
Creativity Is Much More Than 10k Hours of Deliberate Practice - edtechdev
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/creativity-is-much-more-than-10-000-hours-of-deliberate-practice/
======
noahbradley
I think the study and practice of fundamental techniques is directly tied to
training your creative side. But they're also independent skills, in a sense.
I see far too many young artists who focus solely on technique, at the
detriment of their creativity. Classical atelier programs can train an
individual to create astonishingly life-like representations... but too often
lacking entirely in any sort of creativity.

On the flip side, a lot of art schools have focused so much on creativity that
they've lost their grounding in technique. So you get a lot of creatively
profound but technically incompetent graduates.

Neither are great options. But training technique and creativity together
seems like a good choice.

Only personal experience to share here, but I can comfortably say that as my
technical skills increased, so too did my creativity. I was always worried as
a kid that I wasn't "creative" enough to be a decent artist. But when I knew
_how_ to express ideas, for some reason I had an easier time coming up with
those ideas in the first place.

~~~
rangibaby
> But when I knew how to express ideas, for some reason I had an easier time
> coming up with those ideas in the first place.

That's the rub, being creative is not worth much if you don't have the
necessary skills and technique (practice practice practice!) to express
yourself.

~~~
duncanawoods
I think this is less true than you think especially after seeing documentaries
inside the world of many high-profile artists.

In many real-world cases, creativity is closer to direction and composition
than the nuts and bolts technique. This is especially true for works that grow
in scale beyond a single practitioner. Modern artists have studios and
contractors that actually do e.g. metal casting, modern musicians use
engineers/producers to create the actual beats, a film score writer probably
isn't a skilled trombonist etc.

IMHO creativity is about decision making - its closer to "taste" and doesn't
require skill to be a unique and special talent in itself. Its a bit like the
Jobs/Woz divide.

~~~
theoh
> IMHO creativity is about decision making - its closer to "taste" and doesn't
> require skill to be a unique and special talent in itself. Its a bit like
> the Jobs/Woz divide.

I think you're talking about something other than creativity. Architects are
not bricklayers, that's the subject of the allographic/autographic distinction
made by Nelson Goodman, but it really is orthogonal to creativity.

Creativity is generally understood to be about fluency, flexibility and
originality of ideas. (The Wikipedia page is pretty extensive.) Skill and
taste are different and certainly do each contribute to the value of works of
art, but not necessarily in a creative way.

Like the work of a prolific artist in a busy studio full of assistants,
cooking (for example) involves both skill and (literally) taste. Artists who
work like that are actually precluded from certain types of creativity, by
their own reputation and the expectations of their market, even if their work
is selling well. Much like a chef. I think that's the problem with your notion
of what creativity is. You are mistaking aesthetic productivity for
originality and the other things that mark actual creativity.

------
askRich
I think the author of the article is describing a false dichotomy. The purpose
of deliberate practice is to build the underlying knowledge that leads to the
creativity and also unlock the intuitive sense that comes from mastery.

~~~
anigbrowl
There's great creative power in not knowing what you don't know and trying out
random things because you have yet to acquire the knowledge of how things are
'supposed' to be done. Knowledge is valuable but at the same time I am so over
the mastery movement, which is as much about excluding people from the club by
making them think they're never ready enough as it is about giving them to
tools to succeed.

I started painting 3 months ago at age 45 while in the throes of a massive
personal crisis, out of a purely selfish need to express myself emotionally
rather than accommodate other people. Turns out that I'm good at it, have
original ideas, and am already getting unlooked-for interest from other people
in loaning or purchasing my artwork. It's not that I have some tremendous
natural talent; I work hard at it and when I can't paint I study, plus I had
years of self-development in other parts of the arts that allowed me to
develop my own aesthetic philosophy. But frankly the most valuable factor
underlying this unexpected productivity is an uncharacteristic Not Giving A
Shit about other peoples' feelings. Giving myself permission to be a less nice
person has been an _enormous_ boon to creativity.

~~~
gnaritas
> There's great creative power in not knowing what you don't know and trying
> out random things because you have yet to acquire the knowledge of how
> things are 'supposed' to be done.

That's something people who don't want to learn how things are done like to
say, but isn't really true and is most often simply an excuse to avoid having
to learn anything; it's commonly heard from amateur musicians for example in
an attempt to avoid learning anything labelled "theory". The reality is that
what you're likely to do without looking at what other people have done isn't
going to be very creative and is likely way way inside the box and simplistic.

You're not really breaking the rules if you don't know the rules you're
breaking; flailing around wildly in the dark isn't creative, it's just dumb
luck if you happen to do something new. People who are truly creative, know
exactly where the box is and ends and why they're breaking outside of it.

~~~
walod
I think that people who are creative have to know the history and repertoire
in order for their brain to make the new connections to make the new thing,
but I think that creative leap when your brain makes those new connections is
not something an artist controls directly. It comes from experience and being
"into something", and random accident from experimentation.

The artist doesn't necessarily know why something is new though, even if they
have a lot of experience, it's just a primal response they get to a new piece
of music they are working on for example, and then they can try to analyze it
after the fact. Most artists I know aren't as methodical as the way you seem
to describe, it's a lot more intuition and experimentation, and then because
of their vast listening experience their brains are adjusted so that they
aren't satisfied with existing stuff

~~~
gnaritas
I agree. I'm not saying they're methodical, I'm saying you have to know the
rules before you can forget the rules and let your real creativity come out.

------
hodwik2
I'm someone who fervently studied classical drawing, painting, and sculpture,
against the advice of my friends and professors (they told me to stop studying
so hard and to start an art career). The problem with over-practice is that
you can get caught in mindless habit. It ruined art for me.

It's become very difficult for me to draw pictures that are interesting (if
wrong) because I've trained so hard to draw them accurately. It's all by rote.

I've tried to fix it, to rewind. Now when I draw it's with my weak hand, and
that has gotten me drawing interesting (if wrong) pictures again.

Another technique I've tried is using cheap materials. I usually get more
interesting results from my 3 year olds acrylics than using professional oil
paints.

That said, the love of art never came back. That's why, to the extreme
confusion of my friends and family, I'm in tech now.

~~~
devishard
My karate teacher used to say: "Practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes
permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect."

It seems like if your goal is to draw correct and interesting faces, you
should figure out what in your imperfect weak hand drawings is interesting and
practice either keeping that while you perfect your weak hand, or introduce
that to your practice with your strong hand.

~~~
hodwik2
It's a lack of control, which produces the happy accident. Accuracy is the
problem to begin with. Either I'd learn to pretend to lack control, or I hope
my left hand doesn't gain control.

That said, again, I no longer enjoy it so it's a moot point.

------
madaxe_again
Good article, but straight from the big book of the very obvious.

Were this the case, children would have to spend months deliberately studying
how to play.

As the author says, deliberate study is antithetical to creativity. Creativity
is spontaneous, playful, imaginative - and none of those things come from
grinding.

I have my best ideas usually while doing something totally unrelated.

~~~
bsder
> Creativity is spontaneous, playful, imaginative - and none of those things
> come from grinding.

Research shows that people who simply _produce_ wind up producing _better_.
So, the research disagrees with you at least somewhat.

There is no creativity without production. Production, however, does not
guarantee creativity.

~~~
madaxe_again
That's output vs intent, however - you can be creative but not necessarily
create physical things. Most artists create nothing themselves - they leave
that to their artisans. Are they uncreative because they instruct rather than
construct?

~~~
inimino
> Most artists create nothing themselves

Sorry, who are you talking about?

~~~
madaxe_again
The vast majority of artists. You think Damien Hirst has picked up a brush in
20 years?

------
kris-s
I make a youtube video every day as part of a do-a-thing-for-100-days project.
I've learned a lot from it but one of the key takeaways was that I have much,
much more creative energy than I thought (I was really worried I would run out
of stories to tell at day 20 or something). The 12 points the author listed
seemed accurate but they never really reached a meaningful conclusion. My
advice for anyone considering undertaking a creative project: just do it.

My videos are here if you're curious:
[http://youtube.com/krisshamloo](http://youtube.com/krisshamloo)

~~~
bgilroy26
Thank you for sharing your videos, they are a lot of fun!

~~~
kris-s
Sure thing, happy to :)

------
criddell
> the techniques of deliberate practice are most applicable to "highly
> developed fields" such as chess, sports, and musical performance in which
> the rules of the domain are well established and passed on from generation
> to generation

Bummer. I was hoping to find some shortcuts to learning how to play the
guitar. I've had one for 20 years now and still can't play it.

~~~
msg
I started in 2000. I have a basic competence and can accompany myself and
compose pop songs, but I somewhat regret not having put in the time up front
in lessons and deliberate practice. I could have had 15 years of compound
interest.

That said, I do play every day, or mostly, for love of the game. Life's too
short to work or play without love.

~~~
criddell
> Life's too short to work or play without love.

Amen to that. My problem is that there are too many things that I do for love
of the game. I want to spend more time reading, and drawing, and painting, and
carving, and tinkering, and gaming, and gardening, and blacksmithing, and
cycling, and motorcycling, and writing, and paddleboarding, and traveling, and
catching up on TV, playing boardgames with my kids, going to movies with my
wife, and cooking, and skating, and lifting weights, and playing softball, and
walking my dog, and working on my house, and calligraphy, and on and on and
on...

~~~
msg
I had a year like that, 2014. I had four specific goals: write an album of
music, create a video game, write a novel, and continue my chronological
reread of Stephen King.

By the end of the year, I had written 60 pages and read one of the Stephen
King books.

In 2015 I doubled down on music, and recorded 10 songs.

------
chasing
I mean, yes: Creativity is much, much more than some over-simplified canard
presented in some Malcolm Gladwell book.

------
6stringmerc
Not sure why the author chooses to use music as some kind of arbitrary
reference point about how 'uncreative' it is due to having a rather large
canon of "technique" involved. The reason there aren't a lot of stories about
somebody just randomly picking up a guitar, tuning it to _whatever_ and
banging away something of creative beauty is because...well...the instrument
kind of doesn't allow it. I've basically run under the assumption of the
following:

"It really helps to know what rules you're breaking and why when doing
something new."

~~~
rangibaby
It's why Thelonious Monk is such a polarizing figure in jazz. He breaks every
rule in the book, yet it works because he knew exactly what he was doing.

------
magice
_sigh_ Yet-another-worshipper-of-god-given-creativity.

I lost all respect for the article the moment the author drew difference
between chess/music/sport and writing/drawing/teaching/"creativity". Frankly,
the way I read it, this is just another hero-worshipping article by
consultants whose main contribution to the economy involves destroying R&D and
shipping jobs oversea. And it truly saddens me that Hacker News keeps this on
my front page.

Why did the difference irk me?

First, find me, seriously, find me 2 basketball matches that are exactly the
same. Or 2 golf days that are exactly the same. Or 2 music performances that
are exactly the same. Or 2 chess matches that are exactly the same. It's
ridiculous to claim that somehow chess and music playing and sports are not
creative.

Second, if a person claims that somehow long period of deliberate practices do
not matter on engineering, my personal opinion is that all engineers should
spit at that person. Such insult! True, each engineering situation has
different challenges. However, the principles of engineering (applied
sciences, basically) are finite. Same things for writing or drawing. The
materials & techniques (even styles!) are finite. Creativity refers to the
adroitness of solving the infinite (problem space) with the finite (tools and
principles). Without an intimate understanding of the finite (tools and
principles), how can one bring it to bear on the infinite?

Third, most of new works are old. Let's take Shakespeare. His works are lovely
and creative, no? But consider this: most of his plots are derivative (similar
motifs, if not outright fully-formed plots, already existed and popular); most
of his language already formed. Shakespeare created at most 10% of his
language. He must gain expertise of the other 90% to show case these 10%.
Similarly, think of any art or design or product or whatever creative result.
Most of such art/design/whatever already follows some popular styles and
employs existing and popular techniques. Creativity is only the little extra.
Sure, the extra sets it apart. But without the expertise of the 90%, such
"extra" can't exist.

Finally, creativity is very inefficient without deep expertise. Many people
say things like "I am most creative when xyz" (popular xyz: in shower, on a
walk, relaxed, reading, etc.). However, this actually means is that people
come up with the 10% (see above) extra during this time. Since the person must
create the other 90% to top off the little newness, without expertise, 10%
will remain fantasy.

Now, I am not saying "expertise/practice is everything!" Expertise and
practice are foundation of the creativity house. Even when you have solid
foundation, you don't have a roof yet, and rain will still wet you. However,
without foundation, you simply can't build a house. Expertise and practice are
a requirement, but alone are probably not enough.

Parting words: people love stories of outsiders winning. However, why don't we
talk about outsiders losing? There are vastly more of those. Let's take a
simple field: web programming (1. it's appropriate here; 2. outsiders seem to
look down on it). You know who built Google? Graduate students from prestige
schools. You know who built Microsoft? Students with years of programming
experience. You know what outsiders build? The millions of badly written
websites, ready to be SQL injected or attacked by a already-patched bugs.
That's outsiders' works.

~~~
jezclaremurugan
Not saying you are entirely wrong, but maybe that article isn't totally off
either.

For ex. > You know who built Google? People who weren't working in Yahoo or
AltaVista.

> Who built Microsoft? Again outsiders out of the Unix or IBM world.

Further, while basketball matches are not same, the skill part -
shooting/dribbling/tackling etc. is definitely same.

I am not arguing against expertise though - I know how critical a proper
knowledge of algorithms and data structures is to programming.

What I am saying is that while expertise is important - creativity is
fundamentally different from expertise.

However you do need expertise to be creative, I have no dreams of making any
discoveries in quantum physics any time soon.

~~~
crpatino
> You know who built Google? People who weren't working in Yahoo or AltaVista.

It was not people trying random shit either. It was a pair of PhD students,
who were already experts in how information is indexed in libraries, and who
understood how citations work in academia, who applied this knowledge to the
novel domain of crawling the WWW.

If you look at the biographies of really creative people, you will see a
pattern emerging. Practically all the grand masters of the Reinassense
specialized in a single art, but dabbled with 2 or 3 more (i.e. Michel
Angelo's magna opus is the Sistine Chappel, but he was a master sculptor and a
moderately competent architect). Many fiction writers do start their careers
as journaists. Great hackers have a tendency to pick up hobbies that have
little or nothing to do with computers.

Maybe the problem with the 10-thousand hours is not that it kills creativity,
but that people gets obsessed about a single topic and do not try their hand
at enough different things for their creativity to flourish.

------
sbardle
One of the most damaging notions of creativity is that of the lone genius, as
portrayed and developed by the Romantics. To be creative you have to situate
yourself in a tradition (it could be furthering the tradition, or rebelling
against it).

------
axelfreeman
The difference is that kids have creativity and use all skills in a not
conforming way to express is. If you are grownup you think you have to e.g.
paint good in way X too be successful. Nobody have to master creativity but
the most people say famous artists are so much creative.

------
ori_b
The author seems to be conflating success with creativity. Of course the
things that catch on are stochastic, but this doesn't negate the need to
practice, nor does it imply that the chances of a creators work do not
increase with practice.

------
k__
I thought the 10k rule is about skill and not about creativity?

------
smegel
When you start with a strawman like that, where can you go?

~~~
startling
Well, where _can 't_ you go? :)

------
jimhefferon
Drawed?

~~~
garrettgrimsley
We're more familiar with _drew_ , but apparently _drawed_ is a thing. [0]

On another note: who claimed that 10,000 hours of practice leads to
creativity? The author says that

>This wealth of research on creativity contradicts the notion that deliberate
practice is the sole-- or even the most important-- aspect of creativity.

but this is the first time I've heard of anyone having this idea.

Later down the piece we see

>I have immense respect for Ericsson's body of work on deliberate practice,
and do believe that deliberate practice can help you get better in virtually
any skill. However, I also believe that an accurate understanding of
creativity is important for how we recognize, nurture, value, and ultimately,
reward it, across all sectors of society.

But again, it doesn't seem like the author is disagreeing with Ericsson. Am I
missing something, is there something in Ericsson's book that would make it
clear that Kaufman is not simply attacking a straw-man? Maybe it is from
Gladwell using creative people and groups as examples in _Outliers_?

[0]
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drawed](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drawed)

~~~
lomnakkus
Yeah, it's Gladwell's conflation, I think. (And the writer's conflation of
Gladwell's assertions with Ericsson's.)

If you're interested in this type of thing, I'd recommend ":59 Seconds" for a
somewhat more down-to-earth and research-based approach. Amongst many of the
more interesting findings is that just having actual physical plants around[1]
helps improve creativity and that brainstorming in groups (as opposed to
separately and then comparing results later) is counterproductive.

(Of course _that 's_ also provisional, so some of the research referenced
therein may have been refuted, so... Such is that Way of Science.)

[1] Interestingly, pictures of plants/nature don't work.

