
Study Finds Spatial Skill Is Early Sign of Creativity - tokenadult
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/study-finds-early-signs-of-creativity-in-adults.html
======
tokenadult
To emphasize the positive here, and to link to some other information about
research on this topic, I invite readers to look at the freely downloadable
peer-reviewed research articles from the Study of Mathematically Precocious
Youth, which researches the issue of which early indicators of ability may be
predictive of different kinds of adult achievement. The study has been looking
at spatial ability tests as one of several kinds of ability tests for more
than a decade.

[https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/publications/david-
lubinski/](https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/publications/david-lubinski/)

[https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/publications/camilla-
benbow/](https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/publications/camilla-benbow/)

I know some of the study participants.

~~~
nborwankar
I am consistently disappointed that these sort of articles do not even mention
what can be done to develop spatial reasoning but focus on testing alone. The
challenge is to create a curriculum that systematically develops this mental
faculty. That would require a lot of creativity ;-).

~~~
bcbrown
You're assuming there's a causation there, not just a correlation.

------
darkmighty
A similar conclusion struck me when I was taking a linear algebra course in my
1st year. I had a _very_ smart friend, and sometimes I studied with him. He
usually studied a lot more than myself, and naturally fared a lot better (and
more consistently).

However there were some problems which were very unusual which I would look
at, think for just a few seconds, and have a delightful path to the solution
-- and often times, many. My friend, otoh, would usually look into the
question, think for quite some time, and move on to the more straightforward
ones, although with adequate time he would definitively solve it, and with
adequate study, he would get consistent, as he did. But at once I discovered
his whole process was fundamentally different. He found the solutions thinking
algebraically, not geometrically. This algebraic skills allowed him to plow
through most problems with speed, but when he needed to think creatively, to
have a geometric intuition on something, he was slowed down.

He is a wonderful programmer however, and I'm sure he is "algotihmically
creative".

For me this indicates that a lot of science lends itself a lot to have a
spatial intuition to be effectively creative. Einstein famously came up with
relativity through thought experiments, not algebraic reasoning of the laws of
nature. Planck however, with equal notoriety introduced the quanta as an
algebraic "trick", and Maxwell formulated an electromagnetic theory of light
by manipulating differential equations. Computer science and a fraction of
math, lend themselves to algebraic reasoning and I believe what drives those
is an algebraic type of creativity, in contrast to say physics, architecture
and mechanical engineering -- although I believe we need both types of
thinkers everywhere.

It's a funny Yin and Yang aspect of our minds!

~~~
rsmith05
Would you be able to elaborate on "algebraical vs geometrical" thinking?

I've noticed myself that there are two types of "math" that people tend to be
good at:

1) Algorithmic - Following a set of steps to achieve a particular result.
Algorithms, discrete math, "compsci" math, and procedural and OO programming.
Coders tend to be good at this kind.

2) "Abstract" \- "Pure Math", what I would label as the harder kind of math,
like calculating the intersection of planes, calculus, linear algebra, etc.
Pure math majors and theoretical computer science folks are good at this kind.

I have met folks that are good at 1 or 2, or both.

Forgive me for my poor use of terms, I'm one of those folks that is not
particularly great at math (mostly due to lack of practice) but I was always
curious if my observation was backed up with any "real" terms or if there has
been any research into this kind of thing. What you describe seems to be
relatively close to what I've observed myself.

~~~
bcbrown
I know that I personally am much stronger with algebraic math than geometrical
math. For me, that means that integrals, linear algebra, etc are something
that I'm strong at, but I'm poor at anything that requires spatial reasoning.

That's different from your two types. For example, take your "calculating the
intersection of planes." I would approach that by first writing the algebraic
equations that define the two planes, then trying to find the manipulation
that will let me solve for the intersection. Someone who is a geometric
thinker might start by plotting the two planes, and reasoning spatially.

So, that distinction is wholly separate from your algorithmic/abstract
distinction, and to me, is a distinction within the abstract realm.

~~~
darkmighty
Yea, this is a good illustration.

For example, for an intersection of two planes going through origin, the plane
equation coefficients are (a multiple of) the of the normal vector
coefficients. Now, the intersection vector must be perpendicular to both
planes normals, so if you take the cross product of the two vectors, you get
the intersection vector.

This in this case I would just look at it and instantly do a cross product of
the coefficients, whereas you would eventually do precisely the same, but
reasoning algebraically, perhaps just as fast.

In this case, thinking algebraically doesn't seem to yield the intimate
relationship with your object of study required for creativity, just because
of the geometric nature of it.

But this reasoning wouldn't be much use in -- for instance -- fiddling with
discrete mathematics, where you may get more intimate precisely by reasoning
algebraically!

------
birchtree
It's possible that any test of intelligence that the educational system isn't
measuring and working on is going to be a better predictor of various kinds of
success than those it is. There are a huge number of factors in success, and
it's possible that they are correlated more with each other than they are with
the managing to get good scores on those few traits that are tested and taught
for. (I don't know whether the original papers address this possibility; I'm
just going by the linked article.)

Which isn't to say that it's bad to take these things at face value and start
testing things like this as they're found to be relevant - it seems better to
test and teach more things than fewer.

On a tangent, I seem to remember a study found that Quake improves spatial
skills more than Tetris.

------
contingencies
_13-year-olds [...] particularly gifted [...] spatial relations skills, the
ability to visualize and manipulate two-and three-dimensional objects._

Hah! True story. As a 13 year old, I met my first girlfriend over a 28.8k
local BBS link and, other than occasionally meeting in person, we generally
proceeded to create raw Povray source files with constructive solid geometry
using plain text editors, and exchange the raytraced renderings. They weren't
super complex scenes, but they were complex enough when you remember that
rendering a single frame took half an hour!

PS. I often wonder if shoving kids in to boring boxy apartments (as is
presently happening the world over) is not depriving them of spatial
stimulation... a forest is infinitely more spatially complex than the built
environment.

------
mooze
If this is true, then schools are literally quashing creativity.

When I was in high school my maths teacher insisted on us using algebraic
methods to solve geometry problems. (I'm a visual-spatial thinker, go figure.)
The reasoning went: laying the steps out that way would guarantee 'process
points', even if you got the result wrong. Not possible with a geometric
approach. This was in preparation for the Chinese Gaokao, mind, so points were
a matter of life and death (or so it felt like).

------
neovive
This is just more evidence that our school system is heading in the wrong
direction. With so much emphasis on testing easily measurable subjects,
emphasis is moving away from hard to measure, such as creative thinking.

I've seen first hard how the results of standardized tests in elementary
schools force administrators to shift additional periods towards test prep
that would have otherwise been used for arts, music, free play, etc.

------
wslh
While I really like this kind of articles I don't like the search for single
or few causes of intelligence or creativity. Happily human beings and the
world in general is more complex and trying to absolutely follow what these
studies say is a bad idea.

~~~
wslh
People who downvote without adding a reply...

~~~
ihsw
That's because your comment is a logical fallacy -- a false dichotomy. You
claim that the article portrays a search for single or few causes of
intelligence/creativity, however the article doesn't argue that. The title --
"Study finds spatial skill is early sign of creativity" \-- doesn't indicate
that the _only_ early sign of creativity is _only_ measuring spatial skill,
but instead it claims that a study's results demonstrate that spatial skill is
_one_ early sign of creativity.

You also claim that it's a bad idea to 'absolutely follow' these studies (what
does it mean to absolutely follow a study?) but nobody is advocating that --
neither the article nor anybody commenting here.

Furthermore, complaining about downvotes is a surefire way to get more
downvotes. Such complaints add little to the conversation, and it implies that
you deserve to be upvoted regardless of the content of your post.

~~~
wslh
You argued like a robot. I am commenting in HN not writing a paper on logic
here. Look at the edges of what I said.

Strangely I never had this extreme feedback from the HN community in my
previous community participation. So, to me it seems that someone needs to go
to run in the park for a while.

~~~
ihsw
Please don't attack my methods of persuasion or pretend you know who I am,
there's nothing wrong with arguing like a robot and my park attendance is none
of your business.

Also, you didn't address my argument about how you're drawing conclusions that
are irrelevant to the news article, but instead you made personal attacks
against me. Stay classy.

------
Yourfags
What I find intriguing is that creativity really develops from giving it time
to develop. i.e. If I just tackle a problem as I know how to from my own point
of view, I'm probably going to do it as straight forwardly as possible,
anything that has a definite solution I'll answer first and I'll do that ad
nauseum (perhaps w/ research inbetween, but we're not talking creative
research, just more fact checking) until the problem is finished. On the other
hand, if you are willing to you can probably sit, think the problem over, and
let a solution develop. You might have to forget preconceived ideas that you
had, perhaps think in a new way, but it's possible. Either way you'll probably
get to a solution, but my real point is, creativity is as much a matter of
willingness as anything else, I mean you just can't turn off your thoughts,
you can really only direct them. ...I'll admit I havn't read the article, but
I'm always curious about these discussions of creativity, why is it an isssue?
How do you know someone isn't being creative? Because they don't take your
approach? How do you teach someone to be creative, show them how you would do
it? I think the only common denominator for creativity, is how much effort
you're willing to give it.

