4 ms·

Interesting ideas, but Betteridge wins again. No hard data is provided, so anecdotes can be answered with anecdotes and the whole thing's a wash. From everythi

Interesting ideas, but Betteridge wins again. No hard data is provided, so anecdotes can be answered with anecdotes and the whole thing's a wash. From everything I've read about creativity, one of the keys seems to be thinking about things differently than one normally thinks about them. This can mean intense states of depression, mania, loneliness or relationship. Any state of mind that's different and extreme can shift perspective enough to cause some people to be exceptionally creative, at least for a time. It's herding cats, though. There are no proven techniques that will make someone more creative, only strategies that will work some times for some people. The best way to be more creative is to constantly try to create new things. Social rejection isn't a prerequisite for that.

cJ0th 11y ago
I agree. The article has to lack data as that's the reason for why we are so impressed by creativity. 'True creativity' (as opposed to opposed to the shallow "We have to think outside the box" type of creativity) can not be measured by definition. That's what makes it so intriguing! As soon as something can be fully measured it becomes debatable whether it is still a creative effort or not. If you accept what I wrote above then the headline of the article appears even more bonkers: How can something that is so complex that we can not fully measure it (yet) be caused (mostly) by a one-dimensional factor? I mean, sure, you could find a single factor if it is very vague one but that's not helpful. I.e. I could say: Being alive is a key factor for creativity. What's more, social rejection is surely also a key factor for becoming a dull person who watches TV all day.
VLM 11y ago
"the whole thing's a wash" Truth. However, alternative theoretical models can be constructed for possible experimental tests or at least anecdote collection. Surely all progress comes from the unreasonable man. Also we only hear about the most famous / rich creative geniuses. I have no particular problem switching off creativity and hanging out (going hiking or something), I am also not famous, not even internet famous. That would lead to the theoretical model that famous people can't shut off their unreasonableness, perhaps at all, which makes them completely cantankerous and anti-social yet also somewhat more productive than better balanced individuals. All kinds of interesting experiments could be devised. Are they able to shut anything at all off, or are they OCD/addicted personalities? If someone who can shut off is converted intentionally or otherwise into someone who looses control of their creativity, are they more successful? College binge drinking to emulate an alcoholic might be monkey see monkey do emulation of creatives... does someone naturally somewhat creative who gains an uncontrollable addiction have the bleed over into uncontrollable creativity? Another interesting model revolves around the only socially rejected people the general public ever hears about, are the top of the line creatives. That probably tells a lot more about our culture than about the individuals. For example, I suspect the panhandler at my freeway onramp is socially rejected, at least by most, its just "we" will never hear about him unless he becomes a famous painter or poet. Given his cardboard signs I think he's not creative at all, at least not WRT the graphical arts, yet he's got more rejection than most of us. IF most people are socially rejected to some extent or another, thats kind of the purpose of mass media and big cities after all, and the only rejects we hear about are creatives, then a very weird conclusion could be drawn that creativity only comes from rejection, although the reality is almost everyone is somewhat rejected. Much like they all drink water and all creatives drink water so creativity obviously comes from drinking water.

cJ0th 11y ago

I agree. The article has to lack data as that's the reason for why we are so impressed by creativity. 'True creativity' (as opposed to opposed to the shallow "We have to think outside the box" type of creativity) can not be measured by definition. That's what makes it so intriguing! As soon as something can be fully measured it becomes debatable whether it is still a creative effort or not. If you accept what I wrote above then the headline of the article appears even more bonkers: How can something that is so complex that we can not fully measure it (yet) be caused (mostly) by a one-dimensional factor? I mean, sure, you could find a single factor if it is very vague one but that's not helpful. I.e. I could say: Being alive is a key factor for creativity. What's more, social rejection is surely also a key factor for becoming a dull person who watches TV all day.

VLM 11y ago

"the whole thing's a wash" Truth. However, alternative theoretical models can be constructed for possible experimental tests or at least anecdote collection. Surely all progress comes from the unreasonable man. Also we only hear about the most famous / rich creative geniuses. I have no particular problem switching off creativity and hanging out (going hiking or something), I am also not famous, not even internet famous. That would lead to the theoretical model that famous people can't shut off their unreasonableness, perhaps at all, which makes them completely cantankerous and anti-social yet also somewhat more productive than better balanced individuals. All kinds of interesting experiments could be devised. Are they able to shut anything at all off, or are they OCD/addicted personalities? If someone who can shut off is converted intentionally or otherwise into someone who looses control of their creativity, are they more successful? College binge drinking to emulate an alcoholic might be monkey see monkey do emulation of creatives... does someone naturally somewhat creative who gains an uncontrollable addiction have the bleed over into uncontrollable creativity? Another interesting model revolves around the only socially rejected people the general public ever hears about, are the top of the line creatives. That probably tells a lot more about our culture than about the individuals. For example, I suspect the panhandler at my freeway onramp is socially rejected, at least by most, its just "we" will never hear about him unless he becomes a famous painter or poet. Given his cardboard signs I think he's not creative at all, at least not WRT the graphical arts, yet he's got more rejection than most of us. IF most people are socially rejected to some extent or another, thats kind of the purpose of mass media and big cities after all, and the only rejects we hear about are creatives, then a very weird conclusion could be drawn that creativity only comes from rejection, although the reality is almost everyone is somewhat rejected. Much like they all drink water and all creatives drink water so creativity obviously comes from drinking water.