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

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#111

Post by noahc »

mannykannot wrote: post #67
moufestaphio wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty well accepted that Men better at physical activities almost across the board. I don't think that's what the original point was about though. The original question was asking for an example of a "genetically talented that they didn’t train" losing to someone who was a "pro" and this is clearly not an example of it. That said, I'm not trying to make the argument that there aren't 'genetic' limits.

The original question, however, was a loaded one in the context it was asked, in that the person asking the question was using it to dispute the claim that individuals have biological limits that training cannot surmount. Even if this answer does not fully satisfy the excessively stringent terms of the question, it still works as a counterexample to the questioner's position.

Of course there are biological limits that training can’t surmount.

My point, more broadly, is that the idea that, “I can’t do that....genetics!” is misplaced defeatism.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#112

Post by projektir »

eachro wrote: post #109
projektir wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "w…

> What things are you talking about? What is at stake?

"Poor people deserve to be poor" and "we shouldn't help drug addicts, its their fault" are the classic ones. The problem can be summarized as total responsibility assignment (i.e., the idea that a person is fully responsible for their state)

I'm assuming it because it's a very common problem. Discussions about nature vs nurture very often get redirected into moralism. Like this example here:

> the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies

You're saying this as if these things are not related. If people repeatedly get the message that the only thing stopping them from being a great mathematician is hard work, that message better be correct, or there will be social consequences.

It's actually completely reasonable to question the message, and it's very problematic that in the current climate any attempt at questioning it results in a moralistic response akin to "you're just looking for excuses". This is the very kind of thinking I'm arguing against here.

> this kind of thinking is unproductive

The truth is never unproductive.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#113

Post by eachro »

projektir wrote: post #112
eachro wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 "w…

> What things are you talking about? What is at stake? "Poor people deserve to be poor" and "we shouldn't help drug addicts, its their fault" are the classic ones. The problem can be summarized as total responsibility assignment (i.e., the idea that a person is fully responsible for their state) I'm assuming it because it's a very common problem. Discussions about nature vs nurture very often get redirected into mora…

I'm not really sure why you seem to be so antagonized by my statements. I am not making any moral judgement on people. I am not saying anything about this nurture/nature debate. All I'm saying is that in the end you can only control what you can control, so you do your best there and the results are what they are. I have not insinuated anything about the certainty of success, only that there is uncertainty.

> The truth is never unproductive. Yes understanding creativity is important. I am not against the truth. But you perfectly well that I am talking about productivity with respect to these concrete goals of becoming more creative/getting better at X/etc. The "truth" that you discover from studies like this are probabilistic. X% of the study participants showed Y or we observed some correlation of Z with creativity, etc. There is no certainty that these findings apply to a specific individual. Maybe, maybe not.

You can make these statements about social structures, (possible) differences in the connections of brains of creative people(as suggested in the linked paper), etc, etc. But what is actionable out of this "truth" if you are trying to become a great mathematician? There are two responses to this. What can we do as a society? And what can I do as an individual who is toiling on this path towards a higher goal? You're concerned about the former. That is fair. I am talking about the latter.

>It's actually completely reasonable to question the message, and it's very problematic that in the current climate any attempt at questioning it results in a moralistic response akin to "you're just looking for excuses". This is the very kind of thinking I'm arguing against here. I have no way of proving this, but I would bet any amount of money that pieces like this and its like have this exact effect that you are against. I hypothesize that a majority of people reading this will walk away with the conclusion that more creative people have these innate differences in brain connectivity and then go on to surmise that the odds are stacked against them so why bother trying. And THAT is more damaging than any motivational message.

After typing all this up, I now agree with your original thesis: "We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational." In light of that, I stick to my message that you should still control the things you control in your pursuits of w/e goal it is you're pursuing b/c it is unrealistic to imagine that people will walk away from these pieces with just this "truth" - they will naturally form opinions about it and later on inform their actions with this "truth."

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#114

Post by candiodari »

In AI you quickly see in the first chapters that there is a clear tradeoff on creativity. When doing search algorithms (which is what all AI algorithms fundamentally are), creativity is essentially breadth-first exploring of a search space, and the opposite is depth first.

Neural networks, for instance, are extremely un-creative. They just go straight for their goal, no deviating (the assumption being that any search space is entirely flat if it just has enough dimensions, and clearly to some extent that's true). They will leave very large swaths of the solution space entirely unexplored. But when they work, you can find the method fast and it will yield decent results. Being uncreative, ironically, makes them adapt very quickly.

Genetic algorithms, on the other hand, are the most creative algorithms we have, and of course they are famous for finding ridiculously optimized results, but taking a very long time to do so. Genetic algorithm results are always fun. Genetic algorithms always write a program. And while only simple solutions can be understood by humans, but they're ridiculously optimized. Every instruction does 5-10 different things that affect the end result and somehow those results come together at exactly the right time to work.

People, and especially the HR/coaching industry, seem to deny this tradeoff, but it's inevitable. If a person is creative, they'll be slow and unreliable to produce results, but those results will be a lot better (assuming, of course, there are any). A very uncreative person can produce results quickly and reliably, but they're "bad", in a sense: one might say they're just trivial re-hashes of solutions seen before.

But I wish I had a dollar for every time a high-level manager has come to me with a variation of the following statement : "Ok, let's plan out how we can creatively solve this problem". If a plan is made, of course, in the best case it cuts down on the creativity, in the worst case prevents it entirely.

In my experience most people are entirely capable of being very creative or almost robot-like predictable. It's the environment that forces one over the other (although it may just be their perception of their environment rather than the actual demands placed on them).

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#115

Post by mannykannot »

noahc wrote: post #111
mannykannot wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original question, however, was a loaded one in the context it was asked, in that the person asking the question was using it to dispute the claim that individuals have biological limits that training cannot surmount. Even if this answer does not fully satisfy the excessively stringent terms of the question, it still works as a counterexample to the questioner's position.

Of course there are biological limits that training can’t surmount. My point, more broadly, is that the idea that, “I can’t do that....genetics!” is misplaced defeatism.

For a majority of aspiring athletes, it is probably better for them to accept sooner rather than later that they cannot get to the first rank - and most of them do. Unrealistic expectations in either direction do not help (though a bias to optimism is probably a good thing.)

But, as I suggested earlier, I don't think the issue of athletic performance has much to say about creativity, which is the topic of this article. Indubitable's answer of Ramanujan is a much more relevant reply to your question, but where does that leave us? His example does not give us a reason to give up on creativity, which goes to show that the question doesn't address the issue.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#116

Post by pdfernhout »

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…

Your advice echoes that of Carol Dweck: http://www.mindsetonline.com/ "Mindset is a simple idea discovered by world-renowned Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck in decades of research on achievement and success—a simple idea that makes all the difference. Teaching a growth mindset creates motivation and productivity in the worlds of business, education, and sports."

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#117

Post by slavik81 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #105
slavik81 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sayin…

I mean a heavy beginner wrestler vs a smaller intermediate or advanced wrestler. You would need to at least know the basics of the sport to compete without breaking the rules.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#118

Post by supreme_sublime »

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…

They did suggest that, but I didn't see anything measurable in terms of "usefulness". Not to mention that's a context dependent criteria. So I don't really know how you would measure it to begin with. That's why I am saying it is ripe for bias being introduced. Perhaps these findings are completely legitimate, but I'm skeptical.
Post reply on HN