Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
People don’t like creativity
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    We are raised to appreciate the accomplishments of inventors and thinkers—creative people whose ideas have transformed our world. We celebrate the famously imaginative, the greatest artists and innovators. Viewing the world creatively is supposed to be an asset, even a virtue. We are taught that our own creativity will be celebrated as well, and that if we have good ideas, we will succeed.

    It’s all a lie. This is the thing about creativity that is rarely acknowledged: Most people don’t actually like it. Studies confirm what many creative people have suspected all along: People are biased against creative thinking, despite all of their insistence otherwise.

    “We think of creative people in a heroic manner, and we celebrate them, but the thing we celebrate is the after-effect,” says Barry Staw, a researcher at the University of California–Berkeley business school who specializes in creativity.

    Staw says most people are risk-averse. He refers to them as satisfiers. “As much as we celebrate independence in Western cultures, there is an awful lot of pressure to conform,” he says. Satisfiers avoid stirring things up, even if it means forsaking the truth or rejecting a good idea.

    Even people who say they are looking for creativity react negatively to creative ideas, as demonstrated in a 2011 study from the University of Pennsylvania. Uncertainty is an inherent part of new ideas, and it’s also something that most people would do almost anything to avoid. People’s partiality toward certainty biases them against creative ideas and can interfere with their ability to even recognize creative ideas.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/12/creativity_is_rejected_teachers_and_bosses_don_t_value_out_of_the_box_thinking.html

  • 30 Replies sorted by
  • endotoxicendotoxic

    Thanks, grate post. Its a topic worth investigating, as i see an advantage here.

  • johnnymossvillejohnnymossville

    I know for a fact my workplace fears creativity. They encourage and foster safety more than taking the risks involved with being creative and new. Stagnant safety rules the day, even in a place that is respected for it's "Creativity"

  • apefosapefos

    @endotoxic investigate it and use your creativity in product's box...

    this article explain why I am moving out from the bleeding edge and will live a mediocre life from now, work, eat, tv, sleep, work, eat, tv, sleep...

  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    While the article is basically true, there are certainly exceptions. Sony, for one...

    http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/9032/olympus-panasonic-nikon-fujifilm-sony-interviews#Item_4

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @Ralph_B

    LOL.

    I suggest to start from http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/8611/fear-and-trembling-/p1 for brief introduction to japan corporate culture.

  • RRRRRRRR

    So true this.. Not only creativity but also knowledge is feared, by many for the same reason: it´s unknown. (unless knowledge has a reaffirming function of something already established)

  • zigizigizigizigi

    The type of "creativity" I really hate is when some software developers rearrange user interface with every new version. These "creators" deserve to have some straitjacket sessions. Sometimes thinking in the box is good.

  • tetakpataktetakpatak

    Yep. OP+1 But it is nothing new. The evolution in thinking hasn't moved here any further since ages.

  • babypandababypanda

    interesting topic. it could be argued that the education system and the corporate world) stamps out most people's inherent latent undeveloped repressed creative potential.

    and politics and corruption stifles creativity as well. many creative people are stifled and their inventions get suppressed because it upsets the natural order.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    interesting topic. it could be argued that the education system and the corporate world) stamps out most people's inherent latent undeveloped repressed creative potential.

    It has nothing with education system or anything like this.

    But it is all to do with nature. As monkeys (who we are mostly) for thousands of years artificially selected best socializing species. And best socializing species are always not smart and not creative (in fact it is backed by simple fact that average brain size is dropping since such selection started). And all really creative had been always rejected.

  • babypandababypanda

    How exactly did you quote me? I don't see a quote button anywhere on this forum.

    Sorry, but this topic seems really complicated. First off, I don't agree that "we are mostly monkeys" if you're implying that we evolved from monkeys. Are you referring to Darwin here? Because I don't necessarily believe in the evolution theory.

    As for the rest of your quote, it's difficult to debate because I'm not quite sure what you mean or where you're getting your facts from. Not sure what "socializing species" means or how you can possibly know how monkeys have behaved for thousands of years. And again, since I don't believe we evolved from monkeys, even if the first part of the argument was correct, I wouldn't see a connection with humans.

    Brain size has been dropping? Possibly, but I would be curious to see a reference/study. Also, I would suspect that many factors may contribute to such a phenomenon.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    How exactly did you quote me? I don't see a quote button anywhere on this forum.

    Click Format Help :-)

    Sorry, but this topic seems really complicated. First off, I don't agree that "we are mostly monkeys" if you're implying that we evolved from monkeys. Are you referring to Darwin here? Because I don't necessarily believe in the evolution theory.

    You are free to not agree with anything, but it does not change reality. Also, I am very sad to inform you that evolution theory does not give a fuck if you believe in it or not. Theories are based on facts and logic. Not on believes.

    As for the rest of your quote, it's difficult to debate because I'm not quite sure what you mean or where you're getting your facts from. Not sure what "socializing species" means or how you can possibly know how monkeys have behaved for thousands of years. And again, since I don't believe we evolved from monkeys, even if the first part of the argument was correct, I wouldn't see a connection with humans.

    We know how monkeys behave now and we also know how people behave now. Add here vast knowledge about archeology, traditions of different people, etc. To be short - books and papers, papers and books. They help. Beliefs don't.

    I also think that you can made error with a place here. As we cherish science and logic here. As for god and religion - we don't give a fuck, it is your personal thing, if it makes you feel better as you think about that will happen to you in the future (yes, I mean worms and such) it is pretty fine.

    Brain size has been dropping? Possibly, but I would be curious to see a reference/study. Also, I would suspect that many factors may contribute to such a phenomenon.

    It is good known fact :-) Many factors can contribute, but point I told about is most popular theory.

  • spacewigspacewig

    Grabs popcorn, opens beer, puts feet up...

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @spacewig

    I'd like to see "opened book" as one and only item in this list.

  • spacewigspacewig

    I don't go to the theatre to read a book.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    I don't go to the theatre to read a book.

    Sorry, I forgot to add "stop taking heavy drugs", before books, yes, Sorry.

  • DancingCameraDancingCamera

    A different way of looking at it: the more risk-averse an environment, the more valuable creativity. It's lauded, even if mostly after-the-fact, because it is difficult and rare.

    We are programmed to desensitize to make sense of stimuli. I think about about trying to make sense of today's internet in 1990 when I was plucking about with text-only connection. Or a baby assaulted by color and shape and sound. Consistent re-appraisal of stimuli is against our nature, and yet I consider it a prime component of creativity. It's rare that people seek re-appraisal - in fact I think it's often shown when given the choice we generally sit tight and stay with the status quo, keep our place in the bread line - but if we can tolerate more uncertainty, and have the discipline to do so consistently, who knows?

    One thing about creativity - it's free. Time for holiday shopping!

  • kazuokazuo

    People fear creativity because it is an unknown force that can undermine power and structure. Creativity in itself is non threatening until it enters reality, where it has consequences. Creativity that seeks to liberate threatens existing strongholds and eventually supplants the status quo. It threatens those who have been empowered to govern. In Asia, we often speak of a certain "deference" to the master. Creativity is often viewed in relation to what has been accomplished, and the way forward is not to challenge or reinvent, but to build on and refine the master's craft.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    the more risk-averse an environment, the more valuable creativity. It's lauded, even if mostly after-the-fact, because it is difficult and rare.

    I want to remind again that all groups and society act as monkeys. Just more advanced. Thing that you call creativity can also be very dangerous for group survival in real life. So, in real life groups try to push out not only "creative" but they also try to push very dumb and asocial types. As both present danger to group existence.

  • RRRRRRRR

    You are of course correct in that creativity presents a risk and many creative ideas end up on the scrap heap of evolution. However it´s also deeply problematic that there is so little space for trial and error in this day and age. This (space for trial and error) is something that have been built into economies (in different ways) long before economy even became a term, but something that almost all parts of societies are working hard to avoid having in the name of profit, cutting costs e.t.c.

    For instance, it´s deeply problematic that an area such as fine art; where renewal (new knowledge) is an absolute condition for any meaningful existence> yet, through market and state influence, what is created / praised is more and more of the same, or baby steps in some direction. Above all, what is desired is some kind of confirmation of ideas in consensus of the art world over breaking ground for art itself.

  • babypandababypanda

    Format Help takes me to a Wikipedia page. WTF!? Too complicated!

    Vitaliy wrote: "Theories are based on facts and logic. Not on believes."

    But to suggest that theories are based on facts and logic and to accept them blindly is also in itself a "belief". Because many theories are inaccurate/flawed. Some theories may actually be created deliberately for malicious intent (ie to influence humanity's consciousness in a negative way or to hide people from the true nature of reality).

    I think the true nature of our origins is still a mystery. There was a science fiction movie that came out recently that suggests we were created by an alien race and they went out on an inter-galactic quest to search for their creators. That's as plausible as saying "we come from monkeys".

  • babypandababypanda

    "Thing that you call creativity can also be very dangerous for group survival in real life. "

    Sorry, I'm still not fulling getting the gist of your thesis here. Your point could be valid.... but I don't see how. Maybe LACK of creativity is dangerous for group survival. For instance, maybe if we don't find a more creative economic model, millions of people will continue to remain in poverty. Maybe if we don't find creative solutions to environmental issues and the consumption of fossil fuels, the earth will no longer sustain our lives.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    But to suggest that theories are based on facts and logic and to accept them blindly is also in itself a "belief". Because many theories are inaccurate/flawed. Some theories may actually be created deliberately for malicious intent.

    All true, and this is why I asked to think with your head and read papers and books.

    There was a science fiction movie that came out recently that suggests we were created by an alien race and they went out on an inter-galactic quest to search for their creators. That's as plausible as saying "we come from monkeys".

    And this is just huge logic flaw. As it can't be "as plausible" because thirst theory is backed by millions of facts and intergalactic creators idea is not backed by even one.

    For instance, it´s deeply problematic that an area such as fine art; where renewal (new knowledge) is an absolute condition for any meaningful existence> yet, through market and state influence, what is created / praised is more and more of the same, or baby steps in some direction. Above all, what is desired is some kind of confirmation of ideas in consensus of the art world over breaking ground for art itself.

    Are you sure that fine art is so important area? As just very short time ago artists were something like home slaves working for this owners and rich people with their strange requests. As economics were energy lacking they were rare things. Now it is just stream of shitty art as oil and other energy sources allow to exist to all this parasites who state that absolute shit they make is some new word.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Your point could be valid.... but I don't see how. Maybe LACK of creativity is dangerous for group survival.

    It is not. In real life (except last 200 years, due to available energy rise) progress had been very slow, and for a reason. Things were steady for thousands of years. So any "improvements" most of the time were just bullshit and unfounded risk.

    For instance, maybe if we don't find a more creative economic model, millions of people will continue to remain in poverty. Maybe if we don't find creative solutions to environmental issues and the consumption of fossil fuels, the earth will no longer sustain our lives.

    Can you tell me something about "creative economic model"? Btw, today billions of people are in poverty, not millions.

    Same for Earth. Just look around and check many "creative" solutions implemented in last years.

  • RRRRRRRR

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    It may or may not be important. More importantly, it represents a part of the foundation of western civilisation construct. You could argue the same about Philosophy f.i. Since a few centuries back very little has happened and both areas struggle to keep up with what is happening in reality.

    The point still stands: there is an overall regression in terms of liberties going on (creativity being one) and an increase in efficiencies which are designed to favor a select few.

Add a Comment