4 ms·

If by "creativity" we mean to do things in the most informative way, in the sense of high entropy, (creativity is thus by this assumption equivalent to the capa

If by "creativity" we mean to do things in the most informative way, in the sense of high entropy, (creativity is thus by this assumption equivalent to the capability of producing the most information), I feel "thinking independently" is the key to creativity -- as an event independent of all other events would produce the highest amount of information, for this matter... Quite often, "thinking independently" could lead to social rejection, as being independent means being non-related with other people's thinking, and hence with much less likelihood of being agreeable with other people's opinion. If we define (roughly) social acceptance as the property of sharing common opinions among the crowd, then we can infer that thinking independently would unlikely lead to social acceptance. Hence creativity would unlikely lead to social acceptance. Perhaps that's why a tolerant environment that allows different ideas and different opinions (even those you don't agree with) to coexist is also very crucial to creativity -- as otherwise intolerance would simply kill it.

logicchains 11y ago
>If we define (roughly) social acceptance as the property of sharing common opinions among the crowd, then we can infer that thinking independently would unlikely lead to social acceptance. Thinking independently doesn't necessarily entail sharing one's independent opinions with whomever one meets. Creativity implies the ability to create humour, and making people laugh is one of the easiest ways to get them to like you. Combined with intelligence, which makes it easier to work out what people want to hear, I'd argue that creativity actually brings a significant social advantage, at least when it's consciously directed towards achieving social ends. Feynman represents a good example of this, achieving social success by using his creativity as a fount of humour.
- 2510c39011c5 11y ago
  > Creativity implies the ability to create humour, and making people laugh is one of the easiest ways to get them to like you... Well, regarding jokes, if all people are making a same joke repetitively, so you heard about it many many times, do you still feel that you could laugh out naturally? (I mean laugh not for the sake of laugh, alone) I just feel that the reason why a joke is a joke, is because you have never heard of it (or at least have never got it) in the past...So this difference -- or this independence from the past -- is the creativity in your sense... > Feynman represents a good example of this, achieving social success by using his creativity as a fount of humour. If, there have already been 500 people making jokes in the same way as Feynman did -- for instance, if before reading his book, everyone already played prank on some waitress girl in a restaurant by putting the tips under an upside-down filled cup, would they still find the description in the book funny? Just like what I typed, do you still find this re-description of Feynman's joke funny, like the first time you read about it?
  - logicchains 11y ago
    >If, there have already been 500 people making jokes in the same way as Feynman did -- for instance, if before reading his book, everyone already played prank on some waitress girl in a restaurant by putting the tips under an upside-down filled cup, would they still find the description in the book funny? Just like what I typed, do you still find this re-description of Feynman's joke funny, like the first time you read about it? I was making the implicit assumption that there is an unbounded quantity of potential jokes. 500 Feynmen wouldn't all be making the same jokes; they'd all make different jokes. Just like how 500 Feynmen wouldn't all be writing the same books or making the same scientific discoveries.
    - 2510c39011c5 11y ago
      The model above actually doesn't directly contradict with the examples you gave... You can easily create a seemingly dilemma case within the model -- for instance, use the independent creativity to create more common ground (much of which was not visible/observable before) between people, and hence make them more agreeable with each other. But actually this is not a dilemma, as it is only crucial for the process to be independent, not the ending result -- especially when the goal of your independent creativity process is to make the ending result to be more correlated to some preconceptions.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

logicchains 11y ago

>If we define (roughly) social acceptance as the property of sharing common opinions among the crowd, then we can infer that thinking independently would unlikely lead to social acceptance. Thinking independently doesn't necessarily entail sharing one's independent opinions with whomever one meets. Creativity implies the ability to create humour, and making people laugh is one of the easiest ways to get them to like you. Combined with intelligence, which makes it easier to work out what people want to hear, I'd argue that creativity actually brings a significant social advantage, at least when it's consciously directed towards achieving social ends. Feynman represents a good example of this, achieving social success by using his creativity as a fount of humour.

2510c39011c5 11y ago
> Creativity implies the ability to create humour, and making people laugh is one of the easiest ways to get them to like you... Well, regarding jokes, if all people are making a same joke repetitively, so you heard about it many many times, do you still feel that you could laugh out naturally? (I mean laugh not for the sake of laugh, alone) I just feel that the reason why a joke is a joke, is because you have never heard of it (or at least have never got it) in the past...So this difference -- or this independence from the past -- is the creativity in your sense... > Feynman represents a good example of this, achieving social success by using his creativity as a fount of humour. If, there have already been 500 people making jokes in the same way as Feynman did -- for instance, if before reading his book, everyone already played prank on some waitress girl in a restaurant by putting the tips under an upside-down filled cup, would they still find the description in the book funny? Just like what I typed, do you still find this re-description of Feynman's joke funny, like the first time you read about it?
- logicchains 11y ago
  >If, there have already been 500 people making jokes in the same way as Feynman did -- for instance, if before reading his book, everyone already played prank on some waitress girl in a restaurant by putting the tips under an upside-down filled cup, would they still find the description in the book funny? Just like what I typed, do you still find this re-description of Feynman's joke funny, like the first time you read about it? I was making the implicit assumption that there is an unbounded quantity of potential jokes. 500 Feynmen wouldn't all be making the same jokes; they'd all make different jokes. Just like how 500 Feynmen wouldn't all be writing the same books or making the same scientific discoveries.
  - 2510c39011c5 11y ago
    The model above actually doesn't directly contradict with the examples you gave... You can easily create a seemingly dilemma case within the model -- for instance, use the independent creativity to create more common ground (much of which was not visible/observable before) between people, and hence make them more agreeable with each other. But actually this is not a dilemma, as it is only crucial for the process to be independent, not the ending result -- especially when the goal of your independent creativity process is to make the ending result to be more correlated to some preconceptions.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]