Tag Archives: creativity

remote work, productivity, and lazy kids today

Leave a reply

I think this Fortune article (paywalled, but I was able to read it the first time I clicked) drawing conclusions about remote work based on productivity statistics is off base. Labor productivity, as I understand it, is dollars changing hands in the economy divided by hours people say they worked. There are a number of measurement problems here. First, in the short term it is just going to fluctuate with dollars changing hands, which fluctuates for all sorts of reasons, so it makes more sense to look at longer-term averages. Second, dollars changing hands is not a perfect measure of value – we could be paying the same number of dollars for crappier goods and services as our expectations are gradually lowered over time. I really suspect this is what is happening.

It does make sense to me that self-reported hours worked at home would be less productive. Even if most people are honest most of the time, some people are going to be less honest some of the time than they would be in an office. People are going to be more distracted. But in all these cases, they are going to report the same number of hours worked and get paid the same number of dollars they would have in the office. So there will be no effect on calculated productivity, while we get used to gradually shifting baseline of crappier goods and services over time.

I think another effect is that training and onboarding are getting harder in some sorts of jobs. Some jobs have a playbook telling a worker exactly what to do, but many jobs do not. In my field of engineering, there is not much of a playbook because we are often trying to apply existing knowledge to solve novel problems under changing external conditions. I learned this job in the 1990s and 2000s by spending a lot of extra time in the office at the end of the day shooting the breeze with colleagues, mentors, and clients. Somewhat frequently, someone would suggest moving these sessions to a local drinking establishment and they would go well into the evening. This was not necessarily healthy for work-life balance or for my liver and waistline, but it’s an important part of how I learned my job and industry and why I am good at it today. This time didn’t go on my time sheet, and yet it boosts my subjectively measured productivity today.

I don’t want to complain about today’s crop of young people, who are just as intelligent as my generation (perhaps more since they’ve been exposed to less lead and air pollution) and seem to have better health habits overall. But the combination of working from home, less informal interaction with mentors, and job hopping means it is much harder for them to learn to do jobs really well. In decade, they will be the ones doing most of the work and trying to train the generation under them, and again we will just get a gradually shifting baseline of lower expectations and worse outcomes, even if we may not be measuring that effectively in dollars.

Edward de Bono and creativity

Leave a reply

Edward de Bono is a popular author on the subject of creative and original thinking. This long article is highly critical of him, suggesting that his ideas on creativity and originality are not all that creative or original. It never actually says his ideas are bad, just that he derived bits and pieces of them from the scientific literature without giving credit to the people who actually thought them up.

In the course of criticizing him, the article does a good job of summarizing his ideas.

The Use of Lateral Thinking is a short book with a long reach. Providing no more than a few slight examples of how lateral thinking might work in practice – largely on the perception of shape and function in geometric forms – it proposed four vague principles for problem-solving and creativity: the recognition of dominant polarising ideas; the search for different ways of looking at things; a relaxation of the rigid control of vertical thinking; and the use of chance.

Aeon

It sounds like decent advice to me. First, you need to learn the rules (i.e., traditional way of thinking about or doing something) before you earn the right to break them. Otherwise you run the risk of reinventing the wheel or coming up with something at odds with indisputable evidence or logic you just weren’t familiar with. Now, you have earned the right to look at the issue from a variety of angles and talk to people across disciplines that might not usually talk to each other. Finally, exposing yourself to a wide variety of information and experiences, and taking time to reflect on them alone and with others, will open your mind to new connections and possibilities.

The article goes on to survey the literature on the subject of creative thinking, which de Bono may have partially drawn on. This includes:

  • a variety of eccentric and famous figures who seem to have been good at letting their minds wander and coming up with interesting things
  • Henri Poncare’s idea of training the mind on a problem, then lettin insights slowly build while we are doing unrelated mindless tasks
  • the Einstellung effect, where people fail to solve a problem because it resembles another problem they know how to solve, but that solution doesn’t work (maybe this contradicts my idea of “learn the rules before you break them”? but I don’t know, maybe it just means that breaking out of the mold takes conscious effort)
  • Gestalt psychology’s idea of “productive thinking”, which emphasized looking at a problem from different angles
  • J.P. Guilford’s idea of “divergent thinking”, characterized by people with “the ability to produce a great number of ideas or problem solutions in a short period of time; to simultaneously propose a variety of approaches to a specific problem; to produce original ideas; and to organise the details of an idea in one’s head and carry it out.” (this sounds like brainstorming to me, other than organizing the ideas at the end, which is the logical next step after any productive brainstorming session)
  • and what do you know, brainstorming. The term was coined by Alex Osborn, who favored groups of 5-10 people thinking together on the same problem, sometimes aided by randomly selected words.
  • More recent research emphasizing the value of individuals brainstorming independently, then combining and organizing ideas through “the productive spark of debate, friction and constructive conflict”. You have to keep it friendly to be productive, in my personal experience.
  • Arthur Koestler, who apparently surveyed many of the topics above in the 1960s and also emphasized the creative role of humor.

So, I’ll attempt to synthesize all this and combine it unscientifically with my personal experiences.

  1. Define the problem you are trying to solve or the question you are trying to answer. Writing it down helps me. Then, “give yourself permission” to think about it gradually over a period of time. Also give yourself permission not to think about it – don’t force it.
  2. Do lots of reading, listening, and thinking, both related and unrelated, fiction and non-fiction. Garden, take walks in nature, listen to or make music, exercise, meditate, and even consider responsible, moderate use of recreational substances. (But consider the cautionary tale of Sherlock Holmes, who could only turn his creative brain off with music and cocaine – Arthur Conan Doyle must have been like that or known somebody like that.)
  3. Keep a notebook (or the electronic equivalent) handy to write down anything related that pops in your head. Review these notes occasionally.
  4. Keep going until you have lots and lots of ideas, then slowly let them gel in your mind. Then start organizing them in writing (or drawing, or whatever makes sense).
  5. Then consider discussing your ideas with other people who have ideas and like to discuss them peacefully. I find it hard to find people like this.

Now you might arrive at a creative idea or solution to a problem or two. It’s hard work and there are no guarantees which means it is not always a good match for billable hours, which could be why you don’t see more of it in the professional ranks. Put another way, your creativity idea will not necessarily make you rich, and it might even make somebody else rich, in which case you may have a case of the sour grapes. Good luck!

Isaac Asimov on Creativity

Leave a reply

In 1959, Isaac Asimov was briefly part of a panel tasked with “out-of-the-box” brainstorming about weapons technology. He very quickly recused himself from this, but before he left he wrote an essay advising the panel about the nature of creativity and creative people.

Who is creative?

A person willing to fly in the face of reason, authority, and common sense must be a person of considerable self-assurance. Since he occurs only rarely, he must seem eccentric (in at least that respect) to the rest of us.

Should creative people think alone or in groups?

My feeling is that as far as creativity is concerned, isolation is required. The creative person is, in any case, continually working at it. His mind is shuffling his information at all times, even when he is not conscious of it.

Okay, so creative people tend to think up ideas alone. But should they then get together to share those ideas, and if so, how?

the information may not only be of individual items A and B, but even of combinations such as A-B, which in themselves are not significant. However, if one person mentions the unusual combination of A-B and another the unusual combination A-C, it may well be that the combination A-B-C, which neither has thought of separately, may yield an answer.

I am no Isaac Asimov, but I’ll give my two cents on my own creative process. Step one is to take in a lot of information and ideas, in somewhat random combinations. For me, reading is the best way to do this, although other forms of media and more formal education can be helpful. This takes a lot of time, time that I certainly don’t have when working a 9 to 5 job and supporting a (wonderful) family. The job and family also tend to physically and mentally wear me out, and some of the bullies and unimaginative types I encounter on the job not only shut down my creativity but the creativity of everyone around me. Then there is the fact that, as Isaac mentions in his essay, whoever is paying you is unlikely to be sympathetic to the idea they are paying you to screw around.

Anyway, there have been a couple times in my life when I have had the time to just sit and think and screw around a little bit. So along with the steady inflow of information and ideas, there has to be some unstructured downtime, and that is when the creative ideas pop into my mind. Exercise, drugs and music may be helpful in moderation, although you could obviously overdo the drugs. Insights are unpredictable and fleeting, so it is critical to have a notebook or the electronic equivalent to capture them.

Step three is to take those brilliant snippets of ideas from the notebook and do the hard work of turning them into something, whether it is a book, a computer program, an artwork, or whatever. I find that this process is not all that creative. It is just work. But it is the critical step of taking your insights that last mile to a fully formed, coherent story that other human beings might gain something from.

free images and videos online

Leave a reply

Canva has a helpful article with links to a large number of sources of free visuals – photos, videos, even Infographics. There is more than just Google Images and Youtube out there. There is even more here than it seems like at first because as you drill down some of the links are to additional lists…of lists…of…you get the idea.

writing and thinking

Leave a reply

This 2012 article in The Atlantic talks about the connection between writing and thinking. I think it’s spot on – the exact reason I write this blog is because that is how I think things through (well, this hasn’t been the greatest sentence structure ever, now has it?)

Fifty years ago, elementary-school teachers taught the general rules of spelling and the structure of sentences. Later instruction focused on building solid paragraphs into full-blown essays. Some kids mastered it, but many did not. About 25 years ago, in an effort to enliven instruction and get more kids writing, schools of education began promoting a different approach. The popular thinking was that writing should be “caught, not taught,” explains Steven Graham, a professor of education instruction at Arizona State University. Roughly, it was supposed to work like this: Give students interesting creative-writing assignments; put that writing in a fun, social context in which kids share their work. Kids, the theory goes, will “catch” what they need in order to be successful writers. Formal lessons in grammar, sentence structure, and essay-writing took a back seat to creative expression.

The catch method works for some kids, to a point. “Research tells us some students catch quite a bit, but not everything,” Graham says. And some kids don’t catch much at all. Kids who come from poverty, who had weak early instruction, or who have learning difficulties, he explains, “can’t catch anywhere near what they need” to write an essay. For most of the 1990s, elementary- and middle-­school children kept journals in which they wrote personal narratives, poetry, and memoirs and engaged in “peer editing,” without much attention to formal composition. Middle- and high-school teachers were supposed to provide the expository- and persuasive-writing instruction…

Some writing experts caution that championing expository and analytic writing at the expense of creative expression is shortsighted. “The secret weapon of our economy is that we foster creativity,” says Kelly Gallagher, a high-school writing teacher who has written several books on adolescent literacy. And formulaic instruction will cause some students to tune out, cautions Lucy Calkins, a professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College. While she welcomes a bigger dose of expository writing in schools, she says lockstep instruction won’t accelerate learning. “Kids need to see their work reach other readers … They need to have choices in the questions they write about, and a way to find their voice.”

I had a lot of formal instruction in how to diagram a sentence in both English and Latin, and how to arrange an argument in a very structured way. I don’t always write that way now, but I am glad I had that because it was essentially instruction in thinking and communicating in a logical way. I had essentially no instruction in creative writing, and that is actually something I regret and would like to try in the future.

teaching creativity

Leave a reply

Here are some ideas on teaching kids to be creative. The main idea seems to be to focus on values rather than rules. The article talks about risk taking, but the way I would put this is, encourage them to think about the “why” of good behavior and let them figure out the “what” for themselves. I’m not sure I see the risk in that, other than the risk of not going with the crowd.

There are a few paragraphs on brainstorming research.

…there a few things that happen that make brainstorming groups less than the sum of their parts.

One is called production blocking, and it’s the basic idea that we can’t all talk at once. And as a result, some ideas and some students just don’t get heard. Two, there’s ego threat, where kids are nervous about looking stupid or foolish, so they hold back on their most original ideas. And then, three is conformity. One or two ideas get raised that are popular. Everyone wants to jump on the majority bandwagon, as opposed to bringing in some radical, different ways of thinking.

You put kids in separate rooms, what you get is all of the ideas on the table, and then you can bring the group together for what the group does best, which is the wisdom of crowds. The evaluating. The idea selecting. The figuring out which of these ideas really has potential to be, not only novel, but also useful.

Holmes

Leave a reply

Some people say your first Sherlock Holmes book should be The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. But I am really enjoying A Study in Scarlet, the very first novel where the characters are introduced. Watson is convalescing after a war injury in Afghanistan and decides to take on a roommate to save money. And that roommate turns out to be Sherlock Holmes. The descriptions of Watson discovering his personality are really fascinating. At this point he doesn’t know that Holmes is a detective, and is too polite to ask. I pulled this from Project Gutenberg, where you can download a public domain HTML or e-reader version:

He was not studying medicine. He had himself, in reply to a question, confirmed Stamford’s opinion upon that point. Neither did he appear to have pursued any course of reading which might fit him for a degree in science or any other recognized portal which would give him an entrance into the learned world. Yet his zeal for certain studies was remarkable, and within eccentric limits his knowledge was so extraordinarily ample and minute that his observations have fairly astounded me. Surely no man would work so hard or attain such precise information unless he had some definite end in view. Desultory readers are seldom remarkable for the exactness of their learning. No man burdens his mind with small matters unless he has some very good reason for doing so.

His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naivest way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.

“You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.”

“To forget it!”

“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

“But the Solar System!” I protested.

“What the deuce is it to me?” he interrupted impatiently; “you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”

I was on the point of asking him what that work might be, but something in his manner showed me that the question would be an unwelcome one. I pondered over our short conversation, however, and endeavoured to draw my deductions from it. He said that he would acquire no knowledge which did not bear upon his object. Therefore all the knowledge which he possessed was such as would be useful to him. I enumerated in my own mind all the various points upon which he had shown me that he was exceptionally well-informed. I even took a pencil and jotted them down. I could not help smiling at the document when I had completed it. It ran in this way—

SHERLOCK HOLMES—his limits.

  1. Knowledge of Literature.—Nil.
  2.              Philosophy.—Nil.
  3.              Astronomy.—Nil.
  4.              Politics.—Feeble.
  5.              Botany.—Variable.  Well up in belladonna,
                              opium, and poisons generally.
                              Knows nothing of practical gardening.
  6.              Geology.—Practical, but limited.
                               Tells at a glance different soils
                               from each other.  After walks has
                               shown me splashes upon his trousers,
                               and told me by their colour and
                               consistence in what part of London
                               he had received them.
  7.              Chemistry.—Profound.
  8.              Anatomy.—Accurate, but unsystematic.
  9.              Sensational Literature.—Immense.  He appears
                              to know every detail of every horror
                              perpetrated in the century.
  10. Plays the violin well.
  11. Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman.
  12. Has a good practical knowledge of British law.

When I had got so far in my list I threw it into the fire in despair. “If I can only find what the fellow is driving at by reconciling all these accomplishments, and discovering a calling which needs them all,” I said to myself, “I may as well give up the attempt at once.”

I see that I have alluded above to his powers upon the violin. These were very remarkable, but as eccentric as all his other accomplishments. That he could play pieces, and difficult pieces, I knew well, because at my request he has played me some of Mendelssohn’s Lieder, and other favourites. When left to himself, however, he would seldom produce any music or attempt any recognized air. Leaning back in his arm-chair of an evening, he would close his eyes and scrape carelessly at the fiddle which was thrown across his knee. Sometimes the chords were sonorous and melancholy. Occasionally they were fantastic and cheerful. Clearly they reflected the thoughts which possessed him, but whether the music aided those thoughts, or whether the playing was simply the result of a whim or fancy was more than I could determine. I might have rebelled against these exasperating solos had it not been that he usually terminated them by playing in quick succession a whole series of my favourite airs as a slight compensation for the trial upon my patience.

Fascinating, but not a model for the aspiring modern polymath I don’t think. Many smart, well-educated people assume that only certain pieces of knowledge are useful to them in their occupation and daily interests, then block out all the rest. The problem is, you don’t know up front what the useful knowledge is going to be, so you miss out on a lot of potentially useful information and all the rich connections between pieces of information that could inform your daily life. Holmes actually cast a very wide net for information, although he excluded certain subjects, and could call upon a rich library of interconnections and associations that others could not see, within seconds. He seemed to further curate this connection in his brain with music, drugs, and seemed to be somewhat manic. I find it fascinating how Watson describes him as being accomplished on the violin, but not always playing actual pieces of music but just kind of noodling around while thinking.

critical vs. creative thinking?

Leave a reply

This article suggests we need less critical thinking and more creative thinking. This may be true if we are interpreting the word “critical” the way it is often used in everyday speech, to mean oppositional, argumentative, closed minded, cynical. But I don’t think that is the intended meaning of critical thinking at all. Critical thinking is about using the powerful analytical tools of reason, logic, induction, provided by fields such as science, engineering, economics, even philosophy. You need analytical tools to decide which options are better than others for solving a given problem or achieving a given goal. But before you can apply the analytical tools, you need creativity to come up with a wide range of possible ways to achieve the desired outcome, ranging from dumb to brilliant. Then you use the analytical tools to separate the dumb from the brilliant. Without creativity, that needle-in-a-haystack brilliant idea will never be in the mix.

To solve tomorrow’s complex problems, we can’t be forcing today’s kids to make a false choice between creative and critical thinking. They have to learn how to combine both, every day. Einstein didn’t make that choice, he was an avid violinist and even credited music as inspiration for his theories. Sherlock Holmes was also an avid violinist. Only he wasn’t real, he was a fictional character, the product of a creative mind, who engaged in highly logical inductive reasoning, in lateral, non-traditional, and very creative ways. It takes some creativity to wrap your head around that one.