Creativity is one of the words for which there are so many different individual definitions that it is difficult to have any reasonable discourse about it. Yet it is a word for something profoundly important. Here are three talks on it.
SCIENCE REDEFINING CREATIVITY
Ken Stange. (Please excuse Your Man Friday’s promotion of his puppet master’s views.)
CREATIVITY DEFINED AS APPLIED IMAGINATION
Ken Robinson.
CREATIVITY DEFINED AS PLAY
Tim Brown.
Humour is the last refuge of freedom of expression in an increasingly censorial and litigious world. And the double whammy of an image with pithy text is one of the most effective ways of speaking one’s mind safely. Cartoonists are our court jesters, the least likely to get in trouble for their sarcasm and satire.
THE ART OF POLITICAL CARTOONS
“Outside of general intelligence, there is nothing more important to a political cartoonist than ill will.”
HOW HUMOUR CAN CHANGE OUR MIND
Argument builds walls around beliefs and biases, but humour sneaks in the back gate.
SOME CAN’T TAKE A JOKE AND SOME CAN
Lawyers have no sense of humour, but clearly Jane Goodall does.
Psychology is a ‘wannabe’ science. Ever since it tried to usurp the territory occupied by philosophy, it has claimed to be a science. The status associated with being a science has given psychology (and the other social sciences) more credibility in the public’s mind than deserved, just as the lab coat worn by some actor in a commercial helps gives the product more credibility. But is it really a science? Or is it just wearing the lab coat? It is classed as a “soft science” as opposed to the “hard sciences” such as physics or chemistry or biology. Only fairly recently has a significant part of what is called ‘psychology’ actually achieved the status of ‘hard’ science, because it actually is the hard science of biology; i.e., neuroscience. Is the rest, the ‘soft’ part, just bogus?
IS PSYCHOLOGY REALLY A SCIENCE?
Here is the case for denying it that status.
IS PSYCHOLOGY ABOUT TO COME UNDONE?
There are two necessary criteria for a finding to be considered scientifically sound: validity and reliability. Validity is defined as actually measuring what you think—or you claim—you are measuring. (Certainly the validity of alleged tests for intelligence or personality traits is questionable.) Reliability is consistent replication of the results of the measurement. So how is psychology doing in the replication department?
IS PSYCHOLOGY TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY ‘HARD’ SCIENTISTS?
Are the ‘soft’ sciences just pseudosciences? Here is what is probably not an uncommon view of social science by Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics and often considered Einstein’s equal in scientific brilliance.
“If it ain’t broken don’t fix it!” is good advice. However, if it is broken, then one should fix it—not discard it! There are plenty of people who so dislike the way scientists (from Galileo through Darwin) have damaged our overblown egos that they are quite willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Of course science as practised isn’t perfect, and thus, like any complex system, has parts that need constant repairing or fine-tuning. It is unfortunate, but inevitable, that creationists and conspiracy theorists interpret this self-correcting principle of science as a flaw, while actually it is the guiding principle of the scientific method and its greatest guarantee of arriving at truth.
REPLICATION
Scientific findings are always tentative, so replication of results is crucial to confirming any initial findings. The social sciences have a pretty low bar to jump over to claim a ‘significant’ finding. The statistical confidence level of the conclusion need only be 95% (which effectively means the likelihood of it being wrong is 1 time out of 20). This deems it is worthy of publication, and, only too often, uncritical acceptance as a scientific ‘fact’. (Physicists set the bar a lot higher: before confirmation of a finding in physics is deemed a real effect the statistical chance of it being wrong has to be 1 out of 3,488,555!) So it isn’t really surprising that replication is a big problem in the ‘soft’ sciences. But the real problem is that attempts at replication are so infrequently made, so interesting findings get entrenched that are often going to be wrong!
PUBLISH OR PERISH
Information wants to be free. But when it comes to scientific information, not only is it costly to get access to it, but also it often costs scientists to give it out! Of course they’ll pay up, for it pays back in increased professional status—and salary.
FIXING SCIENCE – SYSTEMS AND POLITICS
Scientist as a ‘profession’ is quite new. The label ‘scientist’ was only coined in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. (Darwin disliked the term, preferring to call himself a naturalist.) With the professionalization of doing science came a lot of problems about objectivity. This is a well thought-out series of suggestions for patching some of the flaws in the system.
One of the great pleasures of surfing the Net is learning facts that are inherently interesting because they are so odd. Everybody enjoys collecting weird trivia. But don’t believe everything you read! Some of these odd things ‘learned’ are not actually true. However, for sceptics there is the subsequent pleasure of checking on what you’ve ‘learned’ and discovering what facts are not really facts—but just fascinating and convincing falsehoods.
20 THINGS YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT…
Here is a reasonably reputable source with a fascinating list of facts about a variety of specific topics, such as math or languages or digestion.
STRANGE FACTS
Here is another less organized hodgepodge of strange facts that a very superficial check seems to substantiate. But before repeating any of these as a ‘fact’, it would be worth researching it—which will be interesting no matter what its veracity.
THE FACT CHECKER
Snopes calls itself “the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumours, and misinformation.” If you check on them, you’ll find they really do a good job of living up to this claim. It’s an especially useful resource when something you read sounds suspicious or you get a mass emailing about some rumour.
There is plenty of justification for academics being called hypocrites. We carry on about maintaining standards, but our livelihood depends on the continual expansion of the income generated by students (or more often their parents) willing to pay for a ‘formal’ education and that magical piece of paper handed out at graduation that is falsely advertised as guaranteeing life-long financial security. The common (and justified) complaint of professors is that university administration is more interested in how many warm bodies they can recruit than in the quality of the students or the education delivered. Yet without those warm, lucrative bodies showing up for classes (which grade inflation allows them to pass and so continue paying tuition), there would be a lot of unemployed profs. But education is being radically democratized, and it is looking like the current university structure is going to either crumble or change drastically. One can only hope that as education becomes more widely available and virtually free for those who really want it, the world will be a better place. But all revolutions have victims, and all radical change involves the loss of something of value.
THE RADICAL STANFORD EXPERIMENT
Take Stanford graduate level courses without a prerequisite—and for free.
THE KHAN ACADEMY
The originator of this idea, Salmon Khan, gives a wonderful explanation of its genesis on TED, which is easy to find and worth watching. This is the link to the resources currently available for teachers or independent learners.
THE iTUNES U. PROJECT
Steve Jobs long ago remarked, “Computers themselves, and software yet to be developed, will revolutionize the way we learn.” He was right. Apple has always claimed it was devoted to using technology to promote the humanities. Whatever one might think of the somewhat Draconian Apple ‘ecosystem’, it has to be admitted that Apple has lived up to that promise. The wealth of educational material available as podcasts through iTunes has now been expanded with the iTunes U. project.
The TED annual conferences began in 1990 with a focus on technology. But it gradually broadened its scope to become a venue for the presentation of new ideas in virtually every field of creative endeavour. In June 2006, the talks (each always limited to about 20 minutes or less) were made available on the Internet at TED.com. They immediately became extremely popular and the audience has continued to grow at a phenomenal rate. It seems there really is an audience for ideas presented concisely and dramatically! By 2009 these talks had been viewed 50 million times, and by June 2011 it was up to 500 million. There are currently 900 TED talks available online. The TED concept caught on, so they started the TEDx series, which are independently organized, curated, and sponsored TED events that follow the format of the regular TED lectures.
TED-ED LAUNCHES ON YOUTUBE
Many educators use the TED lectures as supplementary AV material in their courses, so now refining (and shortening) the format to create free pedagogical tools is the latest elaboration of the TED concept.
BEHIND THE TED TALK
Having had the nerve-wracking honour of giving a Nipissing University sponsored TEDx talk recently, I can’t begin to imagine the stress of having to present in front of a potential audience of millions. Many TED presenters are more accustomed to wrestling with ideas alone or with colleagues than with playing the role of media ‘personalities’
HOW TED MAKES IDEAS SMALLER
It has to be said that TED is not without critics. It has been accused of dumbing down complex ideas to what can be stuffed into 18 minutes, and of shifting the focus from the ideas to presentation skills. One significant criticism is that the talks are actually too entertaining, and are often judged on that criterion rather than the value of the ideas. Here is one somewhat sceptical and considered opinion.
It is sometimes call “reproductive technology”, but not as a reference to artificial insemination or cloning. It refers to the technology that allows us to reproduce images, text, music, and other results of human creativity. It is undeniable that it has democratized access to content that once was only available to a very affluent few. You don’t have to be among the elite of the Viennese aristocracy to hear Mozart’s music brilliantly performed. And you don’t have to travel to the great public and private galleries of the world to view the works of the great masters. And it would be belabouring the point to mention the effects of the Gutenberg Revolution. Is there a downside to this? It is true that scarcity adds value. But is a Van Gogh really less valuable now that one can view a high-resolution image of it on the Internet, or purchase a fine print of it for a few bucks, or even buy a perfectly executed forgery for what is still a fraction of the cost of the original? Does having a larger audience really disadvantage the creator financially? Or only his agent or publisher, who are taking most of the profits? Are we really stealing from a musician if we first listen to his music for free? Or does he build an audience and reputation that more than compensates him in sales he wouldn’t have otherwise had, in concert attendance, and in the other perks that accrue to having created something that is widely valued and appreciated?
ARE THE COSTS OF DIGITAL PIRACY EXAGGERATED?
Mark Twain remarked that “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Are the multi-million-dollar music and film industries using stats to lay a guilt trip on us for sharing something we appreciate and admire?
THE CULTURE OF COPYING WHERE IT SEEMS TO WORK
Are those creative endeavours that don’t have “protection” from copying suffering?
INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE
There may be something to be learned by noting that many of the incredibly valuable and respectable sources for the sharing of information and creative endeavour voluntarily chose to shut down for 24 hours to protest the U.S. government’s attempt to pass so-called “anti-piracy” legislation.
They came from outer space! No, actually they just came from a different ecosystem. It is a strange and somewhat paradoxical idea that introducing a new species to an ecosystem can decrease, rather than increase, biodiversity. One would think that it must occur naturally all the time. But for various reasons these alien invaders are proving quite undesirable.
THE BOTANICAL INVASION OF THE ANTARCTIC
Bad seed!
THE REPTILIAN INVASION OF FLORIDA
Giant serpents!
THE AQUATIC INVASION OF CANADA
It came from the Deep!
Just as artists knew the tricks of perception long before scientists studied perception, so too magicians understood these quirks long before they were studied systematically. Artists and magicians may not have understood exactly how they worked, but they certainly knew how to apply them. Now there is serious collaboration between those studying how we perceive and those expert at manipulating what we perceive.
TELLER TELLS SECRETS
Teller reveals “a few principles magicians employ when they want to alter your perceptions.”
CHANGE BLINDNESS
There is a trick inside the trick.
SELECTIVE ATTENTION
Be sure to scroll down and watch the video before reading the article.
Obviously people have different points of view, and most of us have a hard time resisting the urge to try to convert people to our way of thinking. But the empirical evidence is indisputable that this rarely works. More often than not it seems to have the opposite effect: making the would-be convert more entrenched in his or her view of things—and probably more hostile toward us. George Bernard Shaw aptly remarked about arguing, “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.” So one has to wonder why we do it.
AN EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION
“Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth.”
WHEN ARGUING REALLY MATTERS AND WHEN IT DOESN’T
Some irrational beliefs are harmless, but some definitely are not.
SOME FOLKS JUST NEED TO ARGUE
On a lighter note.
It is strange and paradoxical the honour and reverence in which poets are held when quoted to make some point, and the total lack of interest in actually reading them. This isn’t true everywhere, of course. Poets are the equivalent of rock stars in many countries, drawing crowds for their public readings. And they are national heroes. There probably isn’t a literate person in Chile who can’t quote Pablo Neruda or anyone in Spain who can’t quote Garcia Lorca. But in North America, if you say you’re a writer, and if when asked what you write, you ‘confess’ that many of your books are poetry, you immediately sense the suppressed bemusement. Poetry is seen as either the sentimental doggerel on Hallmark cards or the dead guys’ stuff you had to study in high school. Poetry isn’t taken seriously as a difficult art dealing with forever relevant and important issues. Margaret Atwood and Michael Ondaatje both wrote truly great books of poetry, but their fame is based upon their subsequent works of fiction. And Leonard Cohen would not be given the adulation he now receives had he not put his brilliant lyrical talent to music. But maybe, just maybe, “the times they are a-changin’.”
IS POETRY DEAD? WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?
An interesting and objective consideration of the current lack of interest in poetry.
THE REVIVAL OF PERFORMANCE POETRY
Of course poetry was originally an oral art form, and it seems that tradition is slowly being revived.
ARE MUSIC LYRICS WHERE WE NOW GET OUR POETRY FIX?
Most of the music people listen to have lyrics. Some of these lyrics can stand alone on the page as poetry, even if the music enhances them. (Of course many certainly can’t.) Here is a musician who, unlike Leonard Cohen, did not begin as a poet, but whose lyrics certainly can stand alone as great poetry.
“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are called “unalienable rights” in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and the pursuit of happiness certainly seems to be the central concern of most Americans—and of most people where life and liberty aren’t immediately or obviously endangered. But what exactly is happiness? And does it make sense to “pursue” it? It has been suggested by many philosophers that happiness really isn’t that important when compared to other goals, such as doing the right thing. And it has been repeatedly observed that we simply notice we’re happy (like something glimpsed out of the corner of one’s eye) when we are doing something meaningful. We don’t attain it by striving for it. As Albert Camus observed, “You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of.”
You have to love the term ‘counter-intuitive’. What is more perversely pleasing than discovering that common sense is nonsense? We trust our intuition, our common sense, and we do so usually out of laziness. But it fails us often enough that we seem to take vengeful pleasure in it being found to be unfounded. And that is one thing science is good at: putting common sense to the test and watching it fail.
YOU’RE AT YOUR CREATIVE BEST WHEN YOU’RE NOT AT YOUR BEST
Somewhere along the way ‘respect’ got conflated with courtesy. Courtesy greases the social wheels, but it doesn’t trump honesty when honesty matters—and honesty often matters. And just as some people feel they have a right not to be ‘offended’, some people feel they have an inalienable right to have their irrational beliefs ‘respected’. But certainly there is no reason for us to respect superstitious beliefs or those who hold those beliefs. Respect is something earned, not something bestowed on everyone at birth. In fact, to give undue respect can be downright dangerous.
TOLERANCE YES, RESPECT NO
An excellent, thoughtful dissection of the idea of respect.
THE DANGERS OF RESPECT FOR IRRATIONALITY
Why should blind faith deserve any respect?
DISRESPECT FOR WHAT IS RESPECTABLE
This Nobel Laureate got a lot of respect, and he also had the sense to not care about it.
Playboy was the premier skin mag for the pubescent boys of my generation, but copies were hard to come by. So we boys often had to settle for certain pics to be found in National Geographic. Times have changed, and now National Geographic has videos. Viewer discretion advised.
Well if not free yet, at least affordable! Universities lure students with out-dated statistics that make the dubious claim that they’ll recoup the exorbitant cost of tuition somewhere down the road in the workplace. Then these students pay outrageous prices for textbooks that they can’t even sell second-hand afterwards, because a new edition is required for next year’s course. But there is a truly egalitarian movement to make a liberal education possible for everyone at the much smaller cost of a computer (or any digital device, including a smart phone or tablet) and Internet access. A truly liberal education no longer is an elitist privilege thanks to projects like the TED lectures, CBC’s podcasts of programs such as Ideas, and the availability of excellent online videos on almost any topic one might be interested in learning about. And all this is available ‘on demand’. You don’t have to pay big bucks for it or show up some place at a given date and time to get a real liberal education. You may not get that over-valued piece of paper called a diploma, but even if that is what you want, that too is going to become less elitist and expensive. We may be witnessing a real revolution in education at least equivalent to what happened with the printing press and the gradual movement toward universal literacy.
TEXTBOOKS FOR 15 BUCKS RATHER THAN 150
Apple is obviously self-serving but it could certainly be called enlightened self-interest.
TEN TOOLS FOR A FREE ONLINE EDUCATION
Excellent list including ten universities with the best free online courses.
THE TEACHING COMPANY
Want to hear and watch lectures by the best university lecturers on any academic topic? You’ll pay something for these downloadable AV files, but far less than tuition at one of the prestigious universities where they are the premier lecturers in their field.
Kafka’s unfinished novel Amerika is set in a country he never visited, but it still manages to somehow successfully satirize American ideals. Someone really should write a novel entitled Akademe. But of course there already are many satires about the Hollow (sic) Halls. And they are often penned by writers who have been there—at least for a while. I suspect many of these authors would say that while Akademe is a nice place to visit, you wouldn’t want to live there. Good satire often is about the contrast between ideals and reality.
FIVE GOOD REASONS TO LOVE BEING AN AKADEMIC
Babies aren’t stupid. Apparently they have less difficulty with Bayesian statistics than most university students whining to their Stats prof that they “just aren’t good at math”. And they seem to have an intuitive grasp of research design and hypothesis testing that we naively assume is only to be found in trained scientists. It is a frightening thought, but it seems we lose these natural born skills as our brains ‘mature’ by sacrificing flexibility for specialization.
BABIES ARE INTUTIVE SCIENTISTS
Gopnik’s research “explores the sophisticated intelligence-gathering and decision-making that babies are really doing when they play.”
BABIES AS NATURAL BORN MATHEMATICIANS
Butterworth’s research suggests that every baby is “born with a core sense of cardinal number… born with a ‘number module’… born a mathematician.”
BABIES LEARNING LANUAGE THROUGH STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Kuhl’s presents her “astonishing findings about how babies learn one language over another — by listening to the humans around them and ‘taking statistics’ on the sounds they need to know.”
Everyone has played the list game: name the ten best of—whatever. And at end of year, it is usually about the ten best for that year. It is interesting to sample a variety of sources and compare their lists. If the list is of movies or books or music or any art form, one expects the lists to be wildly incongruent, for aesthetic judgments are assumed to be somewhat subjective. But one expects more consensus regarding science. Certainly most scientists would agree as to the greatest scientific achievements of the past. For example who would disagree with putting Newton, Darwin, and Einstein on the list? So it is an interesting experiment to compare the lists that journalists have put together of the Big Ten scientific stories of 2011. The following three are just a sample. Virtually every news source is playing the game. It would be interesting to do a statistical analysis of the degree of congruence with a large sample.
THE GUARDIAN
The British perspective, which includes a finding about female orgasm!?
TIME MAGAZINE
The American perspective, which includes a finding about how cats drink milk!?
WIRED MAGAZINE
The popular and respected science and technology news source, and with the most reasonable (in my judgment) list.
