Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 118 posts

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#31

Post by epicide »

pmoriarty wrote: post #26

As an artist and musician, I often encourage my friends to draw something, paint something, or make some music. The reply I hear over and over again is, "oh, no, I don't have the talent" or "oh, no, I'm awful at drawing". It's like they don't realize that what they attribute to "talent" is attainable through practice and hard work. When I point that out and encourage them to just try, that it might be fun, they make…

I think a lot of it is a fear of failure. A fear of looking dumb or silly. Kids don't have an issue with that. We learn to be afraid.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#32

Post by mannykannot »

moufestaphio wrote: post #14
mooseburger wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pretty bad example. Dude was a semi-retired PROFESSIONAL tennis player. Who had been ranked as high as 38th in the world. He obviously had a fuck ton of training, was just 'retired' when he played the game.

Given the punishing training regimen the Williams sisters follow, it is good evidence of biological limits on the boost training can give in tennis. I doubt it has much relevance for creativity.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#35

Post by saulrh »

twoquestions wrote: post #9
Judgmentality wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

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.

> for normal people

Sure is a good No True Scotsman you've got there. And I'm not even sure you'd be right ignoring that; recall that sports like boxing and MMA separate people into weight classes that are ten pounds wide. In other words, those sports think that, within the bounds of "professional", there is no amount of innate ability or training that can balance out a 25-pound difference in weight.

But even if you were right about reachable levels of ability, you fail to realize that the problem is less about the maximum reachable level and more about the ease of reaching a competitive level. Sure, most people can train up to run a marathon. But some people will take a year to do that and some people will take three month. And that kind of difference is crippling. Trying to get a degree in a one-year skill will cost you more in time and stress than trying to get a degree in a one-month skill, so much more that you may be out-competed and fail or simply collapse under the increased strain.

Furthermore, when looking at Real Life, it's not just about whether you can Get Good at a single skill that you can't choose. It's about how good you can be overall. It's impressive when a 100lb one-armed boxer beats an untrained 250lb person through pure skill because it indicates just how much time that boxer must have spent training to do that. But do we think that the "untrained person" sat on their ass that whole time? No. They spent that time playing chess. And as a result, while the boxer trains their ass off and has a fantastic day and somehow, against all odds, manages to beat the untrained person in a boxing ring... if they squared off across a chessboard the "untrained person" would casually style all over the boxer in between rounds of candy crush.

So yes. Training >>> innate skill, more so for some skills than others. But don't let that make you think that genetics are fair.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#36

Post by rankam »

nikki93 wrote: post #24
rankam wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, doesn't the outcome matter? Trying is admirable, but if a person tries and fails and I never try; at the end of the day we're both in the same place, no?

no because what you’ve learned by trying, you can tell other people. causality is complex, and it’s path-dependent not event-dependent.

Sure, but this implies that you don't learn things while "not trying". Of course you learn things while "not trying", albeit different things.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#37

Post by almost_usual »

rankam wrote: post #20
losteric wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that matter? Do you take pride in what you've accomplished, or is the focus on who's better? I'll never "catch up" to Musk, but I'm better than most people simply by trying my own business ideas.

I don't know, doesn't the outcome matter? Trying is admirable, but if a person tries and fails and I never try; at the end of the day we're both in the same place, no?

Not exactly, most of these arguments also assume "free will" is a real thing. Some people might be more genetically inclined to "trying". Overall most things are based purely on luck and genes.

If you're genetically gifted with a talent and genetically driven to "train" you'll be much better off than someone with only one trait.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#38

Post by rankam »

rizzom5000 wrote: post #29
rankam wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, doesn't the outcome matter? Trying is admirable, but if a person tries and fails and I never try; at the end of the day we're both in the same place, no?

> at the end of the day we're both in the same place, no? I think it depends on how you fail though. If you learn something from the experience, your odds of succeeding on the next try increase. Many goals are achieved through a succession of failures.

I agree with your statement - my point is that there seems to be this prevailing idea that you can't learn unless you try to build something by yourself which ignores reality. Sure, if you try to start a business/project/idea you're going to learn a lot along the way, but if you don't strike out on your own you're still going to have experiences and learn.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#40

Post by k__ »

Judgmentality wrote: post #5
chillwaves wrote: post #2

Some 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.

Getting in shape is accomplishable for almost everyone. It's just not done in the same way for everyone...
Post reply on HN