4 ms·
> Some ideas were more creative than others. For the sock, one participant suggested using it to warm your feet—the common use for a sock—while another particip
by supreme_sublime 9y ago
> Some ideas were more creative than others. For the sock, one participant suggested using it to warm your feet—the common use for a sock—while another participant suggested using it as a water filtration system.
> We also ranked their ideas for originality: Common uses received lower scores (using a sock to warm your feet), while uncommon uses received higher scores (using a sock as a water filtration system).
> Overall, people with stronger connections came up with better ideas.
The only objective measure used here is the originality rank. Just because an idea is "original" doesn't mean it is "creative". At least not in a useful way. What if I suggested using a sock to wash your car? Probably an "original" idea. So maybe they ranked it as less creative, even though it is original?
Of course this is just a contrived example, but it seems to me like this is an area that could introduce bias pretty easily.
- randcraw 9y agoThe article did suggest that a creative act had to be both novel and useful. There are an infinite number of useless uses for a sock. Enumerating them is not creative; it's random, like rolling a die. Creativity requires both imagination and judgement -- for each idea you conceive, you must also judge its practical utility to serve some known purpose. Or imagine some unknown purpose that it also might serve... "In shoe world, all hats look just like shoes, but no one wears shoes on their feet. As such, nobody ever invented a sock, nor can they imagine any use for it. After all, why would you put a sock on your head?"
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoThere's clearly only a large finite number of possible uses for a sock - I'd say if you can enumerate ones that others wouldn't even conceive then you're being more creative. What would you call someone who can think of ways to use something that no-one/few others can? Unfurl the sock and make a "blind man trail" as a party game. Burn the [cotton] sock and use as char-cloth. Cut up the sock and use as fuel in a tiny model steam-engine. The judgement comes in with craft, or engineering IMO and isn't a facet of creativity per se. Like, burning the sock will create little heat and lots of fumes, etc.; the idea needed creativity. What we mustn't assume is that creation (of goods, craft items, products, whatever) requires _only_ creativity.
- logfromblammo 9y agoI get the feeling that the researchers might have thrown me out after the Nth time suggesting, for every item, the following uses: murder weapon, "adult" toy, jury-rig repair part, primitive math, steganography, and fashion accessory. Anything is a _____, if you're brave enough. If you think about it, the hard part is coming up with a useful purpose that can only be fulfilled by one kind of object. What useful purpose can only be accomplished by use of a sock? Not even "keeping a foot warm and dry while inside a shoe or boot" works there.
- supreme_sublime 9y agoThey did suggest that, but I didn't see anything measurable in terms of "usefulness". Not to mention that's a context dependent criteria. So I don't really know how you would measure it to begin with. That's why I am saying it is ripe for bias being introduced. Perhaps these findings are completely legitimate, but I'm skeptical.