21–30 of 372 posts
It’s not memorizing, it’s actually knowing and understanding the utility of different concepts. When you learn of a problem in a new field, you go through your bucket of tools and modify one to fit the new problem.
Isn't learning which tools in the bucket fits the a problem best just memorizing a heuristic?
That's the point I'm attempting to make, that it's not blind memorization without context, but still memorization of a heuristic at its core
It’s not memorizing, it’s actually knowing and understanding the utility of different concepts. When you learn of a problem in a new field, you go through your bucket of tools and modify one to fit the new problem.
Exactly. And "synthesis" is the better word than "creativity". I wrote an essay about this very topic some years ago: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tbMTpkPWkkN8_KH2KSpteFsb... . (if you can't open Google docs, an older draft is here: https://rogerwagner.com/creativity.html )
I could see that -- agreed that "creativity" can be too blunt of a word to use for all situations
I agree with the author, at least in my own creative experiences. However, it's more likely the case that 'creativity' is arrived at differently for everyone. I find memorization to be a comforting foundational activity that builds knowledge & confidence, which I can later express creatively.
But that creativity can come from many places and in many forms!
In a way, memorization is a severe risk: if you memorized something before it changed, for example, your creativity may not mean much.
This claim makes little sense because it fails to distinguish between memory and memorization. I memorize almost nothing, but I remember the broad strokes of a lot of things. This allows me to be creative. In a way, memorization is a severe risk: if you memorized something before it changed, for example, your creativity may not mean much.
What I was trying to convey is that fundamentally learning is memorization, whether conscious "rote memorization" or more less-intentional committing to memory from doing an activity
And that recognizing this allows us to speed up the process of learning fundamentals
Which in turn enables creativity as most people see it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appreciate you reading! But how do you know how to apply this acquired knowledge in this new context? It's some form of pattern matching right -- which imo is just a less obvious form of memorization i.e. you've memorized the match between inherent traits of the context with a specific application of that knowledge
To me, “memorization” implies an active process focused on learning a particular set of “matches” (to adopt the term you’re using here). But it seems to me that tacit knowledge (and other products of less concentrated/deliberate learning) often plays a substantial role in creativity. That is, creativity fundamentally comes from internalized knowledge (as the article says) but internalized knowledge doesn’t necessaril…
While internalized knowledge comes from "subconscious" (for lack of a better word) learning?
I guess I'm equating the two here and just using memorization as "committing to memory", with the belief being that you can construct the heuristic you'd normally acquire subconsciously and cut down time to mastery
I will disagree. Creativity comes from applying acquired knowledge (that's where memorization comes into account) in new contexts.
Appreciate you reading! But how do you know how to apply this acquired knowledge in this new context? It's some form of pattern matching right -- which imo is just a less obvious form of memorization i.e. you've memorized the match between inherent traits of the context with a specific application of that knowledge
That question has a false precondition baked in. If you know how, it's not creative.
> It's some form of pattern matching right -- which imo is just a less obvious form of memorization
No. Sensing and matching patterns does not imply memorization. Everything you're saying is completely loaded.
Did you just discover memorization? Because the pattern I see in your words is similar to anyone who's just learned a new tool or technique - they overapply it everywhere as they learn to use it.
This claim makes little sense because it fails to distinguish between memory and memorization. I memorize almost nothing, but I remember the broad strokes of a lot of things. This allows me to be creative. In a way, memorization is a severe risk: if you memorized something before it changed, for example, your creativity may not mean much.
Hey thanks for reading! What I was trying to convey is that fundamentally learning is memorization, whether conscious "rote memorization" or more less-intentional committing to memory from doing an activity And that recognizing this allows us to speed up the process of learning fundamentals Which in turn enables creativity as most people see it
"a flash of inspiration connecting internalized concepts" Well, okay, but rote memorization is neither necessary nor sufficient to internalize concepts. One of the reasons people make fun of the author's approach to creativity is that systematic memorization fundamentally can't teach taste —so the systematic approach reeks of awkward, try-hard, low-brow, tasteless art. More broadly, memorization doesn't help much wit…
Thanks for reading and the response! One of the points I'm trying to make is that taste and elegance fundamentally stem from an internalized heuristic -- which at it's core is memorization. I understand the connotation of "memorization" evokes an image of blindly memorizing without connecting, but isn't the tastefully developed expertise just memorization of a better heuristic?