3 ms·

The 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

The 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 ago
There'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 ago
I 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 ago
They 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.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

There'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 ago

I 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 ago

They 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.