To see something that does not exist (and then create it) is surely out of touch with reality, and a form of psychosis.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw
I hate that quote. It makes "progress" seem inevitably adversarial, when in fact, most of the things that we see as "progress" in the world are evolutionary phenomena -- adaptive by nature.
I was once a fairly talented writer, but coding is less effort and on average better paying, so that's the path I chose. In the end I really don't see that big of a difference in the creative process. Granted, once you focus on a specific path for several years you change your relative strengths so it's easy to confuse innate talent with effort.
Well, there is: One that doesn't express your viewpoint well, for example. It depends on precisely what you are trying to accomplish in writing it, of course.
Mathematical proofs require a lot of creativivty, too. There are many different ways to prove a given theorem, and it takes quite a bit of imagination to come up with one.
I'd say the main difference is emotional. Being creative in the humanities requires a certain emotional madness, which can be especially debilitating. Scientists and mathematicians mostly just need to be obsessive, focused, and good at ferreting out hard to recognize patterns.
Mathematicians typically deal with abstract problems that have no direct relation to human feelings. Novelists, artists, and social scientists typically do the opposite.
My guess is that the average artists and writer is LESS creative then the average scientist. If for no other reason, then because the barrier to entry is much lower. Do you need anything besides attitude to be an artists? And science is hard and intensely creative work. And for that matter, so is engineering.
Don't you think that creating requires at least as much dedication as science ? After all, in art you never know that you're right, whereas in science you could verify it quite easily.
The creativity in science does not come from the verification stage, but from the stage where you figure out how to attack a problem and formulate theories.
The "end" of science isn't the verification stage either. If you're wrong, you use that to refine your theories and research strategy, using creativity, and continue testing.
You hear artists say things like "This work isn't done yet, something is missing", as if that's some kind of exceptional state for the artist, yet they never actually complete it. Do legitimate scientists say that? I wouldn't think so, since continuous refinement the default state of science.
I play a bit of music, I suck, but I do play, and I can absolutely tell you I KNOW when it's wrong. Not just out of tune but WRONG. And as the grand parent poster pointed out, the creativity in science isn't in the verification part.
Your statement makes some unsafe assumptions. Mental state has a strong effect on ability to reproduce and raise offspring. Cancer rarely has an onset early enough to be a factor in this and the traits aren't something that can be "sensed" by potential reproductive partners. Evolution is blind to debilitations that don't impact reproductive ability (this is the same reason our natural healthy lives aren't much longer, on average, than the time it takes for us to be successful grandparents).
Maybe in a few hundred years with a society that stagnated with the exception of a strong stigma being placed on reproduction with people pre-disposed to cancer you'd see a natural reduction in the traits.
Similarly, schizophrenia doesn't usually kick in until your early 20's for males, and early 30's for females, which leaves plenty of time for reproduction, especially in centuries past when we grew up faster.
I found this claim dubious as well. It incorrectly assumes that evolution will cull 'bad' traits and reward 'good' ones. Tell me, what is the evolutionary advantage of the appendix? Fingerprints? The number of human chromosomes?
All we know is that these traits are survivable which says nothing of any advantage or disadvantage they may confer. The author (of the article and this comment) needs to understand evolution better.
"Disposable Soma" theory of aging: in species subject to high levels of predation or death due to other random events, it may be more adaptive to pump energy into reproducing rather than fighting cancer and otherwise maintaining the body.
Now I have an important question.
How should I properly take myself to the brink of insanity in order to boost creativity and flexibility of thought? Something to think about ...
Haven't a whole lot of ideas been attributed to drugs over the years? It would seem like a effective starting point for insanity with the added benefit of reverting to your sane old self when it's over. Or so I'd assume, I've never done drugs (beyond caffeine, nicotine and alike).
Speaking of creativity - contact me to brainstorm a brand name, product name, slogan or even strategy to a certain extent. No fee charged - a HN special.
Microsoft cultivated a culture of paranoia, I suppose that was about stomping little startups, and executing a "reach and extend" on the ones they couldn't do anything about.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw