I think there is some truth in that those characters were more creative than many other, but they did not create in a void. Your first example, Newton, said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Who am I to contradict Newton? :)
> - They had a reserve of good ideas and used them up faster than they could generate new ones
I think the quality and complexity of the ideas also matters, perhaps more even than quantity. Some of my favorite 'creators' who become better over time tend to focus on essentially the same thing over and over again (more than others, it seems). But their later works are richer and better and developments from earlier works.
The lesson is simple--what constitutes true creativity is the openness and adaptability of our spirit. When we see or experience something we must be able to look at it from several angles, to see other possibilities beyond the obvious ones. We imagine that the objects around us can be used and co-opted for different purposes. We do not hold on to our original idea out of sheer stubbornness, or because our ego is tied up with its rightness. Instead, we move with what presents itself to us in the moment, exploring and exploiting different branches and contingencies. We thus manage to turn feathers into flying material. The difference then is not in some initial creative power of the brain, but in how we look at the world and the fluidity with which we can reframe what we see. Creativity and adaptability are inseparable.
What a huge load of bull (in the last paragraph) on an otherwise good story (albeit some inaccuracies) of how pg started YC.
I'm not arguing that one way or the other, actually.\* I'm saying that differences in innate creativity, if any, are dwarfed by their expression or lack thereof. i.e. the biggest factor is not what you have but how you use it.
This is from experience teaching people to "think outside the box" to write better code, to create/describe better models of the real world, etc. starting with people that you would swear didn't have a creative bone in their body and watching them improve dramatically.
\* (I know I kind of did argue that, but since you're asking outright, this is what I actually believe.)
> One of the things that separates ordinary people from smarter people is the topic of this article, the ability to imagine new concepts, questions, ideas. Colloquially we call this creativity, and it stems from a large degree of playfulness and enjoyment of the subject at hand.
Pretty sure we call that imagination. Creativity, shockingly enough, involves creation, not just imagination.
Just because something is creative, or created, doesn't mean it is worthy of uncritical adulation. You actually have to critique to improve; assuming perfection limits your capacity to learn from the flaws. Considering a work and grasping what it seeks to be, then understanding where its missed the mark - that can produce learning and drives the question, "How can I improve? How can I incorporate this knowledge of the gap into my own work".
> he had an ability to generate, with respect to any given problem, a good many hypotheses, with little initial constraint by previous knowledge as to their plausibility or feasibility;
I think this agrees with something I read years ago: you can tell those who are really creative or not by the way they look at a bike: it they see a bike, they are regular. If they see a lot of components interconnected, then they have more creative ideas because they can see small parts that can be reorganized to creat new things.
Stories like these suggest to me that genius level creativity equals intrinsic motivation plus time.
They also demonstrate that such motivation cannot be adjusted at will. It amounts to one's deepest understanding of where personal progress or best direction lies. Thus when Grothendieck or Swedenborg had religious experiences later in life their technical output ceased because their motivations had changed irrevocably.
That's an interesting perspective. It's been clear to me that creativity often arises from constraints, but I'd not really flipped the concept around like that before. Thank you for sharing!
Talks about a lot of things about being original. Found it a fun read and this one struck a chord with me:
> The alternative is a pursuit towards truth. In the words of C.S. Lewis, who is famous for the vivid imagination he presented in stories like the Chronicles of Narnia: “No man who cares about originality will ever be original. It’s the man who’s only thinking about doing a good job or telling the truth who becomes really original—and doesn’t notice it.”
I find a parallel working in technical problem where a good solution comes from getting to understand the problem in fundamental ways and the most basic representation and process to solve it imaginable with that understanding is called creative or original. The goal was never to 'be clever', in fact 'thinking dumb' as in "What's the simplest thing that could possibly work?" is far more effective.
Can you say there aren't trolls in the walls that grant us creativity? Can you assume that genius still happens in a vacuum? Can you hope to describe these things fully, attribute it to humanism? Perhaps the human achievement is in becoming an antenna for the inspiration of our chaotic world?
I mean, no. I don't advocate intentional blindness to problems in our world. I would even go so far as to actually advocate a greater awareness of the weight of our impact in the world. We can learn something from knowing more what the impact of a dollar is.
But humans are nothing if not machines for selective attention. If every time I bought my lunch I thought about the fertilizers dripping into the ocean causing immense algal blooms full of asphyxiated fish and oh the smell! I'd probably starve.
If your life, the thing that puts you closest to your own understanding of divinity, is being creative; if you honestly have to face the idea of never being able to communicate like you did that one time not so long ago; if you have to keep going in face of that, well, I know what I'm not going to expend my attention toward.
But even so, the speech wasn't about finding ways to ignore some nasty personal tragedy. It's about finding an interpretation on the charity and capriciousness of the creative process. What really is the best way to contextualize the immense amount of discipline and work and training that goes into creation that can all amount to precisely nothing without something widely considered to be external to us?
Genius is 99% perspiration, 1% inspiration. Even when we can assume the sweat, we're still might end up short one spark. What gives?
(I apologize for the waxing here, but god this is such a fascinating philosophical question.)
reply