
Why Are Some People More Creative Than Others? - sukhadatkeereo
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-some-people-more-creative-than-others/
======
chillwaves
Some people are better athletes than others, but anyone who trains will be
better than someone who does not, regardless of any innate potential.

I see creativity along the same lines. Many folks are conditioned to memorize,
follow processes, follow norms and paths laid by others, it may not occur to
them to seek out originality. It is another form of learned helplessness.

Creating is hard, especially when judged in a commercial context. Sure, if I
make my own bread it will not win a prize but I made it, it is mine and
therefore special to me in ways that are not reflected by the market.

Too often emotional value is dictated by market value, with the logical
conclusion being "what's the point of making when I can buy something better"
\-- and you may respond, that is the correct view but it misunderstands that
creativity is a process, a worthy act in its own right but also a journey that
may end up in interesting places that are not explored by commercial venture.

~~~
Judgmentality
> but anyone who trains will be better than someone who does not, regardless
> of any innate potential

I disagree. The genetic lottery is unfair; and some people are just better
than you no matter what you do, and no matter what they don't do.

~~~
noahc
Do you really believe this?

Genetics help, sure. But it is just potential. Can you provide an example
where one person was so genetically talented that they didn’t train and still
were competitive at some semi-professional level?

~~~
mooseburger
Sure, Karsten Braasch seems like one such example:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_\(tennis\)#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters)

"Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998
Australian Open[51] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus
and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked
outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them
both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime
centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice
cold lager".[52][51] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne
Park,[53] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He
first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on
court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[54] Braasch
said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like
someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun".[55] Braasch said the big
difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put
spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted
their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[51]"

~~~
moufestaphio
Pretty bad example. Dude was a semi-retired PROFESSIONAL tennis player. Who
had been ranked as high as 38th in the world.

He obviously had a fuck ton of training, was just 'retired' when he played the
game.

~~~
mannykannot
Given the punishing training regimen the Williams sisters follow, it is good
evidence of biological limits on the boost training can give in tennis. I
doubt it has much relevance for creativity.

~~~
moufestaphio
I think it's pretty well accepted that Men better at physical activities
almost across the board. I don't think that's what the original point was
about though.

The original question was asking for an example of a "genetically talented
that they didn’t train" losing to someone who was a "pro" and this is clearly
not an example of it.

That said, I'm not trying to make the argument that there aren't 'genetic'
limits.

~~~
mannykannot
The original question, however, was a loaded one in the context it was asked,
in that the person asking the question was using it to dispute the claim that
individuals have biological limits that training cannot surmount. Even if this
answer does not fully satisfy the excessively stringent terms of the question,
it still works as a counterexample to the questioner's position.

~~~
noahc
Of course there are biological limits that training can’t surmount.

My point, more broadly, is that the idea that, “I can’t do that....genetics!”
is misplaced defeatism.

~~~
mannykannot
For a majority of aspiring athletes, it is probably better for them to accept
sooner rather than later that they cannot get to the first rank - and most of
them do. Unrealistic expectations in either direction do not help (though a
bias to optimism is probably a good thing.)

But, as I suggested earlier, I don't think the issue of athletic performance
has much to say about creativity, which is the topic of this article.
Indubitable's answer of Ramanujan is a much more relevant reply to your
question, but where does that leave us? His example does not give us a reason
to give up on creativity, which goes to show that the question doesn't address
the issue.

------
pmoriarty
As an artist and musician, I often encourage my friends to draw something,
paint something, or make some music. The reply I hear over and over again is,
"oh, no, I don't have the talent" or "oh, no, I'm awful at drawing". It's like
they don't realize that what they attribute to "talent" is attainable through
practice and hard work. When I point that out and encourage them to just try,
that it might be fun, they make some other excuse. I've come to understand
that what all their excuses amount to is that they're just not interested in
creating. They'd rather remain consumers.

You have to create in order to be creative. You have to practice creativity in
order to be good at it. You can't just read a book, go to a seminar, or wear
funny clothes and expect to suddenly be a "creative genius". It can take years
to master.[1]

On the other hand, most children don't have any problem being creative.
Somehow by the time we become adults we lose that, and then think we're
permanently incapable.

[1] - One of my favorite videos[2] shows the artistic progression of Jonathan
Hardesty. In his early work few would detect any hint of "talent", and yet
after nine years of hard work, his skill rises to a truly impressive level --
at which point, if one had only seen the end result, a lot of people would
call him "talented". But as you can see in the video, he was clearly not born
with this "talent". He earned it. That's what it takes.

[2] - [https://vimeo.com/29510470](https://vimeo.com/29510470)

~~~
johnfn
> I've come to understand that what all their excuses amount to is that
> they're just not interested in creating.

I don't think this is true. If they were uninterested, they would simply say
so, rather than making a series of excuses. What seems more likely to me is
that they are (on a deep level) scared of creating.

Creativity of any sort requires you to project your personality and be
vulnerable in a way that people don't normally do. This can be pretty scary
when most actions people do don't open themselves up to possibly being
criticized on such a personal level. I think when people aren't creative it's
not that they don't care, but rather that the fear of being judged (whether
conscious or unconscious) is too strong to overcome. This is why people "don't
have any creative ideas" \- it's not that they don't have ANY, but instead
that they reject the ideas that they do have because they think they are not
good enough.

This is also the basis of writers block.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" If they were uninterested, they would simply say so, rather than making a
series of excuses."_

I think they make those excuses because they don't want to cause offense by
saying they aren't interested in what I'm interested in (and even consider to
be part of my identity).

I do agree that fear could motivate their aversion, though. But if the fear is
there, I don't think it's usually rises to their consciousness or at least is
something they could readily admit -- as if it was, they could simply say
they're afraid, couldn't they?

~~~
randcraw
Or maybe people refuse to try what you suggest because they hate the results
of their past efforts. Many people cannot sing, and no amount of practice will
change that. Many others are grossly uncoordinated, and thus hate dance or
playing sports. If every attempt I make to draw with pencil and paper looks
sick to me, I'm going to stop drawing (which I have). But I'm happy to create
in other media.

Maybe the trick to being "creative" is finding a suitable medium for
innovation, which may not be one that's typically considered to be "art" \--
like software design, organizing your workshop, or building a better
mousetrap.

------
Swizec
Creativity is a weird resource. You don't consume it, you refill it by using
it.

The more creative things you do, the more creative you become. I see this a
lot in writing. When I'm on the wagon and writing every day, the ideas keep
coming and flowing and I start thinking "Maybe I should publish twice a day?
There's no way I can limit myself to just once"

But then I fall off the wagon and I publish/write once a week. It becomes a
struggle. Ideas don't flow. It feels like I have nothing to say. The less
writing I do, the fewer things feel interesting enough to write about. Ideas
get discarded.

Try it. Do something creative every day. Even just something small. Write down
an idea or a joke or a thought. Or write a 10 line piece of code that does
something silly.

Soon enough you won't be able to contain yourself and creativity will come
bursting out of you.

You might not write the next Harry Potter or come up with the next Homebrew,
but you're going to create something cool I bet.

------
Isamu
People have horrible notions about what it is to be "creative" that really
just serve to prevent them from attempting something.

Linus Pauling said that when he is asked how he comes up with so many great
ideas, he says he just comes up with a lot of ideas and then throws away the
bad ones.

People are discouraged when they sit down to a blank sheet of paper and their
first few efforts seem like crap.

The truth is that many "creative" people started younger, when their first
crappy efforts weren't so stinging.

You can start something new when you are older. But you have to tolerate your
errors, and you have to bother to identify your problems and fix them.

Also: you don't have to be Mozart to be creative. Garden-variety creativity is
pretty much available to most people who are willing to brave the slog and
self-embarrassment.

------
phyller
The article mentions alternate uses of a sock, citing its suggested use as a
"water filter" as being particularly creative. In high school I had a project
to make a water filter which I forgot about. The day it was due I managed to
assemble a plausible filter by taking my sock, getting it wet, and draping it
between the dirty water glass and the clean water glass, with the dirty water
glass higher so the water would be sucked up and through the sock into the
clean water glass.

Maybe there is a high correlation between creativity and irresponsibility or
desperation :)

As this is Hacker News and full of curious people, I can tell you that it
doesn't work very well. The dirty water just ends up on the other side, minus
large pieces of detritus.

~~~
randcraw
Frustration and dissatisfaction are famous sources of creative catalysis. Why
go to the trouble of creating unless there's a reward for expending the extra
effort?

Maybe the OP psychologists needed to motivate their subjects better. Maybe
exceeding a sufficient threshold of desire is essential in order for someone
to "get creative"?

------
ComputerGuru
I take issue with the basic premise. I don't think people are more creative
than others at all; rather I believe that people exercise/express their
creativity more than others. It's the difference between being dealt a card
and choosing it for yourself.

~~~
rankam
Do you believe that people are equal in regards to everything or just
creativity?

~~~
ComputerGuru
I'm not arguing that one way or the other, actually.\\* I'm saying that
differences in innate creativity, if any, are dwarfed by their expression or
lack thereof. i.e. the biggest factor is not what you have but how you use it.

This is from experience teaching people to "think outside the box" to write
better code, to create/describe better models of the real world, etc. starting
with people that you would swear didn't have a creative bone in their body and
watching them improve dramatically.

\\* (I know I kind of _did_ argue that, but since you're asking outright, this
is what I actually believe.)

------
tw1010
Is there a name for the fact that articles that start with "Why are ...?",
that promise to explain some curiosity, tend to almost never give a satisfying
answer? (Usually because it just reports on some small incremental research
paper that's still far away from shining a clear lucid light on the bigger
picture.)

Betteridge's law doesn't apply and clickbait is too broad.

Another part of the phenomenon seems to be that the comments here on HN is
rarely about the actual content of article itself, but about peoples personal
thoughts on the subject. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if an article
about incremental research about dreams would be titled "Why do we dream?",
would not contain a satisfying answer in the body of the report, and would on
HN mostly consist of peoples own experiences and thoughts about dreams
(instead of about the specifics of the research).

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I could think of a bunch of "names", but they're mostly insults.

"Over promise, under deliver" might fit, though...

------
candiodari
In AI you quickly see in the first chapters that there is a clear tradeoff on
creativity. When doing search algorithms (which is what all AI algorithms
fundamentally are), creativity is essentially breadth-first exploring of a
search space, and the opposite is depth first.

Neural networks, for instance, are extremely un-creative. They just go
straight for their goal, no deviating (the assumption being that any search
space is entirely flat if it just has enough dimensions, and clearly to some
extent that's true). They will leave very large swaths of the solution space
entirely unexplored. But when they work, you can find the method fast and it
will yield decent results. Being uncreative, ironically, makes them adapt very
quickly.

Genetic algorithms, on the other hand, are the most creative algorithms we
have, and of course they are famous for finding ridiculously optimized
results, but taking a very long time to do so. Genetic algorithm results are
always fun. Genetic algorithms always write a program. And while only simple
solutions can be understood by humans, but they're ridiculously optimized.
Every instruction does 5-10 different things that affect the end result and
somehow those results come together at exactly the right time to work.

People, and especially the HR/coaching industry, seem to deny this tradeoff,
but it's inevitable. If a person is creative, they'll be slow and unreliable
to produce results, but those results will be a lot better (assuming, of
course, there are any). A very uncreative person can produce results quickly
and reliably, but they're "bad", in a sense: one might say they're just
trivial re-hashes of solutions seen before.

But I wish I had a dollar for every time a high-level manager has come to me
with a variation of the following statement : "Ok, let's plan out how we can
creatively solve this problem". If a plan is made, of course, in the best case
it cuts down on the creativity, in the worst case prevents it entirely.

In my experience most people are entirely capable of being very creative or
almost robot-like predictable. It's the environment that forces one over the
other (although it may just be their perception of their environment rather
than the actual demands placed on them).

------
supreme_sublime
> Some ideas were more creative than others. For the sock, one participant
> suggested using it to warm your feet—the common use for a sock—while another
> participant suggested using it as a water filtration system.

> We also ranked their ideas for originality: Common uses received lower
> scores (using a sock to warm your feet), while uncommon uses received higher
> scores (using a sock as a water filtration system).

> Overall, people with stronger connections came up with better ideas.

The only objective measure used here is the originality rank. Just because an
idea is "original" doesn't mean it is "creative". At least not in a useful
way. What if I suggested using a sock to wash your car? Probably an "original"
idea. So maybe they ranked it as less creative, even though it is original?

Of course this is just a contrived example, but it seems to me like this is an
area that could introduce bias pretty easily.

~~~
randcraw
The article did suggest that a creative act had to be both novel and useful.
There are an infinite number of useless uses for a sock. Enumerating them is
not creative; it's random, like rolling a die.

Creativity requires _both_ imagination and judgement -- for each idea you
conceive, you must also judge its practical utility to serve some known
purpose. Or imagine some unknown purpose that it also might serve...

"In shoe world, all hats look just like shoes, but no one wears shoes on their
feet. As such, nobody ever invented a sock, nor can they imagine any use for
it. After all, why would you put a sock on your head?"

~~~
pbhjpbhj
There's clearly only a large finite number of possible uses for a sock - I'd
say if you can enumerate ones that others wouldn't even conceive then you're
being more creative. What would you call someone who can think of ways to use
something that no-one/few others can?

Unfurl the sock and make a "blind man trail" as a party game. Burn the
[cotton] sock and use as char-cloth. Cut up the sock and use as fuel in a tiny
model steam-engine.

The judgement comes in with craft, or engineering IMO and isn't a facet of
creativity _per se_. Like, burning the sock will create little heat and lots
of fumes, etc.; the idea needed creativity. What we mustn't assume is that
creation (of goods, craft items, products, whatever) requires _only_
creativity.

------
quantum_state
This is indeed an interesting conversation ... it seems to me that just like
everything else ... being creative is a habit ... the belief that there must
be a better way to do something unless proven otherwise seems to be the
ultimate source of creativity ...

------
byandyphillips
UX Designer here. It took me a long time, almost 4 years of college, to train
my creative muscle. Most people don't wake up one day and are instantly
creative, it takes hard work and dedication just like any other skill.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> Creativity is often defined as the ability to come up with new and useful
ideas. Like intelligence, it can be considered a trait that everyone—not just
creative “geniuses” like Picasso and Steve Jobs—possesses in some capacity.

Well, if you stretch the definition of "creative genius" to include a master
of several artistic disciplines who created or popularised entire art
movements and influenced artists the world over for more than a hundred years
with an entrepreneur who sold lots of electronic devices, then honestly, I
have no idea what your experiments are even meant to measure, anymore.

------
beagle3
Some studies find lefties are more creative, and some don't, see e.g. [0] for
some discussion. My anecdata is that three times in unconferences for which
creativity was a theme, 30%-50% of the people were lefty (compared to 10% in
the general population).

[0] [http://mentalfloss.com/article/84560/are-lefties-really-
more...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/84560/are-lefties-really-more-
creative)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Nature or nurture - lefties perhaps have to be exercise their creativity to
work around a right-hand biased world?

------
codeulike
"What's your favourite idea?"

"Mine is being creative."

[https://youtu.be/9C_HReR_McQ](https://youtu.be/9C_HReR_McQ)

Apologies, had to post that.

------
kingkawn
Some people get brutalized into relating to themselves through obedience to
preexisting forms, some don’t.

------
HwdSlle
probably freedom, and under freedom; then care and success start to be
consumed by the world, so focus and productivity goes insulted, things would
be simple as to fight then taken under to process the work values prisoner of
the values;

------
HwdSlle
probably freedom, and under freedom; then care and success start to be
consumed by the world, so focus and productivity goes insulted, things would
be simple as to fight then takes under to process the work values or so;

------
mbrumlow
This is something we as humans are going to have to deal with at one point or
another. While some people would have it that "we are all the same" \- the
fact is that we are not.

It tends to become a touchy subject when you suggest that brain functionality
differs between people but we seem to blindly accept that some people make
better athletes than others.

It is particularly hard because you can't simply look at somebody and make any
sort of judgement about ones mental abilities and there sometimes is no rhyme
or reason why one person is more creative, or smarter than the other.

For me, I am a strong believer that brain functions are much like those of our
physical counterparts. While the majority of people can all train the body up
to run 1, 5, or 10 miles or more some people will simply have to exert less
effort and be able to run further or faster than others. The same goes for
brain functions. We can all be "good" in math, science, reading excreta... But
only a subset of us will be experts in those subjects or even all of those
subjects.

I think there is a lot to be studied how how early brain development can push
the boundaries for the given set of hardware you are born with. But at some
point I think you are mostly locked into what you have.

This is a hard topic to even begin to study. Because while two people may be
able to preform the same mental functions we don't have a good way of judging
amount of effort, and prep time required. For example, somebody who is just
introduced to a new consept and can preformed the mental functions within
minutes of introduction vs somebody who can preform the same mental functions
but required 2 years of practice. The two people have very different cognitive
capabilities, and you could argue one is smarter than the other.

As for the notion that we are not all the same. Please don't take that as we
should be treating each other different based off skills. I think with regards
of us all being human we all deserve the same level of respect and opportunity
in life. My interest in this subject is based on the notion that we could have
happier lives if this sort of subject was less taboo and we could explore
making life decisions based off our actual aptitude. I would much rather work
with people, and do a job that I found "easier" every day than a job that I
could do that I found "hard". While that is a very black and white statement
that is not to mean that I don't want a challenge, but it does mean that I
don't want to constantly be struggling.

I see this in the world already. Where people take jobs they hate, because
their aptitude is simply low for that line of work. Where everything is
constantly a uphill battle. I can't help to wonder how much better their life
would be had they picked a different job where the work came more easy and
maybe even considered fun to them. I was lucky to find a job where there is
just enough hard stuff to keep me busy, but the bulk of the work I find easy.
I think a lot of people who found their way into software experience this.
Meanwhile I have friends who can't wait till the work day is over and
generally hate their job and complain about how hard it is.

So simply put, some people are more creative, or smart or any other attribute
because we are all different, and had different experiences during critical
brain development times in life. I think the expectation that everybody would
be the same -- or even have the same aptitude on any given mental exercise
would be weird -- unless we were all clones.

~~~
chillwaves
How many people train up to even a tenth of their physical capability?

Consider applying the same to creative effort. Yes, your absolute best effort
may beat my absolute best, but we live in a world where most people are not
even trying.

~~~
mbrumlow
Its tricky, but consider the function of "trying" just another brain function.
Many brain functions are required to achieve a outcome. So pure aptitude in
one area might require cooperation of another. So we might be able to group
different functions and map their dependencies.

You might end up with something like (effort * raw_aptitude) = actual_aptitude
for a given function, and there will be crossovers where where raw_aptitude is
less in one person but their effort is more. And again one could arguably
assign one being better than the other.

When we talk about these sorts of things there are not many "gotchas" because
you can't use one brain function to discount the other brain function as they
really work together. So I really don't feel like somebodies lack of effort
negates anything I said in the original post, as it is just another brain
function.

This does bring up a interesting crossover where mental faculties does play a
role in physical performance. There was a study that showed that "smart"
people made poor solders. The notion was that the smarter person was able to
think further in the future about how their actions, or orders may play out.
It was their ability to ponder the possibilities that ultimately caused them
to shut down. On the flip side somebody who did not think as far into the
future, or was not keen to pondering on future possibilities executed orders
without hesitation -- making them a better solder. I don't know if I agree
with this study, or their notion of smart, as "smart" can be subjective and is
not really well defined. But it is fun to think about and wonder how these
things do play a role in every day life.

------
WhitneyLand
Is one answer psychedelic substances? At a high level it seems consistent with
the article conjecture. I haven’t checked research recently, but there sure
are some compelling anecdotes.

It’s interesting to me some (based on comments here and elsewhere) many would
be opposed to personal experiments under professional medical care.

Even for a very skeptical person (as I would self identify), consider the
countless profound experiences recounted, even by people who might be
considered equally skeptical.

Either these experiences are valid, with respect to enabling some sort of
beneficial expansion of brain activity, or they are not.

If it is valid, how could such a rare and potentially transformative
opportunity be ignored? If it’s not valid, risks seem negligible under
professional supervision, and you still might experience a once in a lifetime
fantastic journey.

It’s so easy for us to grok what, say a blind from birth person can’t
experience through words alone, yet somehow difficult to imagine ourselves
having a similarly untapped perspective, through which difficult to imagine
insights might be possible.

Hopefully it won’t take too many years for the data to yield an answer. Maybe
Steve Jobs and others chose not to wait based on similar cost/benefit
analysis.

[https://patch.com/california/santacruz/can-psychedelic-
drugs...](https://patch.com/california/santacruz/can-psychedelic-drugs-
enhance-creativity)

~~~
WhitneyLand
Downvote with no comment? Love to have counterpoints, always regret not having
a chance to learn from them.

