3 ms·

Sensationalist title made to appeal to stereotypes. None of the source material mentions either "originality" or "creativity". > In this short vignette, a whee

by knolax 6y ago

Sensationalist title made to appeal to stereotypes. None of the source material mentions either "originality" or "creativity". > In this short vignette, a wheelwright known as Pian (扁) tells a duke that the book of sages’ advice he’s reading is nothing but ‘chaff and dregs’. Angered, the duke demands an explanation. The wheelwright responds that, at least concerning his craft, he can create what he does only because he’s developed a ‘knack’ for it that can’t be wholly conveyed in words. If the blows of his mallet are too gentle, his chisel slides and won’t take hold. If they’re too hard, it bites in and won’t budge. The above excerpt makes no mention of originality, and a normal person would just read it as promoting practical experience over theory. This is just the author trying to push her own opinions onto some ancient works, with nobody able to call her out for it because the source materials are in a language the audience can't understand.

ywei3410 6y ago
The article completely falls apart because the only link that the author has between crafting wheels and creativity is done in the following paragraph which is so vague that it can be applied to anything and nothing at all. > a spontaneous integration between contrasting types such as the hard and the soft, as well as the learned and the spontaneous, the active and the passive, and even the unproductive and the productive – all of which apply in the case of carving wheels, as well as elsewhere. In other words, living well involves creativity. Even if we examine the story in more depth, it _still_ doesn't make any sense; incredibly strong propositions such as the one below are thrown out all over the place. > his craft in an integrated manner that can’t be fully captured through an algorithmic list of instructions
msla 6y ago
Moreover, thinking there's only one "Chinese Philosophy" is just as laughable as thinking there's only one "European Philosophy".
hinkley 6y ago
I suspect that in the same manner subvocalization limits your maximum reading speed, having to narrate your work in your head ultimately limits your effectiveness at creating or manufacturing something. Mastery requires you to push a bunch of concerns from System 2 to System 1 thinking. When the actions are subconscious, you can concentrate or orchestrating them. Once the subvocalization stops, there is no 'conversation' to spy on, to recite to others by way of explanation. Which may be why I have spotted a number of situations where an advanced student has an easier time explaining things to an intermediate student than the instructor does (and especially an intermediate to a beginner); they are either still narrating, or the recency of that experience of narrating improves their recall (and their empathy). Very old habits can be hard to break. I can clearly remember as a child pondering my reaction to a situation and weighing the options. Talking myself through it. Now they're automatic, I've already done the thing I'm trying to handle differently before my brain has a chance to comment on it. As far as I'm aware, there's a gap between our understanding of age-related cognitive decline and observed behavior (people have the capacity to adapt but don't use it), and I suspect that this particular phenomenon fills in part of that blank spot.
kwhitefoot 6y ago
> he can create what he does only because he’s developed a ‘knack’ for it that can’t be wholly conveyed in words. Industrialization has demonstrated that, at least for wheels, this is untrue.

by knolax 6y ago

ywei3410 6y ago

The article completely falls apart because the only link that the author has between crafting wheels and creativity is done in the following paragraph which is so vague that it can be applied to anything and nothing at all. > a spontaneous integration between contrasting types such as the hard and the soft, as well as the learned and the spontaneous, the active and the passive, and even the unproductive and the productive – all of which apply in the case of carving wheels, as well as elsewhere. In other words, living well involves creativity. Even if we examine the story in more depth, it _still_ doesn't make any sense; incredibly strong propositions such as the one below are thrown out all over the place. > his craft in an integrated manner that can’t be fully captured through an algorithmic list of instructions

msla 6y ago

Moreover, thinking there's only one "Chinese Philosophy" is just as laughable as thinking there's only one "European Philosophy".

hinkley 6y ago

I suspect that in the same manner subvocalization limits your maximum reading speed, having to narrate your work in your head ultimately limits your effectiveness at creating or manufacturing something. Mastery requires you to push a bunch of concerns from System 2 to System 1 thinking. When the actions are subconscious, you can concentrate or orchestrating them. Once the subvocalization stops, there is no 'conversation' to spy on, to recite to others by way of explanation. Which may be why I have spotted a number of situations where an advanced student has an easier time explaining things to an intermediate student than the instructor does (and especially an intermediate to a beginner); they are either still narrating, or the recency of that experience of narrating improves their recall (and their empathy). Very old habits can be hard to break. I can clearly remember as a child pondering my reaction to a situation and weighing the options. Talking myself through it. Now they're automatic, I've already done the thing I'm trying to handle differently before my brain has a chance to comment on it. As far as I'm aware, there's a gap between our understanding of age-related cognitive decline and observed behavior (people have the capacity to adapt but don't use it), and I suspect that this particular phenomenon fills in part of that blank spot.

kwhitefoot 6y ago

> he can create what he does only because he’s developed a ‘knack’ for it that can’t be wholly conveyed in words. Industrialization has demonstrated that, at least for wheels, this is untrue.