Tuesday, January 16, 2018
New study reveals why some people are more creative than others
theconversation.com: Creativity is often defined as the ability to come up with new and useful ideas. Like intelligence, it can be considered a trait that everyone – not just creative “geniuses” like Picasso and Steve Jobs – possesses in some capacity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Overall, I think this article to me was a little less exciting that I thought it would be. It revealed information new to me about the default, executive and salience network working together at the same time results in more creative people but the idea of stronger connections making someone more creative is not a new idea. When I started reading this article, I was expecting something new and exciting but this is an old concept that many psychology teachers teach. A major idea is more connections equal stronger connections equal better in that skill. One question raised by this article and more directly the study is how did the experimenters prevent Hawthorne effect? Hawthorne effect is when people perform differently when being watched. I wonder how the experimenters in this study made sure people weren’t just coming up with extra unique answers. The answer to this question, for me, would make the results of this study either much stronger or weaker.
Its interesting that a study on creativity was done in such a systematic, scientific way. I think the nature of this research exemplifies the different approaches and perspectives to the definition of creativity. We usually see creatives as the traditional artist, writer, or poet while non creatives are doctors, engineers, and lawyers. However, I feel like there is more cross over between these two sides than is traditionally believed as all occupations require both creativity and rationality. The methods taken in this research has a very nuanced thinking in terms of creativity as it measures high creativity not with how much of the default or executive control network is active at a given time but rather how much the two networks interact. This shows that creativity is purely "artsy" or purely "mathematical" but rather a combination of both. I also found it interesting that the researchers pose the question of whether or not the neuro pathways connected to creativity can be strengthened through practice.
This article is one of the most interesting articles I’ve read since I first started writing comments. Normally when I read articles about the brain and how neuroscientists perceive creativity within neurons, there is often mention of left and right brain function. However, this article focused on the strength of interactions within the brain as a whole unit. They also didn’t talk about gender when distinguishing their findings of who had more creativity. While it makes sense that those in creative professions would have more creative minds, I do wonder if a person is able to getting better at being creative overtime. It’s interesting to think that this studies findings were about three parts of the brain and the abnormal connection they have to one another when looking at a person’s creativity. The relationship present between the default network, executive control network, and the salience network is so cool and the fact that an MRI scan can display the strength within each of these network’s interactions is beyond cool.
What an interesting and unique read! This was a new way of looking at the sort of neuroscience of creativity that I have not seen before, and I especially enjoyed the the authors and researchers of this study took a more creative approach to looking at peoples' creativity-- they did not focus only on certain sections of the brain, but instead looked creativity of the whole mind. The part of the study that talks about use was especially interesting to me. I always find it so interesting to know what peoples' first impressions of objects, ideas, etc. are, and so showing people objects and asking them about the uses of those objects seemed like a cool way to gage someone's creativity. I remember doing an exercise similar to this in middle school in which we shouted out words that came to mind when looking at different photographed portraits of people from around the world. Not only did it give the class an idea of the symbols that each of us recognized, but it also showed the open-mindedness of the class. This study on creativity I think shows not only who is and is not creative, but also all the different types of creativity there are out there.
An intriguing article to say the least. The brain is always fascinating and I love learning about it especially when it involves interconnected paths. However, seeing how the brain works with creativity is different than I expected. Creativity always seems like magic because it can be so numbing as to how some people come up with different and weird ideas from a single thing. In terms of the brain, I would almost assume that creativity has something to do with two parts being connected but that is not the case. The brain paths all head in different directions to come up with these things as creativity seems to need much more from the brain than something like processing what you see. Creativity uses the brain, observation uses a part of the brain. The three different networks are also intriguing as the brain uses these three primary “networks” in being creative but what they are responsible for and how they correlate is what really makes up the idea. The article even explains that when being creative; the brain will utilize daydreaming and focus as two parts in the process which are completely opposite from each other but crucial in creation. I am just fathomed at the human brain and loved learning from this article.
Along with BinhAn, I agree this article’s scientific approach to measuring creativity a really interesting viewpoint. I have always been fascinated by the interactions that occur in our brain, and the sources of our strengths is a complete mystery to me. It is so important to remember that there isn’t only one specific source in the brain that breeds creativity. If we allow our minds to travel far enough, we can all reach a space of innovation. It is equally interesting to consider how our creativity manifests, whether it be in an art form, problem solving, or something else entirely. I found the actual procedure of their study to be as interesting as their results. The scoring systems for both originality and divergence from common use (creativity) were interesting because it allowed for all kinds of unique thinkers to be accounted for. It is interesting to consider whether or not the networks between the default network, executive control network, and salience network are able to be strengthened or developed altogether.
I really appreciate how the study defines creativity as not only being able to do something like draw a picture, paint, or other visual arts, but instead being able to think creatively about situations. Dynamic and creative thinkers are designers, problem-solvers, people who think outside the box. It is not exclusive to people who work in the arts, either. The article also gives “designing a science experiment” as an example of a creative action. I have had many friends who are not visual artists but are certainly creative thinkers. I believe that it is important for everyone to understand that creativity can manifest in many ways. Most young adults and adults today who do not do visual art would consider themselves not creative because of that. When you can identify yourself as a creative, you claim a power that may help you grow that creativity and use it to its fullest potential.
I really love how this article makes sense of things that often feel so inarticulable. The science behind creativity is not only something that I think is fascinating, but also something that I believe will one day be able to be used as support to fund educational programs that promote creativity. It would be interesting to see in a more long term study if people can improve their creative brain strengths, those connections that were mentioned in the article. I also wonder how creativity is linked to success, not necessarily financially, but problem solving, compassion, etc. I often think about "creative people" as people who are some of the most empathetic, vivacious people, but typically you don't see "creative people" in high paying office jobs, of course revolutionaries like Steve jobs being the exception. If creativity does lead to faster problem solving, higher level thinking, etc, why are jobs focused in creative fields often people getting paid under living wage.
I find this study really interesting. It is intriguing to me that something so seemingly subjective and intrinsically abstract as creativity can actually be quantified scientifically. It makes sense though. Of course everything we do essentially boils down to biology and our DNA. Everything from our dietary choices to our sexual preferences can all be decoded in our DNA. It is as if everything was prewritten before we were born to decide what path our lives would take. On the same thread, it would be easy to say that someone who is creative but maybe less inclined to do math had that encoded in their being before birth as well. The idea that this might actually be able to be enhance or focused through things like art classes is interesting. Can we change our predisposition towards things through our own will? Can a non-creative person forcible make themselves be creative? I am interested to see what they find out if this study ever goes further .
Post a Comment