Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#101

Post by logfromblammo » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 11:30 PM UTC

randcraw wrote: post #75

supreme_sublime wrote: post #16

> Some ideas were more creative than others. For the sock, one participant suggested using it to warm your feet—the common use for a sock—while another participant suggested using it as a water filtration system. > We also ranked their ideas for originality: Common uses received lower scores (using a sock to warm your feet), while uncommon uses received higher scores (using a sock as a water filtration system). > Ove…

The article did suggest that a creative act had to be both novel and useful. There are an infinite number of useless uses for a sock. Enumerating them is not creative; it's random, like rolling a die. Creativity requires both imagination and judgement -- for each idea you conceive, you must also judge its practical utility to serve some known purpose. Or imagine some unknown purpose that it also might serve... "In sh…

I get the feeling that the researchers might have thrown me out after the Nth time suggesting, for every item, the following uses: murder weapon, "adult" toy, jury-rig repair part, primitive math, steganography, and fashion accessory.

Anything is a _____, if you're brave enough.

If you think about it, the hard part is coming up with a useful purpose that can only be fulfilled by one kind of object. What useful purpose can only be accomplished by use of a sock? Not even "keeping a foot warm and dry while inside a shoe or boot" works there.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#102

Post by pmoriarty » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:11 AM UTC

dkarl wrote: post #79

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…

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 some other excuse. That's a bit of a bait and switch, to say, why not try this simple thing just for fun, and then say all it takes is a lot of practice and hard work. Not only do you have to make a long-term commitment th…

"That's a bit of a bait and switch, to say, why not try this simple thing just for fun, and then say all it takes is a lot of practice and hard work."

These aren't mutually exclusive. You could have fun doing something and yet still take a lot of time and effort to master it.

It's like playing the violin -- something that most people understand takes years and years of effort to master. Most people wouldn't expect to pick up a violin and instantly be able to come out with a virtuoso performance. But for other arts it seems that that's exactly the expectation that they have. If their objection to a suggestion to try drawing is to say, "Oh, no, I'm no good at drawing" my reply would be: "Well, yeah, that's because you haven't practiced drawing. Why would you even expect to be good at drawing when you just start?"

On the other hand, just because you can't yet get the ultimate results you're after when you start doesn't mean you can't have fun trying. There's some visceral enjoyment that can come from handling art materials like charcoal, paints, or clay and using them to create and express yourself -- an enjoyment that non-artists rarely have any idea is there, and will continue to be oblivious to as long as they refuse to try.

The same goes for musical instruments. You can have fun just playing around with them, even if you don't know what you're doing and have no training whatsoever.

When I encourage non-artists and non-musicians to give making art or music a try, I'm not trying to get them to immediately invest 10,000 hours of grueling practice nor to paint the Mona Lisa for me. I'm encouraging them to just try for five minutes, ten minutes, half an hour... just to maybe experience some of the joy that could be there for them.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#103

Post by projektir » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:20 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #97

epicide wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're close. My observation suggests that kids are used to it, everything they do is new, they're inexpert at everything. They don't expect to be good. Adults think that they should be capable simply because one tends to get better at things as an adult. The weight of expectation makes them often worse. My field is pottery, some adults think they can just throw a vase on their first go, kids just enjoy the e…

Another thing that happens is you can get hit by someone next to you, that has just as little experience, doing it a lot better than you on their first try. It doesn't help if this person is way younger than you to boot.

Kids generally get more slack for not being good at things, as well, whereas with adults, since there are many adults who've done X since they were young, being an adult who just started X makes you extra bad and sometimes a minority.

I have gotten the "why are you so bad at this?" reaction from people before when doing new things. Especially with anything physical, I improve rather slowly.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#104

Post by projektir » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:36 AM UTC

eachro wrote: post #64

felipemnoa wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A You that trains will be better than a You that does not train.

This is what people should take away from this, not that there might always be someone out there better than you no matter what. In the end, you can only control your own circumstances so do your best, prepare/train for whatever it is you're doing and whatever happens happens.

We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite.

These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake.

You are pushing a highly individualistic philosophy that not everyone even agrees on. We live in societies and we have governments beholden to us and it's very important how these things function, much more important than what you individually do. If these systems and structures do not properly serve us because we overestimate personal agency and underestimate circumstance, that's a major problem.

The investigation to find what is true (why are people creative?) with figuring out how to improve the station of some person (why am I not creative?) is a conflict of interest, do not mix these unless you like believing in things that are just plain wrong.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#105

Post by pmoriarty » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:51 AM UTC

slavik81 wrote: post #70

twoquestions wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In MMA, pretty much everyone who gets into the octagon is already training as hard as they can, so in this case you're correct that innate advantages dominate outcomes. I was more thinking outside the top 1% of any particular skill, for example when you're hiring a designer or sales staff in a normal company (as in, a not-1% company, such as a refrigerator manufacturer or something). I'm willing to concede that if yo…

It's not just among the elite. I did some wresting in school and trained for 148lbs (68kg), but I guarantee I would lose to literally anybody in the 198lbs (90kg) bracket, even if they had never wrestled before. I also knew an incredibly good 97lbs (44kg) wrestler. He was technically much, much better than me, but I could throw him around like a rag doll so I always won. With weight comes strength. Any competition th…

"I did some wresting in school and trained for 148lbs (68kg), but I guarantee I would lose to literally anybody in the 198lbs (90kg) bracket, even if they had never wrestled before."

Really? This runs counter to what I've heard from BJJ and other martial arts practitioners -- that a trained fighter could beat an untrained fighter in a fair fight (ie. no weapons, eye gouging, etc) using technique any day. You're saying that doesn't hold for wrestling?

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#106

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:55 AM UTC

thomastjeffery wrote: post #89

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…

Drawing/painting takes a lot of concerted effort. If you have really never sat down for several hours and worked on a drawing, you immediately have several things going against you: 1. You know you won't make something particularly good the first time. Why spend several hours of concerted effort on something that won't immediately pay off? 2. You aren't an "artist". We tend to categorize people by their current skill…

[deleted]

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#107

Post by pmoriarty » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 1:17 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #97

epicide wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're close. My observation suggests that kids are used to it, everything they do is new, they're inexpert at everything. They don't expect to be good. Adults think that they should be capable simply because one tends to get better at things as an adult. The weight of expectation makes them often worse. My field is pottery, some adults think they can just throw a vase on their first go, kids just enjoy the e…

"some adults think they can just throw a vase on their first go, kids just enjoy the experience (on the whole) and don't expect to be good at it."

If they're young enough, they don't even have an opinion on what "good" is (or what art is, for that matter). They just do, and are happy doing it. Judgement, of their own and others' work comes later. That may be when their inhibition starts.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#108

Post by almost_usual » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 2:34 AM UTC

noahc wrote: post #6

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.

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?

Everything that makes you is genetics. Desire to train is genetics.

There isn’t a “genetics only helps so much” argument.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#109

Post by eachro » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:34 AM UTC

projektir wrote: post #104

eachro wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what people should take away from this, not that there might always be someone out there better than you no matter what. In the end, you can only control your own circumstances so do your best, prepare/train for whatever it is you're doing and whatever happens happens.

We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake. You are pushing a highly individualistic philosophy that not everyo…

"We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite.

These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake." Ooh, interesting. Can you elaborate more on what you thing the "whole problem" is? What things are you talking about? What is at stake?

Let me say what my actual opinion on all this is, since you seem to be assuming a lot of intent("You are pushing...") from my 2 sentence original post. Many people ask: "why is X more creative than me?", "why is X better than me at Y?" and often the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies. In these cases, this kind of thinking is unproductive because the explanation(something something brain connections blah blah blah) is out of their control! Exactly what you're saying with this being a "conflict of interest." And to these people I say, IF you care about being more creative, IF you care about being the best in your field: control what you control, and whatever happens happens.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#110

Post by noahc » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 5:07 AM UTC

Anderkent wrote: post #10

noahc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree, I was trying to be generous.