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

61–70 of 118 posts

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#61

Post by pmoriarty »

johnfn wrote: post #50
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've come to understand that what all their excuses amount to is that they're just not interested in creating. I don't think this is true. If they were uninterested, they would simply say so, rather than making a series of excuses. What seems more likely to me is that they are (on a deep level) scared of creating. Creativity of any sort requires you to project your personality and be vulnerable in a way that people…

"If they were uninterested, they would simply say so, rather than making a series of excuses."

I think they make those excuses because they don't want to cause offense by saying they aren't interested in what I'm interested in (and even consider to be part of my identity).

I do agree that fear could motivate their aversion, though. But if the fear is there, I don't think it's usually rises to their consciousness or at least is something they could readily admit -- as if it was, they could simply say they're afraid, couldn't they?

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#62

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

>> Creativity is often defined as the ability to come up with new and useful ideas. Like intelligence, it can be considered a trait that everyone—not just creative “geniuses” like Picasso and Steve Jobs—possesses in some capacity.

Well, if you stretch the definition of "creative genius" to include a master of several artistic disciplines who created or popularised entire art movements and influenced artists the world over for more than a hundred years with an entrepreneur who sold lots of electronic devices, then honestly, I have no idea what your experiments are even meant to measure, anymore.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#63

Post by eachro »

pmoriarty wrote: post #51
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.

"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." This is clearer in some fields than others -- particularly in fields where there are child prodigies, like in chess, music, or mathematics. In other fields, child prodigies are rare or perhaps even non-existent. There are, to my knowledge, no child prodigies who've written brilliant novel…

Child prodigies are rare by definition though. Whether or not you've heard of them, I think, is more a function of what media chooses to shine a spotlight on. On the top of my head I'd probably say Chistopher Paolini(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paolini) qualifies as a child prodigy author - his first book, Eragon, was published when he was 19. Granted, it was his parent publishing company, but it still became a best seller.

But your broader point: "These fields tend to draw upon a whole life's worth of experience -- something that children obviously lack and can't make up for through "winning the genetic lottery"." Yea, I'd agree with that.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#64

Post by eachro »

felipemnoa wrote: post #19
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.

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.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#65

Post by randcraw »

pmoriarty wrote: post #61
johnfn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've come to understand that what all their excuses amount to is that they're just not interested in creating. I don't think this is true. If they were uninterested, they would simply say so, rather than making a series of excuses. What seems more likely to me is that they are (on a deep level) scared of creating. Creativity of any sort requires you to project your personality and be vulnerable in a way that people…

"If they were uninterested, they would simply say so, rather than making a series of excuses." I think they make those excuses because they don't want to cause offense by saying they aren't interested in what I'm interested in (and even consider to be part of my identity). I do agree that fear could motivate their aversion, though. But if the fear is there, I don't think it's usually rises to their consciousness or a…

Or maybe people refuse to try what you suggest because they hate the results of their past efforts. Many people cannot sing, and no amount of practice will change that. Many others are grossly uncoordinated, and thus hate dance or playing sports. If every attempt I make to draw with pencil and paper looks sick to me, I'm going to stop drawing (which I have). But I'm happy to create in other media.

Maybe the trick to being "creative" is finding a suitable medium for innovation, which may not be one that's typically considered to be "art" -- like software design, organizing your workshop, or building a better mousetrap.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#66

Post by AnimalMuppet »

tw1010 wrote: post #3

Is 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 tha…

I could think of a bunch of "names", but they're mostly insults.

"Over promise, under deliver" might fit, though...

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#67

Post by mannykannot »

moufestaphio wrote: post #52
mannykannot wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#68

Post by randcraw »

phyller wrote: post #56

The article mentions alternate uses of a sock, citing its suggested use as a "water filter" as being particularly creative. In high school I had a project to make a water filter which I forgot about. The day it was due I managed to assemble a plausible filter by taking my sock, getting it wet, and draping it between the dirty water glass and the clean water glass, with the dirty water glass higher so the water would…

Frustration and dissatisfaction are famous sources of creative catalysis. Why go to the trouble of creating unless there's a reward for expending the extra effort?

Maybe the OP psychologists needed to motivate their subjects better. Maybe exceeding a sufficient threshold of desire is essential in order for someone to "get creative"?

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#69

Post by guskel »

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?

Modeling

Re: Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others?

#70

Post by slavik81 »

twoquestions wrote: post #49
saulrh wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 that rewards strength but does not penalize weight will end up dominated by heavyweights. Westling is particularly brutal as weight itself is beneficial for inertia.

Post reply on HN