Individual creativity is definitely something I have thought about a great deal in the past—most often, in the context of “I’m really not very creative”. However, I am fairly certain that the majority of those thoughts occurred in the face of a problem that required “creativity”—and when I wasn’t able to come up with an innovative thought within a few minutes, I decided that task was better suited for someone with a different type of brain. When considering that series of thoughts in light of Lehrer’s article and some more modern ideas on creativity, I believe the way my mind attempts to solve those problems was heavily influenced by the type of education and feedback I received as a child. I always had an innate sense for numbers, and I was therefore in math classes many years ahead of my age group. But as I was encouraged to pursue math and logic, I was left with less time to spend on things related to the other side of my brain. Not only did I have less time, but I also surmise that I received subconscious hints that if I was skilled with numbers, math, and science, I was probably equally unskilled with creativity, vocabulary, and reading comprehension.
As I consider my creative moments in life, I have definitely noticed that the majority of my insights come when I am distracted. I often have a number of ideas come to me in the shower, and I work hard to remember them once I realize what has come to me. No matter how hard I try, I believe I only capture about 60% (at best) of what I think of in the shower. Similarly, I get ideas while driving (at least I used to when I had a job and drove longer distances while still in a morning/evening daze), so I usually have a pen and notepad in my console. Interestingly, I used to get a number of ideas while lying in bed at night. As mobile devices and applications have become more prevalent, I have less time just thinking to myself—instead, I am on my laptop, tablet, smartphone, and/or watching TV until I am ready to actually fall asleep. That level of multitasking has prevented me from having those innovative thoughts before sleeping…which is something I didn’t realize until just now.
Within organizations, I have seen a little of both sides. As a government contractor, we were generally told to do what has always been done—leaving little room for innovation. Attempts at doing something new were typically met with skepticism, and they were usually shot down unless there was an extremely low associated risk (even if the reward was worth the risk). This is because it is extremely difficult to lose a government contract if you stay within the lines and do about 75% of what you promise; however, making a change suddenly opens up an avenue that would allow a contract to be lost. At my more recent job prior to school, we were asked to sit in a computer lab to facilitate communication and creativity. This did work to a degree—but when two of the most senior members convinced management that they no longer needed to sit in the group environment, communication fell dramatically from that point forward. So, at least in that case, it would seem that the environment and a few key players were both important to the innovative culture that they were trying to foster.
I had a number of disjoint thoughts as I read the article, so I will try to address those here.
I think everyone is capable of being creative—in fact, I am guessing that many people have ideas that they forget. Or, even if they remember them for a short time, they never act on them, and the ideas eventually disappear. Is a person who comes up with creative ideas—but never acts on them or tells anyone who might act on them—actually creative?
I recall practicing different types of riddles growing up—ones I thought I was terrible at (and ones that the article would call exercising creative thought). And then I recall getting better at them. I think I am once again poor at those riddles. To me, that’s further evidence of the ability to exercise and improve creativity.
Many intelligent people—both past and present—have spoken about mind-altering drugs having a positive effect on creativity. While I don’t have first-hand experience with them, it is something someone should be able to freely research given the articles position on alcohol and creativity.
My initial thought was that we are multitasking more and more, and that could create more moments of “not paying attention” similar to the ones described in the article that generate creative thought. However, as mentioned earlier, that level of multitasking may be too much stimulation—even if all in small doses—to allow for the moments I was thinking of. So instead of increasing creative thought, it could be decreasing it. In fact, there may be a bell-type curve where some level of multitasking takes one’s attention away from tasks enough to help creativity, but beyond a certain point of that multitasking, it becomes too much stimulation and creativity decreases again.
I think Dr. House is a great example of the exact phenomenon being described in the article. He doesn’t care enough about conversations unless they directly affect him or his life. Therefore, when he’s talking to people about something unrelated to his case but also not directly affecting his life, he typically has revelations about his case (and proceeds to get up mid-conversation and walk out).
Relying on the “you just know” idea for when to use one type of approach versus another is difficult. It means people must trust you when you say you’re doing the right thing. There are risks associated with that. Of course, results will help prove the approach; however, results can’t always be obtained, even with the proper approach. So when the results are not obtained, how does one know if the approach was wrong or if it was just an unfortunate circumstance? There will never be evidence that proves the appropriate approach under this methodology, and that will just feed further behavior and conclusions that are to be trusted without evidence. That is a methodology that can be trusted in an environment where risk is tolerable—for example, in startup companies. However, in established companies, when dealing with people’s lives (in most cases), and in other risk-intolerant areas, evidence is a necessity. Again, Dr. House gets away with this because he’s dealing with cases that have no other possibilities for cures—i.e. risks are a necessity because there are no alternative treatments and lives are on the line. In sports, more coaches *should* be more innovative and creative on a “you just know” basis given that they are ultimately judged on their overall results (wins/losses), regardless of how they achieve them (barring any breaking of rules).
The article discusses learning an instrument with the abandon of a child. I have experienced learning the piano and drums as a child for many years, and I know my experience learning the guitar as an adult has been very different—but I haven’t been sure why. I know for one thing, I am looking for quicker satisfaction and am unwilling to put forth the effort necessary (that I was willing to put forth as a child). I now wonder if there is a component of a lack of creativity to it as well.
Musically, I also remember my own perceived lack of creativity. On the piano, I always envied those who could improvise. I could play some pretty difficult music as a 16 year old, and I won all kinds of awards in understanding music theory. But I couldn’t improvise something beyond a very basic level. Again, I always chalked that up to my uncreative mind—but maybe that’s something that could change if I was willing to work at it.
