Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
scientificamerican.com
Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
1–10 of 118 posts
Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
#2Some people are better athletes than others, but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential.
I see creativity along the same lines. Many folks are conditioned to memorize, follow processes, follow norms and paths laid by others, it may not occur to them to seek out originality. It is another form of learned helplessness.
Creating is hard, especially when judged in a commercial context. Sure, if I make my own bread it will not win a prize but I made it, it is mine and therefore special to me in ways that are not reflected by the market.
Too often emotional value is dictated by market value, with the logical conclusion being "what's the point of making when I can buy something better" -- and you may respond, that is the correct view but it misunderstands that creativity is a process, a worthy act in its own right but also a journey that may end up in interesting places that are not explored by commercial venture.
Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
#3Is there a name for the fact that articles that start with "Why are ...?", that promise to explain some curiosity, tend to almost never give a satisfying answer? (Usually because it just reports on some small incremental research paper that's still far away from shining a clear lucid light on the bigger picture.)
Betteridge's law doesn't apply and clickbait is too broad.
Another part of the phenomenon seems to be that the comments here on HN is rarely about the actual content of article itself, but about peoples personal thoughts on the subject. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if an article about incremental research about dreams would be titled "Why do we dream?", would not contain a satisfying answer in the body of the report, and would on HN mostly consist of peoples own experiences and thoughts about dreams (instead of about the specifics of the research).
Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
#4Some people are better athletes than others, but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential. I see creativity along the same lines. Many folks are conditioned to memorize, follow processes, follow norms and paths laid by others, it may not occur to them to seek out originality. It is another form of learned helplessness. Creating is hard, especially when judged in a…
I think of creativity as a kind of skill, that you build through practice.
Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
#5Some people are better athletes than others, but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential. I see creativity along the same lines. Many folks are conditioned to memorize, follow processes, follow norms and paths laid by others, it may not occur to them to seek out originality. It is another form of learned helplessness. Creating is hard, especially when judged in a…
> but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential
I disagree. The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do.
Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
#6Some people are better athletes than others, but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential. I see creativity along the same lines. Many folks are conditioned to memorize, follow processes, follow norms and paths laid by others, it may not occur to them to seek out originality. It is another form of learned helplessness. Creating is hard, especially when judged in a…
> but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential I disagree. The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do.
Do you really believe this?
Genetics help, sure. But it is just potential. Can you provide an example where one person was so genetically talented that they didn’t train and still were competitive at some semi-professional level?
Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential I disagree. The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do.
Do you really believe this? Genetics help, sure. But it is just potential. Can you provide an example where one person was so genetically talented that they didn’t train and still were competitive at some semi-professional level?
Sure, Karsten Braasch seems like one such example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1...
"Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[51] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager".[52][51] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[53] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[54] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun".[55] Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[51]"
Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
#8Creativity is a weird resource. You don't consume it, you refill it by using it.
The more creative things you do, the more creative you become. I see this a lot in writing. When I'm on the wagon and writing every day, the ideas keep coming and flowing and I start thinking "Maybe I should publish twice a day? There's no way I can limit myself to just once"
But then I fall off the wagon and I publish/write once a week. It becomes a struggle. Ideas don't flow. It feels like I have nothing to say. The less writing I do, the fewer things feel interesting enough to write about. Ideas get discarded.
Try it. Do something creative every day. Even just something small. Write down an idea or a joke or a thought. Or write a 10 line piece of code that does something silly.
Soon enough you won't be able to contain yourself and creativity will come bursting out of you.
You might not write the next Harry Potter or come up with the next Homebrew, but you're going to create something cool I bet.
Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
#9Some people are better athletes than others, but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential. I see creativity along the same lines. Many folks are conditioned to memorize, follow processes, follow norms and paths laid by others, it may not occur to them to seek out originality. It is another form of learned helplessness. Creating is hard, especially when judged in a…
> but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential I disagree. The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do.
I can't think of an instance where this is true for normal people. I can see an untrained 250lb person beating a 100lb one-armed boxer, but outside such extreme disparities, training >> innate ability, at least in my experience.
Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential I disagree. The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do.
Do you really believe this? Genetics help, sure. But it is just potential. Can you provide an example where one person was so genetically talented that they didn’t train and still were competitive at some semi-professional level?
Why compare with semi-professionals? Being a semi-professional already suggests a certain degree of talent. You should be comparing someone really talented but having no interest at X with someone who is very interested in X and does it regularly, but has no relevant talent and as such it's at best a hobby they are bad at.