Study: People Are Biased Against Creative Thinking 377
An anonymous reader writes "Despite how much people might say they like creative thinking, they don't, at least according to studies. 'We think of creative people in a heroic manner, and we celebrate them, but the thing we celebrate is the after-effect,' says Barry Staw, a researcher at the University of California–Berkeley business school who specializes in creativity. 'As much as we celebrate independence in Western cultures, there is an awful lot of pressure to conform,' he says."
The problem: (Score:5, Funny)
Creative people just can't shut up and do what they're told.
Re:The problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
People are frightened by what they can't control, can't predict, and don't understand. That's why people invented gods to help explain unpredictable weather and other disasters. It works that way with people too. People want other people to be predictable, controllable, and understandable.
Re:The problem: (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the hive mind.
Here is a good philosophical exercise that everyone can do. Think about your values and opinions on various things. Ponder which ones of them are just you repeating what you have been told to think about the particular topic.
Re:The problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the hive mind.
Here is a good philosophical exercise that everyone can do. Think about your values and opinions on various things. Ponder which ones of them are just you repeating what you have been told to think about the particular topic.
That'd be most of them. Most of people's ideas, attitudes and opinions are not their own. They have either been told what to think, or have selected a position from a menu presented to them by some teacher, parent, P.R. firm, news channel, religion, etc. Careful though, most people are likewise unreceptive to that idea. I include myself in this estimation, though I do try to examine my beliefs. It is unavoidable, in a way. It's not easy to transfer knowledge, information or something like values without some form of indoctrination.
But people come to see the established order, or consensus as iron-clad. They are threatened by the idea that the truth can be fluid, and facts they have known their whole lives could turn out to be wrong. It is unsettling, so they avoid such realizations. We see this dynamic in studies that show how people will retain a belief even in the face of contradicting evidence. They will explain away or discount the new evidence so that they may continue with their belief. It is interesting and sometimes maddening to me. But as I said earlier, I know what I think and why I think it. So when most people disagree with me on some subject, I am not bothered as much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence. It follows then that some of us are incapable of objective reasoning. Many of us who are capable of rational thought are just plain intellectually lazy. And many of us who are intellectually challenged put a lot of effort into trying to figure things out. It is a complicated issue.
Re:The problem: (Score:4, Funny)
Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence. It follows then that some of us are incapable of objective reasoning. Many of us who are capable of rational thought are just plain intellectually lazy. And many of us who are intellectually challenged put a lot of effort into trying to figure things out. It is a complicated issue.
That was just about the most intellectually lazy comment I have ever seen.
I was going to post a point by point rebuttal....but I couldn't be bothered.
Re:The problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence.
I'm not sure what this statistical tautology has to do with anything.
It follows then that some of us are incapable of objective reasoning.
Are you claiming that anyone of "below average intelligence" is "incapable of objective reasoning"? That's a pretty strong claim. (And weird -- why exactly would the threshold of "objective reasoning" capability fall along some arbitrary statistical dividing line?) And if you're not claiming that, I don't know how it "follows" from the first statement.
Anyhow... actually, there are a number of studies that have shown that more intelligent people are often the ones with the most rigidity in their beliefs -- particularly when confronted by evidence that conflicts with them. A person of lesser intellect may simply accept new findings from a reputable source or authority, but smart people are significantly better at "explaining away" information that conflicts with their views.
Many of us who are capable of rational thought are just plain intellectually lazy.
Laziness probably has much less to do with it than egotism does. A dumb person who encounters something that conflicts with his/her beliefs may simply ignore it or avoid it, and perhaps you might call that "lazy." Smart people are much more likely to find reasons to be dismissive, particularly if they view themselves as superior to others... e.g., among the chosen few "capable of rational thought."
Re: (Score:3)
Is is me or are you just "repeating what you have been told to think about the particular topic" by the parent post? Were you going for Funny but accidentally got Insightful?
It was not the parent post that introduced me to that idea. But I will admit I did not come to it completely on my own. I have come to understand over the past 15 years or so that the world does not work the way I was taught it did, and that there is more to society, history and current events than I previously understood. It is a work in progress, as it must be. But these realizations have caused me to rethink why I held the beliefs that I did, and have led me to a new understanding of the truth and in
Re:The problem: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The problem: (Score:4, Interesting)
This gets to an interesting dynamic; that people can disagree, or have differing viewpoints and not have one be "wrong". This comes up quite a bit on the topic of religion or the existence of God. Religion is certainly a situation in which people have been told what to think. All of these Christians or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or whatever did not come to their beliefs independently. I very much agree with your point that it is a control structure; they all are. They are more about regimenting behavior and beliefs than anything truly spiritual.
As to the existence of God, we don't know either way. A god or gods may exist or he/they may not. I personally believe that there exists an entity who created the universe. But I have absolutely no issue with Atheists. My belief is personal, held for personal reasons. I cannot prove the existence of this higher consciousness that I believe in, so why would I expect anyone else to share my belief? It's not about right and wrong, it's about what works for a person in their life. I have become more comfortable with the concepts of "maybe" and "I don't know".
Re: (Score:2)
People are frightened by what they can't control, can't predict, and don't understand. That's why people invented gods to help explain unpredictable weather and other disasters. It works that way with people too. People want other people to be predictable, controllable, and understandable.
In which religion can you control or even fully understand your god?
Naturalism lends itself better to the idea that the universe is understandable and controllable are you sure we didn't invent it?
Re:The problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, what reasons are there to invent Gods?
The main reason I could come up with is explaining what cannot be explained and thus control what cannot be controlled.
If you don't know how something works, you might try to find out, but if you can't find out, it scares you. Mostly for the reason that you have no way to control it. You can't say "if I do this, $bad_thing will not happen and/or $good_thing will". There is no "if I don't touch the hot stove I won't get burned" with whether lightning hits your hut or whether the weather finally gets better so your crops will grow enough to feed you the next Winter. And of course our fear of dying. Not only do we not want to die, but we want to have that nice, fuzzy feeling that there's something better coming for us afterwards. Or at least that there is something and that we're important enough that we don't simply cease to exist.
But the main thing is trying to control what can't be controlled. Because with a God, you can. You can pray. You pray and then God will make the lightning not hit your hut and your crops will grow well. You will not die in that next war and the plague will not kill your family. There is no "worldly" way to do that. And humans are scared of things that are beyond their control. They need something to comfort them. And even if their loved ones die, at least they need to be comforted that they're in some "better place" now.
That's where gods come in.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a "nerd" answer at all. A nerd will have no problem with the universe being unexplainable and out of control. It's the danes that are frightened by the prospect that the universe is a dangerous and hostile place.
A nerd wants a REAL answer, not just some comforting tripe.
Creation of the comforting tripe is not the domain of nerds.
Nerds are going to be the first people to realize that the comforting tripe is completely bogus.
Re: (Score:3)
The brain I use to conjure up those ideas is, from a purely physiological view, the same that Mr. Caveman used to dream up his world view. Hence I do actually consider myself able to come to the same kind of conclusion if presented the same facts.
Totemism and animism are two of the ways humans fill in the gaps in their understanding of the world. That's what we always did since the dawn of our self awareness, I'm convinced. We were asking questions about us, about our place in the universe and the universe
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off. I don't argue with true believers and I don't argue with brick walls.
The point of debate is usually not to persuade your opponent, but to persuade the audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not assert there is no boogie monster. In fact, i often assert there might be one in order to make my children to scared to wonder around unsupervised at night. But it is a reality that things go bump in the night and it isn't always safe for small children to go wandering around in the dark. So while i have no proof of the non existance or not, the only faith i put into it is that my kids will tend to stay close and safe when we sleep and they wake up gor whatever reason.
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose you wouldn't advocate "playing Santa" with little kids either...no magic of xmas presents, him knowing if your naughty or nice, etc?
Re: (Score:3)
You realise that it is unscientific to prove or disprove a god right? You simply cannot have a scientific concensus on the matter outside of a god isn't needed to explain the world. If it is more then that, it simply isn't scientific because you cannot test supernatural beings or events.
Re:The problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, but the other problem exists...without creativity, you become a soul-less automaton. Your whole world is a static dying place...dead because no new life is growing in it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Granted, but the other problem exists...without creativity, you become a soul-less automaton. Your whole world is a static dying place...dead because no new life is growing in it.
So, basically you become like people who watch Fox News?
**ducks**
Makes Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like most mutations are unsuccessful, most creative ideas are not "welfare increasing", after all, the status quo came about for a reason and your idea has to be pretty clever to beat it in all, or even most, metrics.
Of course, on the off chance a creative idea *is* successful, we're all for it, but that's pretty hard to determine in advance. And more importantly, after the fact, all the discomfort from change (and one shouldn't underestimate how much change hurts psychologically) has already been paid for, so we can simply enjoy the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
It has always been my observation that people aren't afraid of change, rather people fear being changed...
Re: (Score:2)
People are afraid of change because they learned that they will first of all be charged, long before they might possibly be changed.
Re:Makes Sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like most mutations are unsuccessful, most creative ideas are not "welfare increasing", after all, the status quo came about for a reason and your idea has to be pretty clever to beat it in all, or even most, metrics.
Of course, on the off chance a creative idea *is* successful, we're all for it, but that's pretty hard to determine in advance. And more importantly, after the fact, all the discomfort from change (and one shouldn't underestimate how much change hurts psychologically) has already been paid for, so we can simply enjoy the benefits.
The status quo doesn't have to come about because it is the best solution to a problem. There are many times when status quo can appear because it was first to the market, or because it was pushed by the giant gorilla of the market etc. Just look at web standards and internet and there are so many status quo ideas that are established not because they are the best but for a variety of different reasons.
Gene mutations are random whereas creative ideas are directed. Perhaps gene mutations would be comparable to random thoughts in people's heads. Creative ideas are more refined than that.
I agree that its hard to determine which creative idea is going to be successful and maybe even successful for completely different reasons. I admit than when Twitter first came out, I thought it was a dumb idea. But, there lies the problem. Out society of innovation is based on creative ideas and there are no ways of determining which ideas are great and which are not. As the article suggests, the only way to make your idea take effect is through extreme perseverance and mountains of rejection. I remember reading that JK Rowling had her Harry Potter manuscript rejected over a dozen times.
If there is an inherent psychological bias against new ideas, then maybe the psychologists should create a procedure in which we can develop new ideas without having the creative idea having to face rejections.
Re: (Score:2)
all mutations are successful. what you mean is they have no apparent utility in the current environmental context.
Re: (Score:2)
...after all, the status quo came about for a reason and your idea has to be pretty clever to beat it in all, or even most, metrics.
Yeah, but no one can agree on what that reason is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may even decrease welfare initially, and only later increase it.
Conservatives Survive (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes sense that there is some animosity to creativity.
Being conservative, doing the same thing that worked for your ancestors, is generally a good way to survive. Thus evolution would select for people who tend to be conservative and stick with the tried and true.
On the other hand, the guy who makes a pointy stick and sticks said stick in the side of an animal in attempt to kill and eat it providing more food for his family is being creative but if he picks the wrong animal he ends up rather dead. If he wins then he stands a chance of becoming the new tried and true, the new way. But until he proves it the majority of his peers are wise to be a bit hesitant to follow his lead. If he shows a good history of creative successes then adaptable individuals will follow him because that is a good survival strategy.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, the guy who makes a pointy stick and sticks said stick in the side of an animal in attempt to kill and eat it providing more food for his family is being creative but if he picks the wrong animal he ends up rather dead.
Small, incremental improvements.
Making the pointy stick is fine, but don't go rushing to animal killing as a complete replacement for berry gathering.
After all -- what happens if there are no animals, when you need food?
Re: (Score:3)
After all -- what happens if there are no animals, when you need food?
Humans are animals.
Tasty, tasty animals.
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure it ain't a smoker, they not only smell awful.
Re: (Score:2)
Small, incremental improvements.
there's a good chance to miss global maximum, and be stuck at a local maximum.
(see 'local maximum problem'/hill climbing)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Makes sense that there is some animosity to creativity.
Being conservative, doing the same thing that worked for your ancestors, is generally a good way to survive. Thus evolution would select for people who tend to be conservative and stick with the tried and true.
On the other hand, the guy who makes a pointy stick and sticks said stick in the side of an animal in attempt to kill and eat it providing more food for his family is being creative but if he picks the wrong animal he ends up rather dead. If he wins then he stands a chance of becoming the new tried and true, the new way. But until he proves it the majority of his peers are wise to be a bit hesitant to follow his lead. If he shows a good history of creative successes then adaptable individuals will follow him because that is a good survival strategy.
I think you have highlighted the main issue "creative solution = risk", as well as " "creative solution = potential benefit". Where costs and/or risks are high people need to evaluate this rigorously. For example, a novel idea in dealing with nuclear waste might be brilliant, but nobody would want to use it without a rigorous trial (risk and cost is high), but an idea that crisps and tomato ketchup would make a great sandwich filling can just be tried (risk and cost low).
I can see a potential issue that p
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative loses its meaning in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Resistance to new ideas and ways of doing things is also habitual; we also enjoy the comfort of predictability and simplicity because it's less stressful than constantly trying to adapt to new situations. This requires neural plasticity, which decreases with age, hence the difficulty of many elderly folks to "change with the times". Likewise, studies on teens have shown that they are less risk averse than older folks. They tend to rate reward much higher than risk, and each new generation seems to bring with it new ideas and change.
"Science advances one funeral at a time."
Re: (Score:2)
Steering towards it? Why, we're suddenly getting creative again?
So many people (Score:2)
Don't be a smart-ass (Score:2)
Whatcha think you doing, smarty pants?
People don't like change (Score:2)
I wish they wouldn't change the way they say it, it makes me scared and confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this basically the same as saying people don't like change, which anyone with life experience would already know?
I wish they wouldn't change the way they say it, it makes me scared and confused.
Its not change that worries people, its change that takes them from their comfort zone. People wouldn't have much of an issue with cheaper flights, faster travel - but suggest that some trips can be replaced by videoconferencing..
George Bernard Shaw (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it any wonder people are biased against someone who continually rocks their world, yet scores so infrequently?
Re:George Bernard Shaw (Score:4, Insightful)
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
And the real genius does BOTH.
Well, duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Culture and civilization are all great, but doesn't really change the fact that deep down we're social ANIMALS, and probably the greatest evolutionary advantage that we have had was that we could cooperate.
There's a clear Darwinistic pressure to confirm, so long as there's a little percentage of (expendable) individuals willing to experiment creatively - since for the bulk of history and prehistory, 'creativity' was a great way to get you and others killed.
Creativity often equates to "Different" (Score:2, Interesting)
For many people/sheeple, they derive comfort from the idea that they are (a) Right, and (b) in the majority (with "right" being determined at the time with incomplete information by who is either in the majority or who shouts loudest).
Things like the medieval opinion that the world is flat, that women or specific ethnic/indigenous groups are unimportant/inferior, or the Standard Model of particle physics, and even with religion, show that there is great comfort in being in the majority.
Choosing to go agains
Re:Creativity often equates to "Different" (Score:4, Insightful)
For many people/sheeple
And there's where I stopped reading your comment. If you can't refrain from using childish insults, you don't deserve to be heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And you're going to demonstrate your independence by reiterating a weak pun that's well worn enough to have both a Wikipedia entry (which notes its "shrill and excessive use") and an XKCD [xkcd.com] already in place?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Creativity often equates to "Different" (Score:5, Insightful)
Replying instead of moderating..
They never did think that, it's a modern invention [wikipedia.org], introduced as late as 1828 after Washington Irving's publication of A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. The ancient Greeks could show that the Earth was round already. In fact, if in the medieval ages they thought that the Earth was flat, why would Columbus (and his contemporaries) even bother sailing west in order to reach India?
You have some points but please do not perpetuate this myth.
The kicker... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the kicker. Not only do people reject creativity, but they hamper their own responses by conforming to what they think the boss will like. So if you don't agree with your colleague or their interpretation of what the boss will like, you're screwed. What tends to then happen is a breakdown in communication, as you will want to present to the boss directly instead of via the misguided (in your opinion) minion.
If people stopped trying to predict other people's reactions, they'd be more likely to be themselves. Sadly in the corporate world this means that bosses only get a limited set of responses from anyone not directly below them in the hierarchy. Shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem Exacertbated When "Moral Risk" is Attached (Score:3)
Good article. Having dealt with it for years, I think it's a little more complex than a general native tendency, however. A large packet of society defers decisions (outsources) to a higher authority. Those authorities demand structure to order the size of the authority delegated to them, and tend to view "outliers" collectively as a threat to that order. The hostility to creativity is particularly intense when the question is "moral authority". In science, the "out of the box" thinker has scientific method and an option or hope to "prove" or "demonstrate" their alternative, creative, view. In religion, a creative morality is considered a threat but it's very difficult to demonstrate credibility with anything other than generations of experience (I did X, which the Priestatollah said not to, and no hair on my palms etc).
Where science is vulnerable is when a morality is attached. I'm not advocating for scientists to be immoral. But certain branches of science (e.g. Environmental) are susceptible to moral authority, which makes them more susceptible to Priestatollahs opposing creative thinking.
As a creative thinker... (Score:5, Funny)
... I can attest to this bias against me, likely the cause of mega jealousy!
Non-Creative; "What do you make of this report?"
Me; "Well I can make a hat, an airplane or a little swan..."
Creativity is not appreciated. (Score:2)
Until after the royalty check clears for the Patent Attorney.
You may never make good money as a creative, but darn it, you made someone happy and able to put their kids through college, so there's that to lift your spirits!
Pressure to conform? (Score:3)
Re:Pressure to conform? (Score:4, Insightful)
Two parametres (Score:5, Insightful)
An idea can be judged on "creativity" and "practicality". A creative practical idea is a wonderful thing, but its also quite rare. Fairly often people use "creativity" to excuse not considering practical issues. Flying cars, stratospheric power generation kites, vacuum tube trains, etc. are all "creative" but are not currently practical. Some people, including me, get irritated when someone claiming to be creative effectively says: "here is my design for a flying car - just a few engineering details to work out", when in fact it is the engineering "details" that have prevented practical flying cars for the last 50 years.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a good engineering reason not to. Small aircraft performance is very sensitive to weight, a typical small airplane will only have a non-fuel payload of around 1/4of the total weight. The added weight to make the aircraft also function as a car (removable / pivot-able wings, road worthy tires, bumpers, transmission, etc) will rapidly cut into that weight and reduce the overall efficiency.
At the same time modern consumers have become accustomed to very well optimized car designs, the added weight / d
"Biased"? (Score:2)
How do they measure bias in this case? Don't you have to have a definable "neutral" point to measure bias from? How would you do that?
Kettering knew (Score:2)
"People are very open-minded about new things - as long as they're exactly like the old ones." - Charles Kettering
People are against Change, not Creativity (Score:3, Insightful)
The article is close, but just barely misses the mark.
People don't mind creativity on its surface, but what they dislike is the change that inevitably comes from it. People resist change, for all the reasons outlined in the article. People like things to stay the same, not change. And creativity drives change.
Re: (Score:2)
People resist change
I kind of agree. it might be more efficient if we just paid in whole dollar amounts.
I am proudly biased against creative thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA is basically a "creative" type whining about her kind not being appreciated for their brilliance. For example:
If _nobody_ is listening to her ideas, let's run down the possibilities of why not:
If option 4 is correct, then she should start her own company. I suspect 3 is more likely.
Generally, I consider it more valuable to have someone who is a good listener, a quick learner, and works well with others. If you have an idea about changing the way the company does things, the burden is on you to demonstrate the value of that change. If you can't, then the "creative" idea isn't worth much.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Her ideas are crap and she's too sophomoric to know (Dunning-Kroger effect)
But she has offered to implement her ideas herself. So let her. If she is wrong, her lack of capability will be revealed. However, if she is right, management looks like morons.
# 2. She comes across as an abrasive know-it-all, or her communication skills are severely deficient in some other way
That's another way of saying "does not conform". Or "not a team player". Values that are worth less than many give them credit for. Except of course for people who depend on the anonymity of the team to mask their mediocrity.
then she should start her own company.
Not a skill set that everyone has. And perhaps she is realistic about it, wanting to work in her area of exper
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you can tell her ideas are unlikely to have unforeseen bad effects, and can be implemented at reasonable cost.
Re: (Score:3)
But she has offered to implement her ideas herself. So let her.
Only if you can tell her ideas are unlikely to have unforeseen bad effects, and can be implemented at reasonable cost.
Who has the burden of demonstrating that? And what is your threshold of 'unlikely' or 'reasonable'? It all comes down to taking calculated risks for an opportunity to improve. And if the people responsible for evaluating the cost/benefit ration have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, perhaps it is them that need to move on.
I've never seen a successful business that tolerated middle management just sitting on a process rather than improving it. One must always seek opportunities to clean up, s
Re:I am proudly biased against creative thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
But she has offered to implement her ideas herself. So let her. If she is wrong, her lack of capability will be revealed. However, if she is right, management looks like morons.
This argument is just lame. When a company pays you a salary, you work for them. So "offering to implement her ideas" is almost like "offering to work during office hours". Worse, it's "offering to do something really risky instead of your assigned task during office hours".
If she is wrong, of course her lack of capability will be revealed -- but will she be able to fix the mess if it goes wrong? What about the cost of the mistake?
Re: (Score:3)
Too many unfounded assumptions. (Score:2)
Thanks, Captain Obvious! (Score:3)
Every innovative idea I've ever had at my company has been fought all the way, until it became standard operating procedure (which I now have to fight when I want to change something).
This explains a lot. (Score:2)
And also explains why people think that I'm weird.
Most creative works has been done by people not conforming to what the general population thinks. Leonardo da Vinci, Alexander the Great, Steve Jobs, Einstein, Chaplin... All were very good in their specific way. Of course - creativity also has to be combined with hard work to succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re:BZZZZT! Article Suspect! (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, he introduced a lot of innovation into the mainstream, even if the ideas already existed beforehand.
The problem is that technically innovative people often aren't talented or even interested when it comes to marketing or interface design. Steve was good at bringing new ideas to market in a way that people found attractive and easy to use, and thus the ideas became mainstream.
As I usually say in reply to comments like this: I don't want an iPhone, but I'm glad they exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they were the first mainstream devices (that I'm aware of) with displays that were actually pleasant to use - because of the capacitive touch and big finger-friendly buttons. Resistive displays were pretty horrible even with a stylus. Apple forced other manufacturers to put more emphasis on their UIs (though the first generation iPhones were horrible in terms of features, and so I didn't even consider getting one). I had been using Windows Mobile custom ROMs until I switched to Android around versio
Re:BZZZZT! Article Suspect! (Score:5, Informative)
The mention of Steve Jobs as an "innovator" makes the article suspect. E.G. the author does not know what she is talking about.
It's arguably worse than that: Jobs (and Apple generally) don't really do 'innovative', in the sense that nearly everything they produced had some sort of less-well-refined immediate antecedent elsewhere, or was purchased, or or the like. However, Jobs is quite notable indeed for his willingness to take successful products out and shoot them in order to make room for something new(even when the new thing is still not a safe bet in competition with the older; but cheaper, widely adopted, and widely accepted thing), to tell people who demand backwards-compatible whatever where they can file their futile protests, and other behaviors that, while not innovative in themselves, are more or less required to take an innovation from 'tech demo' to 'product' in a reasonable amount of time. On the other hand, of course, his enthusiasm for ruthless focus would likely have been a very poor fit indeed for a 'blue skies' R&D operation(and indeed, stodgy old Microsoft is the company that has one of those, and seems to carefully avoid applying what it comes up with to anything they actually sell...)
If you want to look at 'innovation' in an institutional context, he isn't a good example of it; but characters like him are clearly relevant to how the broader institutional context interacts with 'creative' or 'innovative' people.
Re:BZZZZT! Article Suspect! (Score:4, Insightful)
Jobs (and Apple generally) don't really do 'innovative', in the sense that nearly everything they produced had some sort of less-well-refined immediate antecedent elsewhere, or was purchased, or or the like.
When Woz drove the product development, that wasn't the case. The Apple of early Woz era years was wildly innovative. If TFA had said "Steve Wozniak" instead of "Steve Jobs" he could have made his point a lot better -- Despite the fact that his technical brilliance gave Jobs something to sell and grow the business, he didn't really fit in to corporate culture once Apple became the very thing they loathed.
Re: (Score:3)
Stand a little closer to the edge so us creative people can just give you a little push into the chasm of doom and get you off the resources we can turn into something wonderful.
My favorite pastime as I get older is throwing people who don't like change under the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes for the most part....
There can only be one.....
Re: (Score:2)
You don't? Hell, how else do you think your pension plan could work out?
Re: (Score:2)
People don't like those who risk. From where I stand, creative people risk resources, no matter how trivial.
It has to be more visceral than rational risk management. Creative people may have a wider risk/reward spread than others; but so do some financial instruments that even fairly stodgy investment types like just fine (so long as they can be aggregated to moderate a given portfolio's exposure to any one of them). Either people suspect that 'creative people', even as a class, cost more than they are worth, or they are irrationally leaving potential gains on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone else think it's a travesty that our society allows people to reach adulthood while being so stupid? I think education should be a top priority, after that everything else will sort itself out within a generation.
Re: (Score:2)
I think education should be a top priority, after that everything else will sort itself out within a generation.
But what will you teach them, and what if they disagree?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The smart people will believe it's too expensive or not the right time to raise kids while the stupid people will fuck for fun and then have a bunch of kids. Soon there won't be any smart people left and the problem will be solved.
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/603/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The smart people will believe it's too expensive or not the right time to raise kids while the stupid people will fuck for fun and then have a bunch of kids. Soon there won't be any smart people left and the problem will be solved.
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/603/ [xkcd.com]
XKCD ridicules the notion that dumb people reproduce more than smart people, and claims that it is "wrong". But is it? I cannot find any reference for birth-rate-by-IQ, but here is a reference for birth-rate-by-income [statista.com] that shows that women in households with income below $10K have nearly twice the birthrate of women in households with income above $75K. Income is not IQ, but they are highly correlated.
It isn't clear if the birthrate-by-income is corrected for age, so it could be skewed because the poor w
Re:People are stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's what you meant to say.
Does this study show bias against creative thinking or bias in favor of thinking that promotes safety, security, comfort.
I used to think the world was just too stodgy for my brilliance. As I got older, I realized that I just lacked sufficient skill, empathy, finesse. It wasn't their problem, it was mine.
Re: (Score:2)
And 99% of those that think they are creative are in that 50%. Its not a good idea to listen to a creative idea, if its a really terrible idea too.
Re: (Score:2)
Others happen to show their idea to an outsider and the outsider takes it and tuns with it (Steve Jobs and the GUI he saw a Xerox).
I think that you mean:
Others happen to show their idea to an outsider who licenses it in exchange for a significant percentage of Apple's stock and does a lot of hard work implementing the idea and converting it into a production-ready system (Steve Jobs and the GUI ideas he bought and then improved after he saw them at Xerox).
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Who, the ones inventing stuff or the ones knowing what to steal?
Re: (Score:2)
Both kinds of genuis are needed. Otherwise, great ideas get trapped at places like PARC or Bell Labs and never see the light of day. The idea that Steve's "borrowing" is a negative thing is yet another example of how creativity is stifled.
Sometimes that last 1% or 5% can make quite a bit of difference.
That's why allowing new ideas to be trapped in a quagmire of patent ownership is such a horrible idea.
Re: (Score:2)
NO! Please keep all references to xkcd, and not to Dilbert as well ( http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/ [dilbert.com] ). ;-0
Re: (Score:2)
So what, less than 22% of the people know about it and/or care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that McCain lost because he was a creative thinker?
Re: (Score:2)
Griping about Obama is getting pretty old. Can't you come up with anything new?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It allows us to speak to other humans and learn things from them by building up explanations from the words they speak.
What about someone stuck on a deserted island? They can be 'creative' and formulate some ingenious ideas to aid in their survival. And yet there is no one to speak with.
On the other hand, understanding nature doesn't automatically lead to building upon that understanding to produce novel ideas or concepts. Some of the peoples most in tune with nature are living (and dying) much as their ancestors have for thousands of years. Where's the creativity?