Comments for Creativity & Innovation

Comment on Finland’s Innovation Economy by keithsawyer

keithsawyer — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:25:41 +0000

Thank you for providing the link to that report, which I’ve just read and I highly recommend for its broad international comparisons. Their three conclusions:

1. Recruit high quality teachers

2. Develop teachers into effective instructors

3. Implement targeted systems and support to ensure that all children are benefiting from this instruction

Their report presents data supporting the claim that the quality of teachers predicts FAR more variance in student outcomes than any other variable, including class size, decentralized vs. centralized schools, etc.

I don’t know about the Finland style of teaching, unfortunately…my visit wasn’t long enough!

Comment on Finland’s Innovation Economy by rebeccarapple

rebeccarapple — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:43:46 +0000

Thanks for sharing this! I would be interested to find out how rigid the classroom styles are in Finland — do they “teach to a test”? I am congruently curious about Finland’s students performance with imagination & innovation.

Here is a great piece from McKinsey that, more or less, states that the level of competition to become a teacher, the social status of the teaching profession and the (closely correlated) quality of the teachers are, by far, the single greatest factor for the success (or failure) of education systems in a country. http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Reports/SSO/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf

Rebecca

Comment on The Myth of the Mentally Ill Creative by keithsawyer

keithsawyer — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:52:30 +0000

Yes, some very creative people have used drugs. And some very creative people have displayed mental illness. And some very short people are creative, too. But to see if there’s a connection, you’d have to show (1) that when comparing all drug users to all non drug users, a higher percentage of the drug users are creative, and a lower percentage of the non-drug users are; and then if that’s true, (2) show that the causal relationship goes from drug use to increased creativity, rather than the other way (being creative makes you use drugs) or due to some third factor (just for demonstration’s sake, let’s say the third factor is living in a larger urban area–which could cause both more propensity to drug use and more participation in the arts).

That kind of large-scale statistical study doesn’t capture individual differences, your proposal that some people might be made more creative by drug use whereas others might not. I agree it’s complex.

Comment on The Myth of the Mentally Ill Creative by David Marquardt

David Marquardt — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:30 +0000

I am not encouraging drug use. In my profession (software engineering) like many people, my drug of choice is caffeine. But, in some other less technical effort I could easily see myself having a glass or two of wine to relax and help ignore some of the other problems of the day. And, this could help get my creative juices going. So, who are we to say that some people can’t be helped with their creativity with some type of drug.

I find that pot makes me slightly paranoid. I guess if I was going to start writing some suspense novel I might dabble with some pot.

But, your argument that lots of great artists never used drugs doesn’t mean that no great artist never used drugs. If someone doesn’t have ADD and they take an ADD med they probably will not receive any benefit. If an artist’s brain chemistry is not allowing him to be creative because that’s the way his brain was made, then altering that chemistry with a drug may, or may not get him some better results.

But, again, we’re talking about a complex issue. Define “creative”. It doesn’t have to be necessarily “good” or “popular” but it’s usually different or new.

Comment on Superstar Extinction by Sean Monahan

Sean Monahan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:20:56 +0000

I’m guessing that a large part of that synergy, too, is attributable to the “superstar” (with his/her vast experience in collaboration) no longer bringing process expertise to help guide the group through idea generation. It would be interesting to know what percentage of those coauthors ended up going on to become superstars themselves in the wake of a superstar’s death.

Comment on Child’s Play by keithsawyer

keithsawyer — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:15:41 +0000

There’s a small tradition of research that explores how preschool teachers can help to make preschoolers’ play more involved and more effective. This goes back to the 1980s, at least. And it’s inspired by research showing that the amount and complexity of play is related to, for example, more rapid acquisition of literacy skills in first grade and beyond. But this new study is impressive in claiming to enable the play to go on for HOURS.

Comment on Child’s Play by Sean Monahan

Sean Monahan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:52:00 +0000

This is super interesting, and makes a ton of sense. I know that in teaching improvisation to young adults, I find that a big part of learning to “play” is learning to focus so that the playing makes sense and is more enjoyable. I imagine the extended play scenarios require an increased level of focus, and it’s a much more enjoyable way to practice the skill of focus than having a teacher berate you at your desk for not working hard/fast/quiet enough.

I know several people that came to improv as young adults having grown up with attention disorders, only to learn a level of focus through improv that they had never known before.

Comment on The Myth of the Mentally Ill Creative by keithsawyer

keithsawyer — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:15:42 +0000

And jazz musicians were smoking marijuana long before the 1960s.

In spite of the often-noted relationship between musicians and drugs, there’s no research evidence that drug usage is correlated with higher creativity. That could be in part because constructing a valid experimental study would be almost impossible. But also note there are lots of creative musicians who never touched drugs. (The European classical tradition is not associated with drugs: Bach, Stravinsky, Debussy, Chopin; nor are orchestra musicians or conductors; nor are bluegrass or polka musicians; nor are Indian sitar players, etc.)

Comment on The Myth of the Mentally Ill Creative by David Marquardt

David Marquardt — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:49:27 +0000

I agree partially with what you’ve expressed here but I think you must agree that pretty much any discussion that centers around the mind becomes quite complex.
I don’t know how far back it started but it was obvious what musicians were doing in the 60’s & 70’s with “mind altering” drugs. They felt they needed a boost to create new, fresh ideas for their art. And, if they did it right, it worked. Taking their brain on a temporary trip into insanity. For most of the artists they were then able to come back down enough to actually create and perform with this new found vision. (Although,in hindsight, a lot of it was just pure crap. )
Someone with a permanent mental illness may not have the advantage of coming back into reality so they can then apply their unique insights. But, then again, some do. I think especially bi-polar. Mental illness is a spectrum. Mild, moderate, severe. Dual-diagnosis…
I have told my son about him being creative. “Most people have to LEARN to the think outside the box…You ARE outside the box! Use that to your advantage.”

Comment on Superstar Extinction by Keith Sawyer

Keith Sawyer — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:29:55 +0000

I see what you mean. The methodology of this study is fairly broad-brush quantitative so hard to know for sure, but the way the authors interpret it is that ideas come from the superstar in interaction with his/her colleagues–not from the superstar’s genius per se. So that’s the second thing you said: that the synergy of the group is what dies (or at least, is reduced).