Creative Thinkering

Resurrecting your natural creativity through inspiring techniques and practical examples.

by Michael Michalko

Ways to Kill Creativity

By Michael Michalko on August 4, 2011 in Creative Thinkering

Habits and behaviors that supress creativity in individuals Read More

Hmm, kind of strange formatting here.

Submitted by Kerri on August 7, 2011 - 8:30pm.

I love the concept of the article, but I think the semi-satirical way it's constructed is a little counterproductive. I mean, when trying to teach someone new habits you should aim for positive reinforcement when possible. Suggest better ways of doing things, rather than condemning the 'wrong' way to do something. (Assuming there is a right and wrong way, such as when instructing a child to spell a word correctly.) I think the better approach would be to say, "Do this, not that" rather than simply, "Don't do this." Then again, maybe the point is to challenge the reader to make that switch in their brains as they read... I don't know.

reply
quote

or your partner's creativity!

Submitted by LAURA MCGEE on August 7, 2011 - 8:47pm.

Okay. I usually go way out of my way to avoid making personal commentary that might reflect poorly on my Ex. . . BUT (yes, I used the but word) this sounds exactly like the list of complaints my Ex had about me! And yes, he killed my creativity . . . not a fatal blow as it turns out, more like a period of dormancy!

The good news is creativity has it's own will to survive and even as you hear these limiting beliefs I know that you know what I knew: "Oh, please!! . . .get me out of here!!"

Love your list!
Twirl!!

LeaveStrong

reply
quote

Balance

Submitted by Keith on August 8, 2011 - 7:09am.

Creativity is good..... to a degree, but there comes a point where ignoring previous failures and strategies is ignorant and self-limiting, not creative.

Can openers are designed the way they are because......THEY OPEN CANS. Looking to that as a base of your next can opener design isn't a stifling of creativity, it's acknowledging success and building from it.

A large majority of the revolutions of creativity (inventions, scientific achievement, etc) were based on a history of failed attempts, slightly differing from the final success. Ignoring those and wandering off on a random tangent of creativity usually equals more failure.

This article being published in a supposedly scientific journal is ridiculous.

reply
quote

It's not about OPENING CANS

Submitted by Michael Michalko on August 8, 2011 - 8:48am.

An enlightening experiment was done by gestalt psychologists with a group of dogs. The dogs were trained to approach something when shown a Awhite@ square and avoid it when shown a Agray@ square. When the dogs learned this, the experimenters switched to using a gray square and a black square. The dogs immediately shifted to approaching the object in response to the gray square (which had previously triggered avoidance), and avoiding the object when shown the black square (which had not been conditioned to anything). Presumably, rather than perceive the gray as an absolute stimulus, the dogs were responding to the deeper essence of "lighter versus darker" as opposed to gray, white or black as being properties.

You can train a human to approach something when shown a Awhite@ square and avoid it when shown a "gray" square. When the squares are switched to gray and black, the human will still avoid the “gray” square. Once gray has been defined in our minds, we see the gray as independent and entirely self-contained. This means nothing can interact with it or exert an influence on it. It, in fact, becomes an absolute.

This is why the can opener is an absolute to you, and why you cannot conceive of anything different and novel. You are an example of how we have lost the sensitivity to deeper relationships, functions and patterns because you were educated to focus on the particulars of experience as opposed to the universals. You see them as independent parts of an objective reality. For example, if you were asked to improve the can opener, I have no doubt you would undoubtedly study can openers and then mimic some minor variation on what already was invented by someone else.

Creative thinking requires the ability to generate a host of associations and connections between two or more dissimilar subjects creating new categories and concepts. If you asked Thomas Edison to improve the can opener, he would first ponder the function of an opener, the essence of an opener and would think about the essence of “opening,” and “how do things open.” He would search for metaphorical and analogical connections everywhere. He would contemplate how doors open, how relationships open, how pea pods open, how car windows open and so on and on. A pea pod opens when it ripens and the seam weakens. Edison would make a metaphorical-analogical connection and invent something like a producing a can with a weak seam. You open it by pulling the seam.

This is the kind of idea you cannot get using your conventional thinking patterns. You are an example of someone who has been educated to process information based upon what has happened in the past, what past thinkers thought and what exists now. Once you think you know how to get the answer based on what you have been taught you stop thinking. The Spanish word for answer is "respuesta," and it has the same etymological root as "responso"(responsatory), the song people sing to the dead. It’s to say: to what has no life, anymore. In other words, when you think you know the answers based on what has happened in the past, your thinking dies. As you demonstrated in your diatribe.

reply
quote

Agree and disagree

Submitted by Keith on August 8, 2011 - 10:08am.

I suppose we should differentiate the purpose of the creativity because our difference seems to stem in that area.

Creativity for the point of simply being creative (art, music, writing, etc) is awesome. Creativity directed at functional achievement needs to have a basis in prior successes and failures in order to accomplish it's objective.

Rube Goldberg would have been a better inventor to highlight your perspective, rather than Edison. Goldberg's creations were amazingly imaginative and, no doubt, functional. I doubt anyone would argue that they were improvements on devices they were meant to replicate. "Novel", as you so aptly put it, was Goldberg's specialty.

Edison WAS creative, but not the abstract way you like to imagine. He improved upon existing ideas based on evidence of what did, and did not, work, as well as many of his own experiments. He was the true face of scientific experimentation of creative process while respecting prior achievements.

Which brings me back to my original statement about balance. If the goal is progress and functionality, then shirking proven results in favor of abstract creativity is nonsense.

If you are striving for creativity in and of itself, the parameters are much less stringently defined.

reply
quote

For creativity, these are answers.

Submitted by Tanner Christensen on August 8, 2011 - 1:19pm.

Michael, I've been a fan of your writing and foray into creative thinking for some years now, it's great to see this type of content online from you.

These are undoubtedly great tips for creative thinking, and I think that's what many of the commentators(and some readers) are forgetting. When it comes to having ideas you have to focus on coming up with ideas, nothing else matters in that moment.

Looking back at past ideas, critiquing your ideas, etc. only matters after the fact. If you want to have ideas and be creative, focus on that. The ways listed here are perfect for anyone who is feeling creatively "stuck" or without inspiration. That's all there is to it.