One way to look at creative thinking, is as local-maxima vs global-maxima searches. Someone who's searching for a local maxima, very close to the current state of the world, will produce ideas and work that show steady and consistent improvements. At some point, these finding-local-maxima will hit diminishing returns, but at least the process is predictable and very likely to bear some fruit.<p>In contrast, attempting to jump far away from the current state, and finding a brand new global-maxima, is a much more risky endeavor. The first couple iterations may produce results that are even worse than the current state of the world. But in the long run, it avoids the problem of diminishing returns, and can lead to occasional breakthroughs that are vast improvements over the status quo.<p>It seems to me that creativity is basically about foregoing the easy and predictable local-maxima-search, in favor of a more adventurous global-maxima-search. The first few iterations of your bold new idea may sound kooky and klunky, but once it's been developed with sufficient rigor and polish, it has the chance to give a much bigger payoff. Someone who's too focused on the small details, and getting every detail ironed out before committing to something, may find such an endeavor far too uncertain to undertake, thus missing out on what could be the next big thing to change things up.
> To be creative, you need to recognize those barely formed thoughts [...] And if they seem important enough to be worth pursuing, you construct a creative cocoon around them<p>This seems really close to the standard creativity advice, to write down ideas before discarding them: <a href="https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2008/03/05/how-to-speed-up-highly-creative-tasks/" rel="nofollow">https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2008/03/05/how-to-speed-up-...</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/22/will-self-rules-for-writers" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/22/will-self-rule...</a>
This naive belief in rationality on her part is troubling. It reminds me the simplicity of XVIII century enlightenment thinkers. No wonder that Nielsen, being accustomed with how DNNs work. represents the opposite view.<p>"Rationality" is at best a filter of rule constraints applied to small part of solutions that reach consciousness in any solution-seeking process. As we know eg. from Lakoff and Johnson ('metaphors we live by' etc.) most of reasoning is actually done using our sensory faculties, mostly spatial, which barely guarantee any kind of correctness.<p>If you try to be rational and cling to concepts while trying to figure out an answer to difficult problem, you obstruct the process rather than help it. Hence the popular advice to 'forget about the problem' so that the mind can figure it out by itself. How on earth is it rational? Rationality is only applied when checking a solution, like checking a proof, which - as we know - is orders of magnitude less computationally complex than finding a proof.<p>The mind is all about 'what works' not 'what's correct', rationality is pretty modern invention and to honestly think that we're primarily rational is a delusion. Tversky and Kahneman's work is another obvious counterexample.
Derek Parfit's Persons and Reasons deals with this question a little more formally, resolving the tension with the concept of "rational irrationality"[0, p12]<p>I think what Nielsen is getting at here is the idea that a commitment to accuracy doesn't necessarily entail an unwillingness to be wrong. As in Weber's case, the wrongness of one's work doesn't necessarily imply it's unimportance.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.chadpearce.com/Home/BOOKS/161777473-Derek-Parfit-Reasons-and-Persons.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.chadpearce.com/Home/BOOKS/161777473-Derek-Parfit-...</a>
Great observation! In my experience, too, there's a tradeoff between creativity and precise thinking. Namely creative people often have some inherent randomness built into their brains, and precision comes later with more effort; while always-precise thinkers are usually not the most creative. In my teams, I try to balance the two.
I love this provocative title. For clarification, the author's argument is related to a person's ability to follow a path determined by intuition in the absence of proof. The examples given are of scientists who found ultimate success even though they initially only had a kernel of an idea, in contrast to someone who would have found success but at the onset had a clear vision of how they might get there. I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, and early in graduate school my cryptography professor gave a concrete example: Diffie and Hellman knew there should be some way to securely exchange a key long before publishing their now famous exchange protocol (I'm paraphrasing heavily what the professor said, but hopefully this illustrates the point).<p>The "tension between creativity and accuracy" came up in a slightly different context at a party this past weekend. I was discussing with some other recent grads the flawed method of peer review in research journals, especially as it relates to reproducing results of well known papers. The crux of the discussion was whether the progress of science has benefited from the lack of strict guidelines for reproducing results and whether some papers are still important because they described an interesting idea although were later found to be irreproducible or based on false data. I would say that definitely the field has progressed, although there is certainly an intrinsic (and expensive) cost in having papers that are irreproducible and scientists should certainly strive to make their results as easily reproducible as possible. In the absence of necessity, I'd go further to say that having easily reproducible research is so valuable that the contrary is simply not worth it.<p>Unrelated to "value of research", there is a notion of fairness that should be considered. If being flexible on accuracy is a "competitive advantage" of sorts in research, then it's important that this is made obvious. When the principle of accuracy is implied it becomes a hurdle to newcomers who would follow unnecessarily difficult path given they have no way of knowing a priori that being inaccurate (even slightly) is allowed, possible, or beneficial.
Another way of looking at it: effective creativity is the result of tension between a generative process and a filtering/selecting process.<p>You need both, but people vary widely in how much they emphasize on or the other: too much on the filtering side, you may end up a critic, but not an artist; too little on the filtering side, you may end up a crackpot; too much on the generative side, you may never get anything done; too little on the generative side, you may never come up with something worth working on.
I know the article is about science and solutions but the title reminded me more of creative writing and at least in my experience it requires far MORE creativity to be acccurate than not. It's easy to cut corners and just decide things happened because I wrote them that way. It takes far more creativity to actually write and make logical sense. Constraints seem to lead to more creativity. So, adding the constraint of "being accurate" would seem to also lead to more creativite solutions.
Gotta disagree on basically all counts. Mathematics is a very precise and yet creative game. And going back to Feynman, one of his most famous quotes is<p><i>The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.</i><p>So I don't get why he's using Feynman as an example here. Feynman was a very inventive and precise thinker. I think the post starts with a false dichotomy so whatever conclusions are drawn are resting on pretty shaky grounds.
I do not exactly get the arguments author present here. What the author sees as a tension is only for a moment -- the accuracy/truth prevails eventually even if a scientist fools himself into believing a wrong theory for
some time (and eventually deriving the correct result). Its like when people assume the opposite when trying to prove some theorem in mathematics (ex: assuming there is an intergral solution to fermats theorem.. so on)
This is well covered, though not directly, in the book "Art & Fear"[1]. The more creative ideas and iteration one performs, the more skilled and accurate the end result. Approaching problems from scratch and settling on one approach too early can result in a long and flawed project outcome. The tension is that more ideas are better than less, and when on a deadline can result in less attention to detail for a specific iteration. The paradox of our craft in the technical business setting, is that deadlines are typically imposed arbitrarily.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Art-Fear-Observations-Rewards-Artmaking/dp/0961454733/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Art-Fear-Observations-Rewards-Artmaki...</a>
Creativity is Intelligence having fun.<p>Accuracy is not so much fun, but computers do it well.<p>The computer should be accurate and the people be creative with them. That's the proper way to use tools.
This reminds me very much of the tension between conservatives and liberals, where the liberals are generally higher in openness (-> creativity) and the conservatives higher in conscientiousnes (-> accuracy).<p>Here's an interview with Jordan Peterson that discusses this: <a href="https://youtu.be/01Tln_6Bxk0?t=9m40s" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/01Tln_6Bxk0?t=9m40s</a><p>Sorry for pulling in the two-party system, I'm in it for the theory on openness vs. conscientiousness.