

Dan Ariely Talks Creativity And Dishonesty  - hobbyistbee
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=dan-ariely-talks-creativity-and-dis-12-12-29

======
neumann_alfred
_What kind of people would be able to rationalize better than other people?
Better storytellers, right?_

Just read any essay by Orwell about writing, and you'll know the answer is
"no, I think you meant to say _sloppy_ storytellers". For me creativity
requires focus, it requires reflection, it requires constantly evaluating not
just what you're doing, but why you're doing it. That is, if you want to be
more than just a hack and a poisonous distraction (which, granted, for some
actually is the definition of being creative.. but they're wrong IMO). And I
say this as someone who is usually a hack, 99% of the time. I wrote and forgot
so many crappy lyrics for example, but there's one or two I still feel proud
of after nearly 10 years. But those I didn't create by just being easy on
myself, but by focusing and working rather hard.

(or am I just rationalizing it? :P)

~~~
TeMPOraL
I don't think you're rationalizing. Creativity requires fuller understanding
of every little detail and interdependency of the thing you're creating. It
might be easier to deceive someone else, but not yourself, you just know too
much.

~~~
neumann_alfred
_It might be easier to deceive someone else, but not yourself, you just know
too much._

Ohh, you're right.. maybe I don't actually disagree with the "article" (it's
not really much, and I didn't read or listen to the whole thing yet) then..
because yes, exploring truth certainly makes it easier to lie as well. Being
able to be honest to yourself doesn't really translate into being so all the
time, and much less into being honest to others necessarily (though I like to
think it can help, too ^^).

If you dove around in certain swamp a lot, you can also much more easily walk
among some patches of grass on the surface, pretending there is no swamp to an
onlooker; precisely _because_ you spent some time in it.

But I still would like to think real mastery of anything worth mastering comes
out at a point where you prefer even mediocre truths to grand lies, so I don't
want to completely retract my first knee-jerk comment either :)

------
watt
Don't miss the link to full podcast (30 minutes) vs the short extract directly
on article.
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=cre...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=creativitys-
dark-side-dan-ariely-on-12-12-25)

------
AlexeiSadeski
Q: How do you know Ariely is talking dishonestly?

A: His lips are moving.

Oh, I must have misread the title ;)

