For Whom the Box Tolls and How to Think Outside of It
“Creativity is the power to connect the seemingly unconnected.” -William Plomer
We often start off a research or problem solving effort by beginning with the definitions. This is because if one can define the problem, frame it correctly, then one is well on the way toward a solution. In fact, a proper phrasing of the issue or definition can sometimes make the very answer simply “fall out of the air” as a matter of consequence. But what happens when the definition obscures a concept because it comes with pre-conceived assumptions that may be wrong? In that case, of course, the definition is an obstacle rather than a catalyst.
This is the unfortunate state of affairs for our understanding of creativity. There is no doubt that creativity is considered a virtue and increasingly given weight in our educational system. The conventional wisdom is that creativity is considered to be a spontaneous birth of an idea or concept. I argue in this essay that creativity is not something made from nothing but rather a synthesis of prior experience.
Odyssey of the Mind
My original exploration into creativity and how to increase it began with my kids’ involvement with Odyssey of the Mind (OoTM). OoTM is an international problem solving competition. The event consists of two parts: one long term problem and one spontaneous. The long term problem asks the team of up to 7 to prepare a skit revolving around a theme and in some cases a mechanical/engineering problem. The spontaneous problem requires the team to come up with solutions to a problem/situation presented on the spot which may be verbal, physical/hands-on, or a combination.
For example, one of the long term problems was to build the “Odd-a-Bot”. The 8 minute skit should be “a humorous story about a family that brings home an ‘Odd-a-Bot.’ Instead of being programmed to perform tasks, this Odd-a-Bot robot learns from watching others.” Hilarity ensues (or should). An example spontaneous problem is that a subject is provided and, going in order, each team member contributes the next sentence for an improvisational story. Another might provide toothpicks and clay in order to create a boom extended as far as possible from a table. I should note that all of the script, props, and acting are all done by students. It is a strict rule that adults guide but do not do any actual work. Only team members are present for the spontaneous competition.
My role was to assist one of our school’s teams in preparation for the spontaneous problem. In other words, I was the brainstorming coach. Like any good coach, I held practice, but it struck me as odd and counter-intuitive to do so. After all, how does one become creative by practicing? Why would repetition assist a process that is to invent something that is supposed to be brand new? Nevertheless, there was a progression. Not just in the kids either. Further, I realized there was a progression occurring over the course of my life.
Defining Creativity in a New Way
For kids new to OoTM the practice sessions, there was the initial move forward as the kids would begin to understand the mechanics of how to answer questions, the format of expected answers, and growth in confidence. The OoTM judging preferred double meanings, sarcasm, and irony in their answers (at least the verbal responses — ironic engineering projects are frowned upon).
Thinking about how my own mind developed and the experience with the OoTM teams has led me to believe that there is more than one piece to creative thinking. Some of this originated from my experience working on artificial neural networks: I have come to see the mind as (partially) a pattern recognition machine. It learns from experience. There are two parts of experience: knowledge and process. Knowledge is what is stored in memory. It can be learned first or second hand. Process refers to the accumulation of methods to combine and recombine already imbibed knowledge. By method, I refer to how we can think about or combine knowledge.
Utilizing a framework of theories to create understanding equips the mind with a means for connecting thoughts or ideas which may seem unrelated on the surface. Creativity is not spontaneous generation; instead it is about producing something new based on some set of experiences. It is the “Eureka!” moment when inspiration strikes. What is inspiration? We find inspiration and creativity when we can associate new experience (or perspective) with a prior framework. Psychology and artificial intelligence partially refer to this as associative memory. We have associated a new experience with a representation of an entirely different, prior experience(s).
Look at something new in an old way
My personal observations and my readings on learning have led me to conclude that there are three pieces to creativity: domain knowledge, methods of connection/association, and recall. A creative person brings together all three. All are required in varying degrees and, like nearly everything, can be developed in all people. Nevertheless it appears clear to me that such a skill set is a combination of innate and developed ability.
There is little creativity without a sufficient knowledge base. Consider how difficult it would be to decipher a vanity license plate such as AV8TOR without knowing the word aviation. Or, more generally, playing the game Boggle with a limited vocabulary. It is popular these days to ignore data or experience collection as being less important than other tasks that may appear to be more imagination oriented. Nevertheless, experience and knowledge form the base of potential for creativity. With more experience comes more potential connections.
By methods of connection and association, I refer to how we try to find causality in the world. Linear thinking is such a well known process that we hardly notice it, which is why it leads to behavioral biases. This is the world of direct causal relationships. For instance, let go of a ball and it falls to the ground. On the other hand, inversion is an underutilized method. By way of example, mathematical proofs often use inversion. Suppose the sum of the angles of a triangle were greater than 180 degrees… By showing that the opposite of a supposition cannot exist, one proves that the supposition must be true (so long as we are creative enough to come up with the appropriate opposite condition).
Armed with domain knowledge and methods of connection, then it becomes necessary to combine the two. We know that if we push something that it moves. We see a cutout in a wall. We wish to leave the room. Perhaps if we push the cutout in the wall, it will create an opening. The facts and the linear method of thinking were there; it became a question of appropriately linking the two. How many times has it been your experience that one moment, you cannot fathom how to solve a problem, only to be shown the solution and it then appears blindingly obvious?
If that is true, then an understanding of knowledge and experience is considerably more useful for creative thinking than merely a collection of facts. The understanding provides for more appropriate potential linkages and suggestions for how things might connect. Or maybe it makes the associations more visible by eliminating non-sensible alternatives. Along the same lines, constructing a framework for connecting facts is almost an inversion (but not an opposite) of creativity. In fact, undertaking a formal process to encourage the methods of associative memory probably increases creativity. Current science suggests that is exactly what is done during sleep. It is worth mentioning that this is what Farnam Street and people like Charlie Munger refer to as mental models.
It is clearly a requirement of creativity to have both a knowledge base and mental models. All is clearly for naught without good retrieval methods. This is most likely where brainstorm practice (as it was referred) came into play. By stimulating ongoing recall within the brain, it built new connections and kept old connections current.
How to Practice Creativity: The Liberal Arts Education
Taking all of the above together, then a successful program for encouraging creativity should therefore have the following five characteristics:
1) Increasing domain knowledge
2) Provide time and encouragement for trial and error
3) Teach methods of problem solving and thinking, e.g., inversion
4) Work on understanding / developing mental models
5) Post-mortem including analysis and suggesting alternatives
This should seem very familiar to purveyors of liberal arts education. It is, I believe, exactly what is meant by “learning how to think”. To increase domain knowledge for the purpose of creativity is not like studying a particular subject. For instance, to become proficient at biology one studies biology. On the other hand, one simply does not know what subject matter will end up being relevant for some future creative challenge or artistic pursuit. Think of Steve Jobs’s experience with calligraphy and how that later impacted the design of the Mac. It is necessary to study widely to prepare for imaginative thinking.
Taken holistically, the liberal arts education is dedicated to the development of the creative. That is, essentially, what one wants. Learn from the great minds that have come before us and have preserved their wisdom in books. Cover the big ideas of science and go into the details sometimes. In other words, be curious and have an eye for source quality. In the end, one gets all of the benefits of having the domain knowledge but the whole is more than the sum of its parts — the more inter-disciplinary work that is done promotes a brain-internal network effect. In this case, literally and metaphorically.
It is progress getting the wrong answers out of the way.
When brainstorming or, generally, actively thinking, encourage trial and error. Thomas Edison would be comfortable with this. After all, from all of the evidence that I have seen, invention is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that do not work,” -Thomas Edison. It’s not the Eureka moment that defines the process but the weeks or months of subconscious and conscious effort given to the problem. If that is so, and the evidence for it is overwhelming, then students should be prepared for being wrong eight times out of ten but feeling comfortable that progress is in getting the wrong answers out of the way.
At very few points in my education did I feel like a theory of problem solving was taught. High school geometry proofs might be one of them. For those that recall, and my memory is quite hazy, constructing proofs was not always a frontal assault. That is, one could not always prove a theorem in positive steps. Sometimes one needs to invert the problem. For instance, show how the opposite of the theorem could not possibly be true. If the opposite can’t be true, then the theorem must be true. I think there is much opportunity to develop formal-ish methods and institutionalizing the teaching of problem solving.
While domain knowledge is raw material, it is connecting knowledge that truly exercises the brain. Connections can occur at various levels but when one has a good understanding at different levels, then the possibilities for combination multiply and the potential for more accurate parallels increases proportionally. Consider a trivial example like considering the action of a filled balloon whose spout has just opened and subsequently flies away. With an understanding of the air flow and the idea of the jet propulsion that the air pressure within the balloon that causes it, therein lies the germ of inspiration for the creation of a rocket. Many times what is underneath the surface can be more interesting and fruitful than what is on the surface.
In fact, with just a collection of facts, one can end up in dangerous places. Consider Richard Feynman’s warning against cargo cult science. He relates that in the South Seas they wished for the airplanes to return with more cargo but they don’t have the necessary understanding to do so:
It is hard as a coach to have to be on the sidelines during a project. It is very tempting to want to participate as one gets good ideas for either answers or approaches. Great! Follow up after the participants are done with their exercise. Evaluate their performance. In the case of OotM, they are all timed exercises and can often make for flustered kids. There is no reason for limiting time during practice or, more importantly, that the exercise should end simply because time did. Use the clock, but afterwards provide for an analysis and then an elongated period of time for the students to find different approaches, different ideas, different flavors. Provide them with some yourself in order to teach all of the above. It may be that you can provide the students every aspect of the training (domain knowledge, connections, etc) from one problem. Don’t be afraid to demand, for example, three new ways of looking at the problem even if, at the moment, you can’t think of them either.
Conclusion
Creativity is a word and a concept that comes with a lot of pre-existing connotation that it is spontaneous; creativity is thought of as something that is making something out of nothing. This is not true. Creativity takes the raw material of knowledge and experience, along with mental constructs, to look at something new in an old way. It sounds funny to say it like that, but it is, in a sense, more accurate to describe it that way than to say “looking at something in a new way.” Of course, it is new to this experience, but it is applying a mental model that we have used for other experiences on this new one.
The power of being able to describe creativity and break it down into its component parts is that allows us to cultivate the skill of creativity. We can add to our body of knowledge by getting out in the world and by reading as much as possible. We can spend time thinking about our knowledge and reading as much as possible in order to expand our repertoire of mental models. And we can practice brainstorming to keep our recall as connected as possible.
