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."
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.
George Bernard Shaw (Score:5, Interesting)
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 against the majority can be a brave decision to stick up for your principles, or it can simply be a sign of bloody-mindedness with no better reason than a desire to not conform (guess who usually plays the Devil's Advocate in one-sided discussions?)
In many instances, humans exhibit a profound "herd animal" instinct, where the outsider/outlier is attacked, from children in the playground picking on the smallest or the one who is different because one powerful individual does so, to the people in a meeting rounding on a dissenting voice because their manager does the same. For those people, conforming to another person's idea is an easy thing to do because then it is not necessary to think about the situation and come up with your own opinion, especially if that opinion might align with the one being attacked so that you either have to support that individual and yourself face attack or willingly go against your opinion... better to not think at all and "go with the flow".
The critical thinker who is appreciated in their own lifetime is typically the one who comes with a blindingly obvious idea which improves things all round, whose idea does not cause the loud shouters to lose prestige or influence because they did not themselves see that idea. Given that most critical thinkers' ideas piss off at least a few people and show them as being wrong, it takes time until those loud people lose their influence (or those people find a way to adopt the new idea without losing face) before the critical thinker's contribution has a real chance of being acknowledged and properly valued.
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: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.
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: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:The problem: (Score:2, Interesting)
No. Flat-out no. Early Christians ran into a polytheistic society that was just as conformist as anything the church would eventually come up with. It's no exception. I'm willing to wager that if you decided to worship an unrecognized god along with the standard pantheon you would have encountered plenty of ridicule. If your new god gained any traction it might have caused you to be persecuted too. The temples in those societies were economic centers just as the church eventually became an economic center.
IMHO, conformity and corruption gets into *any* religion whether it's polytheistic or not. That's because most people are conformist and corrupt.