[HN Gopher] Ideas and Creativity (2019)
___________________________________________________________________
Ideas and Creativity (2019)
Author : Pseudomanifold
Score : 84 points
Date : 2024-05-17 12:59 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bastian.rieck.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (bastian.rieck.me)
| james-bcn wrote:
| Link to Michael Michalko website is broken.
| maroonblazer wrote:
| Googling his name turns up this site, which appears to have
| some potentially useful resources.
| https://thinkjarcollective.com/members/michael-michalko
| Pseudomanifold wrote:
| Author here: Fixed, thanks a lot!
| maroonblazer wrote:
| He mentions the connection between creativity and 'play', which I
| think is spot on. We do this effortlessly as children and then it
| sort of gets 'bred out of us' as we get older and start
| developing more traditionally 'rational' skill sets and ways of
| thinking about the world.
|
| This sense of play hit home for me when I was a late teen and
| bought a 4-track multitrack recorder in the mid-80's. I had no
| preconceived notion of a song I wanted to write/record. I simply
| plugged in my guitar and hit 'record' and laid down an idea. I
| may have had a few false starts but didn't sweat it. By itself it
| wasn't very interesting. I added a second track with the only
| goal of "it should work with the first track" and was surprised
| at how easy it was to achieve that goal. Suddenly, with the two
| tracks an idea began to emerge that wasn't present in the first
| track by itself. Rinse and repeat with the remaining 2 tracks and
| I had a musical idea that I never could've imagined I would have
| created.
|
| I still use that same method to generate ideas today, and summon
| that same sense of 'play'. Of course the real work, much harder
| than creating, imo, is editing.
| rpastuszak wrote:
| I think you might enjoy reading Ralph Ammer's work:
|
| - https://ralphammer.com/how-to-get-started/
|
| - https://ralphammer.com/the-creative-switch/
|
| I wrote about a related subject here:
| https://sonnet.io/posts/hummingbirds/
|
| Also, the difference between children and adults when it comes
| to creativity is a bit deeper. I agree that it's bread out of
| us. Two semi-random examples:
|
| - shaming kids for making mistakes or just _doing things
| differently_ , but also
|
| - just the mere fact that they're starting to learn how the
| world around them operates and responds to their actions,.
|
| At the same time it's likely that children achieve it through
| different internal processes, without a strict split between
| divergent and convergent thinking demonstrated by CT scans.
|
| https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/the-science-of-creativit...
|
| (I can't find a better source atm, so posting YT video, sorry!
| also, check his sources)
| roenxi wrote:
| > watch toddlers playing with toys--their imaginations are
| boundless and they are able to imbue even the most mundane
| objects with a sense of wonder and magic.
|
| This example just annoys me. I can still out-create a toddler,
| that isn't hard. The issue with creativity is that toddler-level
| creativity isn't useful. The important part of creativity is
| being able to apply it while achieving adult-level goals.
|
| The article doesn't ignore that as such, but this is like saying
| babies can handle the concept of abstract variables so we can all
| be programmers. True enough, but not at all a useful observation
| and it'll just depress the group of people who, for whatever
| reason, struggle hard and yet _never_ become programmers. There
| are minimum standards that toddlers do not reach.
| lostemptations5 wrote:
| Logical deduction is not at all creativity. Toddlers create
| interesting and unexpected things because they remove the
| rules-- in fact have no rules to begin with.
|
| Using a bunch of deductive logic to come up with a good
| solution is quite different, and don't worry a sign of good
| intelligence.
| RACEWAR wrote:
| It sounds like you take your assessment very seriously, but
|
| > There are minimum standards that toddlers do not reach.
|
| this is very funny taken out of context.
|
| Good points, though.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| I played with manual typewriters and mechanical calculators,
| back then electronic versions were virtually unheard of.
|
| But I was already intrigued by electronics and figured it
| would take over in the future. Vacuum tubes were still the
| only option almost universally. Didn't touch them as a
| preschooler, high voltage and all that.
|
| With the typewriter, the possibilities were endless, but for
| the calculator there was only so much you could do to make
| the right numbers show up in the little squares.
|
| Which led directly to number theory, something that can be
| learned without being taught.
|
| > There are minimum standards that toddlers do not reach.
|
| I guess there's a grain of truth there, never did get much
| further ;)
| gumby wrote:
| > > watch toddlers playing with toys--their imaginations are
| boundless and they are able to imbue even the most mundane
| objects with a sense of wonder and magic.
|
| Also a lot of that "play" is "merely" epistemic and
| phenomenological research, i.e. hard work. There is a lot of
| creativity in designing and selecting experiments that work
| with what is at hand. And of course discovery _is_ fun -- that
| same "wonder and magic" is still experienced in adulthood when
| you validate something you've believed for a while or just
| realized.
|
| Piaget discusses this extensively, though not in the vocabulary
| I used. And for the mandatory AI/CS linkage: Piaget was
| Papert's thesis advisor, so every RNN user or practitioner
| implicitly depends on Piaget's insight.
| wcarss wrote:
| > The important part of creativity is being able to apply it
| while achieving adult-level goals.
|
| That may be the important part for you, but for others, the
| important part is to _not_ make that the important part.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| This is the distinction between working and hacking:
| _working_ is what one does while achieving adult-level goals;
| _hacking_ is what one does while either not goal-directed at
| all, or while pursuing anti-adult-level goals.
|
| > _Your tiercel's too long at hack, Sir. He's no eyass but a
| passage-hawk that footed ere we caught him, Dangerously free
| o' the air._ --JRK
| RACEWAR wrote:
| This is thorough contemplation. Time and time again we are
| reminded that no idea is wholly original in and of itself, down
| to the most minute aspect of its thought all the way through to
| its physical manifestation...Yet hubris, for many, prevails over
| these evidences. Ah.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I like this article. Yes, and:
|
| "It gets bred out of us"
|
| No one seems to go beyond that statement. Yet the common
| "everyone can be creative" ignores what people and their
| colleagues _do with_ a real creative idea.
|
| If you censor yourself too relentlessly, you won't be "creative."
|
| And especially: if you're in a conformist environment (most
| businesses and schools) where "you're so weird!" is the worst
| insult imaginable, then you won't be "creative."
|
| It's only a few places where the audience is willing to play with
| the idea, and it's only a few people who don't mind being called
| "weird" that really nurture creativity.
| lizard wrote:
| I've been involved in a product review at my work. The tool hits
| a sweet spot of identifying a real problem and demoing
| impressively. I have little doubt we will purchase this tool
| unless the beancounters simply reject the expense.
|
| But I find myself against it. This is somewhat ideological; the
| tool is, at its core, a telemetry tool, and I don't believe we
| have the maturity to manage and leverage that data effectively.
| And the data and features to product enables? We already know
| where the problems are and have other tools to address them. It's
| just that everyone is always "too busy" to actually listen to the
| customers and do anything about it.
|
| Pondering how to express this then, I ended up labeling the
| product (at first a "luxury", but realizing people want those and
| doesn't help my argument) a "toy," like a jewel-encrusted hammer:
| It's pretty, but if a plain hammer isn't solving your problem
| this isn't going to either. Worse, the extra time and care needed
| to maintain this tool, in an organization that's already "too
| busy", is likely going to be even less effective if not a net
| loss.
|
| However, it occurred to me, knowing one of the people trying to
| push this tool, calling it a "toy" would only be an opportunity:
|
| Toys can be incredibly powerful in the hands of a good
| imagination.
|
| And, I agree.
|
| And this is where I struggle. Collectively, we don't have a "good
| imagination." We're all too busy being busy to do anything
| creative and solve the problems we have. But individually there
| is a lot a creativity that just lacks the means to express
| itself. And enabling these people is why _I_ do software.
|
| I'm still not sure this tool is the right way about it, but that
| fact we're even here is testament that the current technologies
| aren't inspiring anyone.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Define "creative."
|
| Creativity can be expressed as impressionistic art, super
| realistic art, punk rock, baroque quartet, skyscraper design, or
| even homeless temporary shelter (anyone who has ever seen the
| homeless shelters at Shinjuku Station, knows what I mean). Lots
| of subjective opinions.
|
| I have seen really great code, done by very repressed folks, with
| limited verbal skills, but unique thinking. I have seen
| absolutely awful, bland, crud code, written by folks that affect
| a really creative vibe.
|
| I have found, for myself, that I'm most creative, later in the
| day, but most productive, earlier.
| picometer wrote:
| There are multiple senses of the word "creativity", and this post
| focuses on one of them: divergent thinking. The other sense is
| that of constructive, goal-oriented creation, which ideas alone
| cannot achieve. It's too bad we don't have have more commonly
| used terms to make this distinction. I see a lot of comments here
| focusing on that distinction rather than the post's central
| thesis.
|
| I do have a comment on the thesis, which is:
|
| > The purpose of this article is to challenge this assumption
| [that creativity is binary] and discuss aspects of ideation, i.e.
| the process of coming up with ideas.
|
| I support/agree with this challenge and all of the article's
| ideas. "And yet", right?? "And yet" some people are perceived to
| "have something" which others do not.
|
| Honestly, the explanation is rather simple, or at least, simply
| stated. It's neurodivergence. I'd further claim that cognitive
| styles gravitate to certain "attractor points". (That's
| scientific lingo for: certain patterns which fit well within the
| environment and which reinforce themselves. Like the pattern of
| wheel-ruts which attract wheels, which makes them stronger. The
| "environment" in this case is all sorts of things, including both
| the brain's biological details, and the body's physical+social
| environment.)
|
| The strongest of these attractor points, we give labels: ADHD,
| various species of autism, etc. And of course the "normal person"
| attractor - not a point, but a broad area with its little micro-
| attractors and, sometimes, niche wormholes leading to more
| divergent areas.
|
| People tend to clump around the strongest attractor points, and
| sometimes get pulled into other more smaller ones. This easily
| explains the perception of binary other-ness, especially when you
| consider that deviation from the norm - in any of the many
| directions - is, itself, a strong, influential force in this
| dynamic. To the extent that we try to build society to work well
| enough for the majority, anyone who deviates will have different
| and novel experiences of those systems.
|
| But look, people are complicated and dynamic. We sometimes work
| to push away from these pattern-ruts, and other times we let
| ourselves be pulled into them.
|
| This article is saying: YES. You can do things that make you
| ideate more divergently. You can also do the work to explore your
| own cognitive-behavioral niche, and which pushes your idea output
| into more novel, "creative" realms. Play is a certain type of
| work, when you need to push yourself to do it.
|
| The article also addresses this:
|
| > Good ideas do not have to be completely novel
|
| > A hallmark of creativity is the knowledge or intuition of
| picking ideas that make suitable combinations. [more worthwhile
| to pursue]
|
| ...which brings us back to the other sense of creativity: not
| just divergence, but convergence; pursuit of a vision or goal or
| "gut feeling" intuition. I think this is the better, fuller
| meaning of the word. The author describes interaction between
| convergence and divergence very well. In the best examples of
| "creative genius", both of these forces are at play. (No pun
| intended but perhaps that's revealing.) Fluid, progressive
| creativity is at the edge of these two forces, and a "creative"
| person steers the ship, aware of both convergent goals and
| overarching visions that can only be reached by leaving those
| same goals behind.
|
| The general skill of steering is quite meta-learnable by,
| probably, nearly everyone with any ounce of cognitive control. It
| takes time and support. It's easier in more specific contexts,
| more well-suited to one's situation.
|
| For what it's worth, toddlers absolutely do exhibit this full
| version of creativity, when you consider that they are pursuing
| the instinctive, hard-wired goal of learning and adapting to the
| world.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-17 23:00 UTC)