domain to another. It's like the cafeteria concept employed my companies. You want cross pollination of ideas to find creative solutions. Reading is a great way to learn new things from different domains.

Judgmentality 9y ago

> but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential I disagree. The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do.

felipemnoa 9y ago
A You that trains will be better than a You that does not train.
- eachro 9y ago
  This is what people should take away from this, not that there might always be someone out there better than you no matter what. In the end, you can only control your own circumstances so do your best, prepare/train for whatever it is you're doing and whatever happens happens.
  - projektir 9y ago
    We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake. You are pushing a highly individualistic philosophy that not everyone even agrees on. We live in societies and we have governments beholden to us and it's very important how these things function, much more important than what you individually do. If these systems and structures do not properly serve us because we overestimate personal agency and underestimate circumstance, that's a major problem. The investigation to find what is true (why are people creative?) with figuring out how to improve the station of some person (why am I not creative?) is a conflict of interest, do not mix these unless you like believing in things that are just plain wrong.
    - eachro 9y ago
      "We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake." Ooh, interesting. Can you elaborate more on what you thing the "whole problem" is? What things are you talking about? What is at stake? Let me say what my actual opinion on all this is, since you seem to be assuming a lot of intent("You are pushing...") from my 2 sentence original post. Many people ask: "why is X more creative than me?", "why is X better than me at Y?" and often the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies. In these cases, this kind of thinking is unproductive because the explanation(something something brain connections blah blah blah) is out of their control! Exactly what you're saying with this being a "conflict of interest." And to these people I say, IF you care about being more creative, IF you care about being the best in your field: control what you control, and whatever happens happens.

tacomonstrous 9y ago

>I see creativity along the same lines. Many folks are conditioned to memorize, follow processes, follow norms and paths laid by others, it may not occur to them to seek out originality. It is another form of learned helplessness. The same applies in the academic setting as well. When I was doing my PhD, I found myself trapped in exactly this kind of paralysis. I was very good at learning things, so everyone expected me to do well, but I had never created anything, and the idea that I ever could was so overwhelming and foreign that I couldn't even get started. It wasn't until a little over a year before graduating that I managed to get it together, and was lucky enough to pull it off in time. Part of the problem is the romanticization of creativity, at least in my mind, as if it were an act of heroism or exceptional ability. On the contrary, it's mostly a matter of working and thinking and not giving up. Once you get enmeshed deeply enough in something, you stop wondering about if you're any good at it.