November 6, 2007 by Cynthia Sifonis.

I am still looking over books to use as textbooks for my Creativity and Innovation course next semester. Right now I am reading through Weisberg’s book “Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Invention, and the Arts.” This book is a likely candidate for a required text for several reasons.

It does not assume any knowledge of psychology on the part of the reader.

The author takes a cognitive approach to creativity but also discusses other approaches to the study of creativity.

I agree with a lot the author has to say but also disagree with some of his beliefs and assumptions. I am hoping this disagreement will result in some good discussion fodder in the class.

One of the first topics addressed in his book is the definition of creativity.

The standard definition of creativity is that the product/process/idea needs to be both novel AND useful/appropriate. There is some debate of what it means for something to be novel. However, most concede that for something to be novel it has to be novel for either the individual generating the idea (”mundane” or “psychological” creativity) or it has to be novel with respect to all human history (”historical” creativity).

There is more debate about the second component; that the novel idea be useful or appropriate to the domain in which the creativity is occurring.

What this means is that a creative poem must be a poem. It must satisfy poetic constraints of meter, rhythm and metaphor.

A creative product must satisfy a need.

Those taking a problem solving approach to creativity might say that a creative solution to a problem must be both novel and solve the problem. “Solving the problem” is what determines whether a novel solution is useful or appropriate.

Weisberg, in defining creativity, only focuses on one definition. He focuses on Csikszentmihalyi’s definition that a creative product is both novel and has value.

How is value determined? By the gatekeepers of the discipline. A scientific theory or finding has value when it is published in a peer reviewed journal. A piece of music has value when it is performed publicly and people pay to hear the music. A painting has value when it is sold or displayed in a gallery.

At least this is Weisberg’s presentation of Csikszentmihalyi’s definition.

Weisberg has a problem with this view and I agree with him. Many novel works that were considered valuable at inception do not endure the test of time. Does that mean they were creative but became less creative with time? Other novel works were considered valueless at inception but became highly valued over time. Does this mean they also became more creative over time?

I doubt it and so does Weisberg. Though value is an important component of creativity, it shouldn’t define creativity. Perhaps value is what distinguishes creativity from innovation.

As much as I have problems with this definition of creativity, I have even more difficulty with Weisberg’s definition of creativity. He says that novelty alone makes something creative as long as that novelty was intentional (it can’t have occurred by accident). It doesn’t have to solve a problem, or be appropriate to the domain or be useful. It just has to be intentionally novel.

This suggests that failed attempts to solve a problem are just as creative as the novel solution to a problem. A grocery list could be a creative poem as long as someone says it is a poem.

Where Csikszentmihalyi’s definition might be too dependent on context, Weisberg’s definition is too inclusive. I feel that, at the very least, a creative product needs to be both novel and a member of the domain in question (it has to be a poem, a theory of evolution, a painting…).

Having said that, Weisberg brings up some good points in defense of his definition. He points out that Watson and Crick generated several incorrect solutions to the problem of the structure of DNA. For example, for a while they considered a triple-helix model of DNA. Weisberg’s definition states that this incorrect solution is just as creative as the correct solution (the double helix). He argues that the same creative cognitive processes produced the double helix solution as produced the triple helix solution. The fact that one solution was correct and the other incorrect does not alter the fact that the act of generating the solutions was a creative act.

I had to concede that point (even though I didn’t want to).

So how do I reconcile this point with the intuition that Weisberg’s definition is too inclusive?

Perhaps Weisberg intends to define creativity in terms of the processes that result in the creative product. The creative processes that generate incorrect solutions and failed attempts are the same creative processes that generate successes. Hence, if a novel idea is the result of a creative process then it must be creative.

However, the cognitive approach to creativity assumes that creativity results from normal cognitive processes operating on normal knowledge structures. Sometimes the result of the processes is something ordinary. At other times, the result is novel and creative.

Weisberg subscribes to the cognitive approach. Consequently, he must not be making the claim I think he is - that it is the use of special creative cognitive processes that determine whether or not the novel product is creative.

Frankly, I’m not sure how he would reconcile this issue.

I would reconcile this issue by suggesting that part of the creative process is rejecting unfit solutions or alternatives and persisting in working towards the “appropriate” or “useful” solution to a problem. Consequently, a novel but incorrect solution is not creative. Creativity is achieved by continued work towards a goal until the product is both novel and appropriate or useful.

The degree of creativity of the product is related to the degree to which the creator tweaks the creation until it satisfies both criteria of creativity: novelty and usefulness.

Posted in Creativity | 1 Comment »

October 30, 2007 by Cynthia Sifonis.

I ran across this great commercial for EDS that draws an analogy between the services offered by EDS and cat herding.

Where is the analogy? At the very end when the announcer says “In a sense, this is what we do. We bring together information, ideas and technologies and make them go where you want.“

This is an excellent example of how analogy can be used to communicate about innovation. One of the problems with trying to sell an innovation or even describe it to others is that, by definition, an innovation is new and people’s lack of knowledge of the innovation prevent them from fully understanding its benefits and function.

Analogy, by its very nature, uses the familiar to explain or make sense of the unfamiliar. This is why it is a common tool of educators.

By describing an innovation in terms of knowledge people already possess, it is possible to convey the essential characteristics of the innovation with a minimum of effort. This is done by tapping into the audience’s existing knowledge. This is absolutely essential for a company such as EDS that deals in intangibles…innovative intangibles at that. The customer is going to need a concrete concept to relate to in order to understand their services.

As EDS’s commercial demonstrates, a little bit of humor also helps.

Posted in Communication, Analogy, Creativity | No Comments »

September 29, 2007 by Cynthia Sifonis.

When I was a teaching assistant for my advisor (Dr. Thomas B. Ward), I had the pleasure of experiencing his Cognitive Psychology class lectures. One of my favorite lectures (not surprisingly) was his lecture on Creativity. In this lecture, he discussed three different approaches to the study of creativity: The “Classical” view, the “Romantic” view and the “Cognitive” view.

The “Classical” view assumes that creativity is a product of the divine or the unknowable. It results from inspiration; a flash of “brilliance” provided by God, or a Muse. Those taking this approach to creativity believe that the creator is merely a vessel or conduit for creativity. Consequently, they have little control over the timing or contents of the creative act.

The “Romantic” view assumes that creativity results from special cognitive processes or personality traits possessed by creative individuals. These traits include motivation, persistence in the face of obstacles, and the ability to engage in divergent thinking and/or form remote associations. Though all people possess these processes and traits to a certain degree, creative individuals possess them to a greater extent than “normal” individuals.

The “Cognitive” view of creativity assumes that creativity results from normal cognitive processes (e.g., memory retrieval, conceptual combination, analogy) operating on normal knowledge structures (e.g., concepts, schemas). In fact, the Cognitive view argues that creativity is essential for our ability to function effectively in our environment. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Creativity | No Comments »

August 14, 2007 by Cynthia Sifonis.

I read a piece in Psychology Today about the relationship between Genius and Madness. Because the magazine’s articles tend to be on the “fluffy” side of science, I expected the usual “suffering, struggle, and madness accompany the creative muse……” from them. I was pleasantly surprised to see the writer of this article did not take this approach.

The focus of the article turned out being that it takes more than talent and inspiration to create - it also takes a LOT of hard work. Specifically,

“As with mental disorders, there is something mysterious and unexplainable about the creative process. But all significant creative leaps have two very important components—talent and technique. By far the most universal and necessary aspect of technique is dogged persistence, which is anything but romantic.”

The author also pointed out what many psychologists studying the personality traits of eminently creative individuals have noted - that most eminently creative individuals are persistent, hard working, and do not let setbacks or failures deter them from their goals.

“Even acknowledged creative geniuses find that endurance must follow intuition. Einstein’s ideas were not worked out in a day. It takes a great deal of discipline, and often many bouts of trial and error, to work out an idea. Follow-through is critical to the realization of an idea. Discipline is not a hallmark of minds in the throes of emotional distress. “Despite the carefree air that many creative people effect,” says Csikszentmihalyi, “most of them work late into the night and persist when less driven individuals would not.”

In essence, the article points out that it takes more than “out-of-the-box” thinking to create. Once the idea has been generated, it takes a great deal of effort and persistence to turn that idea into a reality whether the end product is a work of art, a new product, or a revolutionary new way of doing business.

Click here to read the full Psychology Today article 

Posted in Creativity | 1 Comment »

August 8, 2007 by Cynthia Sifonis.

I have been reading “Creativity, Cognition, and Knowledge.” It is a cognitive science account of the relationship between (of course) creativity, cognition, and knowledge. Edited by Dartnall, the book contains a series of essays exploring the way knowledge and the representation of that knowledge can give rise to creative output.

In Dartnall’s introduction, he made a comment concerning “Emmy,” a program written by David Cope. Emmy takes as input several musical compositions from a single composer and, using a series of simple rules and transformations, creates novel musical pieces in the style of that composer. Reports from those who have heard these novel creations say the pieces created by Emmy are difficult to distinguish from those of the composer on which the pieces were based. In addition, they have been described as “soulful” and “delicately finessed and preternaturally beautiful.”

Dartnall questions whether Emmy, or any other computer program for that matter, can be considered to be “creative”.

When I hear things like this I always wonder why this is an issue.

If a person can not distinguish the creative output of a computer program from the creative output of a person, and if the output would be deemed “creative” if created by a person, then why is the same output created by a computer deemed “not creative”?

Why does the source of the idea matter?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Creativity | No Comments »