Do schools kill creativity?

[dismal]

I use it to describe new and original forms of driving. Outside of the accepted norm.

The problem with your argument is no reasonable person would condone reckless driving, so it's a pointless argument.

Actually the fact that reasonable people don't tolerate much creativity with respect to driving is my point.

 

[dismal]

You can't force me to do anything. You voice an opinion on creativity, to which most people object, and then you present ridiculous examples of things you label as creative and demand people acknowledge them.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Even Alice wasn't fooled by that one.

He's using the same argument against creativity that always gets trotted out - we can't afford to combine familiar elements in new ways because we need some of the elements to succeed, and combining in new ways might involve leaving some out. It's just resting on a flawed definition.

It's remarkably similar to the usual argument against liberty: that freedom = chaos , and you can't run a state on chaos, so freedom must be bad.

You do not appear to understand what I am arguing.

I am not against creativity at all. My point is that often times creativity does not produce useful things. Sometimes it produces bad or even disastrous things.

Some people here can't seem to wrap their mind around this thought and want to torture the definition of creativity to pretend that creativity = double plus good things.

"Creative ideas" not equal "good ideas". We already have a term for "good ideas". It's called "good ideas".

Creative ideas are not necessarily good. Good ideas are not necessarily creative.

 

[Bronzeage]

You can't force me to do anything. You voice an opinion on creativity, to which most people object, and then you present ridiculous examples of things you label as creative and demand people acknowledge them.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Even Alice wasn't fooled by that one.

He's using the same argument against creativity that always gets trotted out - we can't afford to combine familiar elements in new ways because we need some of the elements to succeed, and combining in new ways might involve leaving some out. It's just resting on a flawed definition.

It's remarkably similar to the usual argument against liberty: that freedom = chaos , and you can't run a state on chaos, so freedom must be bad.

You do not appear to understand what I am arguing.

I am not against creativity at all. My point is that often times creativity does not produce useful things. Sometimes it produces bad or even disastrous things.

Some people here can't seem to wrap their mind around this thought and want to torture the definition of creativity to pretend that creativity = double plus good things.

"Creative ideas" not equal "good ideas". We already have a term for "good ideas". It's called "good ideas".

Creative ideas are not necessarily good. Good ideas are not necessarily creative.

This is a creative use of unequivocation as a rhetorical device.

 

[dismal]

You can't force me to do anything. You voice an opinion on creativity, to which most people object, and then you present ridiculous examples of things you label as creative and demand people acknowledge them.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Even Alice wasn't fooled by that one.

He's using the same argument against creativity that always gets trotted out - we can't afford to combine familiar elements in new ways because we need some of the elements to succeed, and combining in new ways might involve leaving some out. It's just resting on a flawed definition.

It's remarkably similar to the usual argument against liberty: that freedom = chaos , and you can't run a state on chaos, so freedom must be bad.

You do not appear to understand what I am arguing.

I am not against creativity at all. My point is that often times creativity does not produce useful things. Sometimes it produces bad or even disastrous things.

Some people here can't seem to wrap their mind around this thought and want to torture the definition of creativity to pretend that creativity = double plus good things.

"Creative ideas" not equal "good ideas". We already have a term for "good ideas". It's called "good ideas".

Creative ideas are not necessarily good. Good ideas are not necessarily creative.

This is a creative use of unequivocation as a rhetorical device.

And creative means double plus good, right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You can't force me to do anything. You voice an opinion on creativity, to which most people object, and then you present ridiculous examples of things you label as creative and demand people acknowledge them.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Even Alice wasn't fooled by that one.

He's using the same argument against creativity that always gets trotted out - we can't afford to combine familiar elements in new ways because we need some of the elements to succeed, and combining in new ways might involve leaving some out. It's just resting on a flawed definition.

It's remarkably similar to the usual argument against liberty: that freedom = chaos , and you can't run a state on chaos, so freedom must be bad.

You do not appear to understand what I am arguing.

I am not against creativity at all. My point is that often times creativity does not produce useful things. Sometimes it produces bad or even disastrous things.

Some people here can't seem to wrap their mind around this thought and want to torture the definition of creativity to pretend that creativity = double plus good things.

"Creative ideas" not equal "good ideas". We already have a term for "good ideas". It's called "good ideas".

Creative ideas are not necessarily good. Good ideas are not necessarily creative.

I agree fully. You clearly love the sound of yourself typing so much that you need to drag threads off-topic just to be heard.

Want to talk about how the sky isn't necessarily blue next?

 

[laughing dog]

So you think bad driving is original, something the bad driver just created and no one has ever done before?

Yes, every day on the way to work I see drivers do things I could not have imagined.

And I can imagine a lot of things.

Your response indicates you are not as creative as you claim.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Yes, every day on the way to work I see drivers do things I could not have imagined.

And I can imagine a lot of things.

Your response indicates you are not as creative as you claim.

Which may explain the anti creativity rant.

 

[Bronzeage]

You can't force me to do anything. You voice an opinion on creativity, to which most people object, and then you present ridiculous examples of things you label as creative and demand people acknowledge them.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Even Alice wasn't fooled by that one.

He's using the same argument against creativity that always gets trotted out - we can't afford to combine familiar elements in new ways because we need some of the elements to succeed, and combining in new ways might involve leaving some out. It's just resting on a flawed definition.

It's remarkably similar to the usual argument against liberty: that freedom = chaos , and you can't run a state on chaos, so freedom must be bad.

You do not appear to understand what I am arguing.

I am not against creativity at all. My point is that often times creativity does not produce useful things. Sometimes it produces bad or even disastrous things.

Some people here can't seem to wrap their mind around this thought and want to torture the definition of creativity to pretend that creativity = double plus good things.

"Creative ideas" not equal "good ideas". We already have a term for "good ideas". It's called "good ideas".

Creative ideas are not necessarily good. Good ideas are not necessarily creative.

This is a creative use of unequivocation as a rhetorical device.

And creative means double plus good, right?

I always give credit where credit is due. Sometimes creativity can be confused with squirming.

 

[dismal]

You can't force me to do anything. You voice an opinion on creativity, to which most people object, and then you present ridiculous examples of things you label as creative and demand people acknowledge them.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Even Alice wasn't fooled by that one.

He's using the same argument against creativity that always gets trotted out - we can't afford to combine familiar elements in new ways because we need some of the elements to succeed, and combining in new ways might involve leaving some out. It's just resting on a flawed definition.

It's remarkably similar to the usual argument against liberty: that freedom = chaos , and you can't run a state on chaos, so freedom must be bad.

You do not appear to understand what I am arguing.

I am not against creativity at all. My point is that often times creativity does not produce useful things. Sometimes it produces bad or even disastrous things.

Some people here can't seem to wrap their mind around this thought and want to torture the definition of creativity to pretend that creativity = double plus good things.

"Creative ideas" not equal "good ideas". We already have a term for "good ideas". It's called "good ideas".

Creative ideas are not necessarily good. Good ideas are not necessarily creative.

I agree fully. You clearly love the sound of yourself typing so much that you need to drag threads off-topic just to be heard.

Want to talk about how the sky isn't necessarily blue next?

I don't drag the topic anywhere. It's the absurd disagreements people keep raising against the clearly and obviously true comments I make that cause that to happen.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't drag the topic anywhere. It's the absurd disagreements people keep raising against the clearly and obviously true comments I make that cause that to happen.

OP: Do schools kill creativity?
dismal: Creativity is not always great, like when driving. Nyuh!

 

[dismal]

Which may explain the anti creativity rant.

The fact that you think there has been an anti-creativity rant here requires a very creative interpretation of what has actually been said.

And remember when I say "creative" it could mean bad or disastrous.

 

[dismal]

I don't drag the topic anywhere. It's the absurd disagreements people keep raising against the clearly and obviously true comments I make that cause that to happen.

OP: Do schools kill creativity?
dismal: Creativity is not always great, like when driving. Nyuh!

all: 11 pages of posts attacking dismal

Without the 11 pages of posts attacking dismal the thread isn't dragged

 

[ZiprHead]

I use it to describe new and original forms of driving. Outside of the accepted norm.

This is entirely consistent with the definition of creativity that has been introduced in the thread.

And, even if it weren't you creativity lovers would be forced to applaud me for coming up with a new and original definition for it.

What do you mean by original form?

I assume they sat behind a wheel they turned with their arms and had pedals they worked with a foot or with both feet.

Maybe they had a clutch and shifted with one arm also.

What was original about the way they drove?

Steering badly isn't an original form of driving. It's the same old driving, just doing it badly.

Is falling an original form of walking?

Please, dismal is creatively using a new definition of the word creative.

 

[dismal]

What do you mean by original form?

I assume they sat behind a wheel they turned with their arms and had pedals they worked with a foot or with both feet.

Maybe they had a clutch and shifted with one arm also.

What was original about the way they drove?

Steering badly isn't an original form of driving. It's the same old driving, just doing it badly.

Is falling an original form of walking?

Please, dismal is creatively using a new definition of the word creative.

Utter and I more or less agreed on a definition of creative earlier.

He apparently just feels that driving the wrong way in traffic, running red lights, and shooting rocket launchers at people in front of you are fairly standard driving practices. Maybe he lives in Moscow.

 

[Bronzeage]

Please, dismal is creatively using a new definition of the word creative.

Utter and I more or less agreed on a definition of creative earlier.

He apparently just feels that driving the wrong way in traffic, running red lights, and shooting rocket launchers at people in front of you are fairly standard driving practices. Maybe he lives in Moscow.

You do get credit for being a good sport about the whole thing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

OP: Do schools kill creativity?
dismal: Creativity is not always great, like when driving. Nyuh!

all: 11 pages of posts attacking dismal

You knocked the thread off track in your first post in the thread which derailed it about whether creativity was being killed in the schools into, "How ridiculous of an assertion can I make to discredit something that is otherwise understood to be a reasonably good thing?"

 

[dismal]

all: 11 pages of posts attacking dismal

You knocked the thread off track in your first post in the thread which derailed it about whether creativity was being killed in the schools into, "How ridiculous of an assertion can I make to discredit something that is otherwise understood to be a reasonably good thing?"

I don't think my assertion was ridiculous or that unbridled creativity is necessarily a good thing.

Indeed, that was the point.

But regardless of that, one comment directed at the premise of a post does not a derail make.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You knocked the thread off track in your first post in the thread which derailed it about whether creativity was being killed in the schools into, "How ridiculous of an assertion can I make to discredit something that is otherwise understood to be a reasonably good thing?"

I don't think my assertion was ridiculous or that unbridled creativity is necessarily a good thing.

If the OP was talking about unbridled creativity, you would have been on-topic.

But regardless of that, one comment directed at the premise of a post does not a derail make.

Yoda-speak doesn't make your false premise true.

 

[fromderinside]

OP: Do schools kill creativity?
dismal: Creativity is not always great, like when driving. Nyuh!

all: 11 pages of posts attacking dismal

Without the 11 pages of posts attacking dismal the thread isn't dragged

Attacking?

How novel.

So pointing out one's assertions are not about creativity therefore not relevant to the discussion is attacking?

Maybe if you could demonstrate how not staying within the lines is creative and only creative we might get on with a discussion about creativity and education.

If you're not up to a definition of creativity, I'm going to suggest that teachers who insist on rule following for the sake of rule following do not encourage creativity among those over whom he has control. So if you are trying to equate teachers demanding for rule following with following rules of the road and obeying learned signals you are way off target.

One first has to demonstrate teacher demands for rule following are based on rules of the road and learned signals. My experience with rigid rule demanding teachers is that they are trying to maintain class control though the discredited method of negative reinforcement rather than applying rules of the road and using signals children have already learned and mastered.

 

[dismal]

I don't think my assertion was ridiculous or that unbridled creativity is necessarily a good thing.

If the OP was talking about unbridled creativity, you would have been on-topic.

But regardless of that, one comment directed at the premise of a post does not a derail make.

Yoda-speak doesn't make your false premise true.

The OP contains the premise that creativity is awesome and schools should be doing something that results in more of it. I'm not sure what.

When I asked what earlier there was a curious silence. I take that silence as evidence it is possible for people to ignore my posts if they are so inclined.