
Two is the magic number: a new science of creativity - da5e
http://www.slate.com/id/2267004/
======
powrtoch
I'm starting to really get tired of the pattern "make an assertion, offer one
anecdotal point to support it, plow on forward".

It reminds me of how they taught me to write English papers (high school and
non-major college). You can make whatever claims you want, as long as you
"back it up". You didn't have to actually think you were right, and you didn't
have to (although you _could_ ) address any counter-arguments. As long as you
could offer _some kind_ of support, however small and contrived, you were
justified and advocating whatever you wanted.

I feel like you can "support" any position you want if you've got the entirety
of human history to pull anecdotes from.

I'm not trying to reject the premise of the article, I find it interesting, I
just can't stand this style.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
I'm guessing people just don't appreciate the long-form "magazine journalism"
type articles anymore. They just want hard-won, Scientific-method backed
double-blind studies with tl;dr abstracts rather than meandering, possibly
inaccurate at points, theories of the human condition.

"I feel like you can 'support' any position you want if you've got the
entirety of human history to pull anecdotes from."

Well, that's the whole point of unscientific creativity: the license behind
the posit. Stripping it of it's theory, it's just "Lennon and McCartney may or
may not be equally culturally significant apart than the two together", but
how do you measure that in the modern day? How do you measure creativity even
if it supposedly is so unquantifiable on an objective basis as to almost
appear to be magic or, to some, just pure luck? In fact, is there even a
measure to what we consider "creativity"? Is Stallman + Steele creating emacs
in the 70s "creativity"? Is it duplicatable in a lab? Could Stallman have done
it alone and vice-versa? Tough questions that, unfortunately, will require
academic resources to conduct.

------
da5e
I liked the idea of mirror neurons. "The sensation of "mirror neurons" helped
further dissolve the distinction. About 10 years ago, a team of Italian
researchers showed that certain neurons that fire during actions by macaque
monkeys—when they pick up a peanut, for example—also fire when they watch
someone else pick up the peanut."

~~~
ktf
There have also been theories that link that to the enjoyment we get from
books, films, and other types of media. Sort of a "science of identification."
Interesting stuff.

------
da5e
In the Lennon/McCartny section the author talks a lot about an emotional
connection and even throws the word magic around, but I think he is neglecting
the fact that Lennon and McCartny recognized each other's outstanding
expertise and value to the band and to each other on a rational practical
level. They impressed each other on a skill level.

------
JoeAltmaier
Dense; meanders; does it have a succinct point? I missed it.

~~~
da5e
It might offer insight into the advantages of having a cofounder.

~~~
scott_s
And a collaborator in general.

