Creativity is a Burden. And Society Will Always Resist Change.

In a recent study (Creativity: Asset or Burden in the Classroom?), researchers looked at how personality traits associated with creativity were perceived by teachers.  In short, while teachers claimed to value creativity, they did not like students that exhibited characteristics associated with creativity.  Jonah Lehrer has a good discussion of the paper here: “Classroom Creativity.”

Here’s another article discussing the topic that came to me over an email list that I’m a part of: “Creativity: A Crime of Passion“.

Below is my response to the article (complete w/ politically incorrect language!), answering the question “is Creativity actually valued?”:

This is interesting.  And, as usual, I have some strong opinions on these things. Main points are highlighted.

I’ll first state my perspective:
I think it’s fair for me to claim that I’m a creative type since I do retarded/tight things like write books, do startups, keep a blog on abstract and esoteric topics, draw, and create free workspaces for creative, ambitious types.

First of all, the author isn’t really talking about just creativity. She’s talking about a bag of characteristics that she for some reason automagically appends to creativity.

Nonetheless, I think we understand the people she’s talking about. And although I don’t really like buzz words and don’t use them too often,in order to humor RWB, I’ll use a buzz word for creative types she’s talking about–”Creatives”.

The level to which we value and reward creativity depends on the context of course.

In art, music, and literature, we tend to be more receptive to new ideas, at least in contemporary culture.

In large institutions (including education), unproven Creatives are extremely disliked. They threaten the way things are done and people’s jobs.  It’s also annoying when someone says, “we should do it this way”.  It’s fucking hard to get things done as it is.

Proven Creatives are very highly regarded and extremely influential (Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell, Richard Branson, Picasso).

It’s obvious why teachers/authorities hate Creatives.  Creative people have their own ideas on how things should be done, and teachers don’t want to justify themselves or or have to herd sheep.  (Creatives have to act on their ideas or it drives them nuts.)

Consequently, Creatives hate big institutions and the education system overall.  It takes a lot of energy to budge them.  The exceptions are the few successful founders/entrepreneurs that maintain control of their companies.

Steve Jobs is the prime example of these things. He didn’t complete much of any college because it’s worthless to a Creative, did retarded/tight stuff like wander through India and become a Buddhist, founded Apple, got fired from Apple for being too much of a rogue, and later returned to Apple to completely change the company and disrupt entire industries.
I’ve met other entrepreneurs that share this same story (founder of MFG.com is one example, his company will likely IPO soon)

I think the way most educational institutions treat and react to creativity is unfortunate.  Unless you’re a talented artist of some sort at an early age, there are very few ways to fully realize and identify yourself as a Creative, [and until you discover this you feel as if you have some sort of disease].  If there was a better way to fulfill the self-discovery process for Creatives, the resistance would be fine….

The world resists and chastises new ideas.  I think this is a good thing. It’s a great filter. Everyone has ideas, but most ideas people have are actually terrible.  Good and bad comes with the creation process, no matter who you are.  Creativity is a skill that is honed with practice just like any art, craft, or profession.  Yes, a Creative has to learn how to cause a ruckus and sell their ideas.  And that’s fine, otherwise we’d end up in total anarchy if they didn’t have to do this.

My stance: Leave it to the professionals. The best ideas come from people that are experts in their domains and from a select few that are exceptionally skilled in the craft of creativity (which is more than just having an idea). And if institutions don’t innovate fast enough, we should recognize this and get rid of them, or let them fail.

[People are naturally resistant to change.  This will not change.  When it comes to large institutions, people protect their jobs and engage in the politics of not doing something that will be criticized instead of building real value.  Measurement is difficult in large institutions. Eventually big corporations come to state of gridlock unless they're exceptional.
Since the resistance to change will not change, we're better off having Creatives go off and do their own thing if they cannot achieve their means within an institution.  They take the knowledge and contacts with them, if they are capable, and start anew--without the heavy baggage of rebuilding a broken system and culture.] This of course is why government sucks: as a monopoly, it’s not very good at getting rid of itself.

What are your reactions?

And while I touch up on it here, who exactly are these ‘Creatives’? and what does this word really mean?  Next post.

-Kevin
4.15.2010