Do schools kill creativity?

[Sabine Grant]

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.

Let's rewind, shall we?

Your first post in this thread :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-kill-creativity&p=81281&viewfull=1#post81281

Somehow you might have thought it addressed the comments made by Sir Ken Robinson which should be easy to comprehend for anyone who took the time to view the presented video in the OP.

He covers several important points. Among them :

- Why are arts not considered most valuable curriculum items or at least as valuable as math and language. What is the source of such devaluation when it comes to art and music? The answer (which you should know if you actually viewed the tape) should hint that the consequence of such devaluation is that it also affects negatively how we define intelligence and more importantly the qualities or properties of intelligence :
1) Intelligence is diverse. 2) Dynamic or interactive 3) Distinct.

He illustrated each property/quality via real life examples. Essentially what has happened in an educational system which has persisted in educating children based on what has most academic value versus minimal value, is a dismissal of each individual's potential. The distinct intelligence of the little girl he mentioned who was so bored and distracted during math and language classes. Always so fidgety. Then as an adult undertook to explore the why and how of her behavior, it was discovered that this little girl wanted to be a dancer. Her parents nurtured her towards ballet dancing in which she became very successful as a member of the Royal Ballet and is today a millionaire. Not only she pursued to be a successful adult but also doing what made her most happy and as such a wonderful entertainer, she made millions of people happy too.

But the current educational system does not take into account individual happiness. It takes into account what was dictated by industrialism in the 19th century. Let's push those children towards careers meeting the demand of an economy based on profit and accumulation of material wealth.

As a result, so many adults have lost touch with what it means to have a career based on what makes you most happy. What they envisioned as children to become as adults was stifled via the current educational system. They are indeed being discouraged from becoming adults who will rely on their own individual intelligence, so diverse from other children, so differently interactive and dynamic and so distinct. They are to be conformed to the vision of a society where the pursuit of happiness can only be achieved via material wealth.

That is what I gathered from Sir Robinson's message. To compare what I gathered with your 2 inane one liners (linked to above) which were immediately challenged ( and please, do not pull the card anymore of being a victim of attacks).

Do I agree with his stances and argumentation? I certainly do. I have observed the difference between motivating a group of students to rely on their capacity for creativity and sticking to conventional teaching methods when I taught ( as an experimental class) my beloved native language. The experiment was conducted under the patronage of the Department Of defense Dependents School System when we were stationed in Italy. In my class, K and 1st Graders. Kids who have yet to have developed reading and writing skills in their own native language, English. I made them full participants of how we were going to discover French. I gave them tools and it was up to them to put those tools together and figure out what was the best way for them to absorb the language. In such fashion they relied on their blooming creativity to perform a play in French. If certainly not an intellectual masterpiece, what a delight to see those young children having an absolute epiphany, being on a stage they decorated themselves, having put together their own lines in a foreign language. The tool I gave them was when I read for them The Little Prince. They all wanted to be the Little Prince. ahahaha.

They had to learn to compromise with each other to take turns being the Fox or the Little Prince. Suddenly, I had an assembly of very young minds learning how to meet half way. They used their innovative thinking to negotiate and agree. It was amazing. Instead of my controlling that process, imposing the how on those children, I let them rely on their capacity to innovate.

And that takes us to the next step on how educators can contribute to motivating the use of critical thinking. Think "outside the box". Think of alternatives. Explore deep into your mind because right in there will be the thought you can rely on to deal with a situation you never encountered before. Right in there the thought which will contribute to problem solving. You will become a resourceful person and that resourcefulness will be very valuable as an adult.

But in order to do that, educators will need to be motivational speakers rather than controlling and imposing.And a motivational educator who relies on his/her own capacity for creativity in the way they teach or their teaching style. It becomes "contagious" to their audience of students.

 

[doubtingt]

Imagine the "words" produced when a cat walks on your keyboard or when a mindless machine spits out random letters.
Imagine the shapes produced on your underwear by shitting yourself after a night of drinking to excess.
Imagine the nonsense babblings of a person whose language centers of their brain got obliterated by shrapnel.

Each of these are as unique, unpredictable, and original as anything can get.
Are they therefore the greatest heights of creativity?

If not, then originality is not creativity and understanding what creativity is and why we value it requires considering how these differ from the things that we do consider the height of creativity.

If these things are the height of creativity, then there is nothing than can be taught to increase it, because random mindless accidents are as creative as one can get and they cannot be taught.

 

[Bronzeage]

Imagine the "words" produced when a cat walks on your keyboard or when a mindless machine spits out random letters.
Imagine the shapes produced on your underwear by shitting yourself after a night of drinking to excess.
Imagine the nonsense babblings of a person whose language centers of their brain got obliterated by shrapnel.

Each of these are as unique, unpredictable, and original as anything can get.
Are they therefore the greatest heights of creativity?

If not, then originality is not creativity and understanding what creativity is and why we value it requires considering how these differ from the things that we do consider the height of creativity.

If these things are the height of creativity, then there is nothing than can be taught to increase it, because random mindless accidents are as creative as one can get and they cannot be taught.

The trick is recognizing which of these random mindless accidents are worth doing again and string two or more together in a sequence which makes them better than the individual parts.

It's true creativity can't be taught, but there's really no need or demand for that kind of thing.

 

[Juma]

Math, physics, etc is much more about creativity than painting and making sounds.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Math, physics, etc is much more about creativity than painting and making sounds.

you think this is a contest?

 

[EricK]

Math, physics, etc is much more about creativity than painting and making sounds.

This is an overstatement. Almost all activities, when performed at the highest level, require creativity.

With regards to schools, I am not sure if it is their role to try to teach creativity or even to foster creativity. Creativity, or at least the kind of creativity which I think we are all talking about, requires a firm foundation of the basics of the activity. And the more you know, the more creative that allows you to be. And that is the role of schools eg There's very little scope for budding mathematicians to be creative while studying mathematics at school - but that is OK. They are learning the basics, and once they have that, they can go on to use that in creative ways afterwards.

 

[doubtingt]

Imagine the "words" produced when a cat walks on your keyboard or when a mindless machine spits out random letters.
Imagine the shapes produced on your underwear by shitting yourself after a night of drinking to excess.
Imagine the nonsense babblings of a person whose language centers of their brain got obliterated by shrapnel.

Each of these are as unique, unpredictable, and original as anything can get.
Are they therefore the greatest heights of creativity?

If not, then originality is not creativity and understanding what creativity is and why we value it requires considering how these differ from the things that we do consider the height of creativity.

If these things are the height of creativity, then there is nothing than can be taught to increase it, because random mindless accidents are as creative as one can get and they cannot be taught.

The trick is recognizing which of these random mindless accidents are worth doing again and string two or more together in a sequence which makes them better than the individual parts.

And such recognition involves the application of knowledge, reasoning, logic and intellectual skills that can be fostered in education, and even entail general aptitudes that are a good part of what those evil and worthless general intelligence tests measure.
In addition, I'd say the trick is to actually apply intellect in the process of producing the outputs in the first place, rather than only after the fact trying to pick the best of unintelligent randomness. Actual creativity that is worth promoting and preserving is not random originality, but a goal directed act. It is a way of making use of something you have (knowledge, skills, etc.), with a key being "making use" and "use" means their is some purpose or goal. It doesn't have to be a practical or profitable purpose. It can be for the purpose of making others laugh, cry, or reflect upon their identity. But the "constraint" of using what's created to impact something is what makes it both difficult (random originality is very easy) and makes the result far more likely to be not merely original but purposeful.

It's true creativity can't be taught, but there's really no need or demand for that kind of thing.

It creativity is merely "originality", then it not only doesn't need to taught, it cannot really be "killed" by education either. However, if it is novel use of something that exists (knowledge, skills, objects) to achieve some goal which includes (as you point out) the ability to evaluate whether what is produced has the desired impact, then there are aspect of it that likely can be taught and it means that reasoning and creativity are co-dependent. Thus, it isn't distinct from classic notions of being knowledgeable and "intelligent" but partly tied to these. Both domain related "expertise" and general reasoning skills tend to predict such creativity, so fostering knowledge and reasoning skills will increase creativity, even if there is a component of creative cognitive processes that goes beyond knowledge and reasoning skills and may not be itself teachable.

 

[Bronzeage]

The trick is recognizing which of these random mindless accidents are worth doing again and string two or more together in a sequence which makes them better than the individual parts.

And such recognition involves the application of knowledge, reasoning, logic and intellectual skills that can be fostered in education, and even entail general aptitudes that are a good part of what those evil and worthless general intelligence tests measure.
In addition, I'd say the trick is to actually apply intellect in the process of producing the outputs in the first place, rather than only after the fact trying to pick the best of unintelligent randomness. Actual creativity that is worth promoting and preserving is not random originality, but a goal directed act. It is a way of making use of something you have (knowledge, skills, etc.), with a key being "making use" and "use" means their is some purpose or goal. It doesn't have to be a practical or profitable purpose. It can be for the purpose of making others laugh, cry, or reflect upon their identity. But the "constraint" of using what's created to impact something is what makes it both difficult (random originality is very easy) and makes the result far more likely to be not merely original but purposeful.

It's true creativity can't be taught, but there's really no need or demand for that kind of thing.

It creativity is merely "originality", then it not only doesn't need to taught, it cannot really be "killed" by education either. However, if it is novel use of something that exists (knowledge, skills, objects) to achieve some goal which includes (as you point out) the ability to evaluate whether what is produced has the desired impact, then there are aspect of it that likely can be taught and it means that reasoning and creativity are co-dependent. Thus, it isn't distinct from classic notions of being knowledgeable and "intelligent" but partly tied to these. Both domain related "expertise" and general reasoning skills tend to predict such creativity, so fostering knowledge and reasoning skills will increase creativity, even if there is a component of creative cognitive processes that goes beyond knowledge and reasoning skills and may not be itself teachable.

The question of whether creativity, talent, PYL, can be taught is an existential dilemma that only pops up in academic circles, where teaching things and learning things is their reason for existence. The claim, "talent can't be taught," is really just one of those phrases along the lines of, "your mother dresses you funny." It's only real purpose is to accuse a teacher of being useless, or a student of being helpless.

It turns out, after something worthwhile has been created, and this can be a novel, a painting, a theorem, a new plastic, whatever, the creative spark which started the process becomes a very small part of the final product. Creativity and talent cannot be taught, but what can be taught is the skills needed to continue the process until something worthwhile emerges. The world is full of creative people who have never created anything.

 

[doubtingt]

And such recognition involves the application of knowledge, reasoning, logic and intellectual skills that can be fostered in education, and even entail general aptitudes that are a good part of what those evil and worthless general intelligence tests measure.
In addition, I'd say the trick is to actually apply intellect in the process of producing the outputs in the first place, rather than only after the fact trying to pick the best of unintelligent randomness. Actual creativity that is worth promoting and preserving is not random originality, but a goal directed act. It is a way of making use of something you have (knowledge, skills, etc.), with a key being "making use" and "use" means their is some purpose or goal. It doesn't have to be a practical or profitable purpose. It can be for the purpose of making others laugh, cry, or reflect upon their identity. But the "constraint" of using what's created to impact something is what makes it both difficult (random originality is very easy) and makes the result far more likely to be not merely original but purposeful.

It's true creativity can't be taught, but there's really no need or demand for that kind of thing.

It creativity is merely "originality", then it not only doesn't need to taught, it cannot really be "killed" by education either. However, if it is novel use of something that exists (knowledge, skills, objects) to achieve some goal which includes (as you point out) the ability to evaluate whether what is produced has the desired impact, then there are aspect of it that likely can be taught and it means that reasoning and creativity are co-dependent. Thus, it isn't distinct from classic notions of being knowledgeable and "intelligent" but partly tied to these. Both domain related "expertise" and general reasoning skills tend to predict such creativity, so fostering knowledge and reasoning skills will increase creativity, even if there is a component of creative cognitive processes that goes beyond knowledge and reasoning skills and may not be itself teachable.

The question of whether creativity, talent, PYL, can be taught is an existential dilemma that only pops up in academic circles, where teaching things and learning things is their reason for existence. The claim, "talent can't be taught," is really just one of those phrases along the lines of, "your mother dresses you funny." It's only real purpose is to accuse a teacher of being useless, or a student of being helpless.

It turns out, after something worthwhile has been created, and this can be a novel, a painting, a theorem, a new plastic, whatever, the creative spark which started the process becomes a very small part of the final product. Creativity and talent cannot be taught, but what can be taught is the skills needed to continue the process until something worthwhile emerges. The world is full of creative people who have never created anything.

Your argument presumes that "creativity" is only some magical random "spark" that is uninfluenced by any aspect of cognition that is non-random and can be influenced. Its a notion quite out of step with modern cognitive science. If you define "talent" as "the innate factors that contribute to some observable performance", then of course "talent" cannot be taught by definition. However, we never actually observe talent or the unlearnable contributors to creative outputs. What we observe is the performance or creative outputs that are the result of complex interactions among unlearnable and learnable aspect of mental processes. Thus, anything produced that we call "creative" is partially determined by learnable skills and knowledge, and thus people can learn things that increase the creativity of what they produce, not just via after-the-fact revision but the creativity of the initial output.

 

[Bronzeage]

And such recognition involves the application of knowledge, reasoning, logic and intellectual skills that can be fostered in education, and even entail general aptitudes that are a good part of what those evil and worthless general intelligence tests measure.
In addition, I'd say the trick is to actually apply intellect in the process of producing the outputs in the first place, rather than only after the fact trying to pick the best of unintelligent randomness. Actual creativity that is worth promoting and preserving is not random originality, but a goal directed act. It is a way of making use of something you have (knowledge, skills, etc.), with a key being "making use" and "use" means their is some purpose or goal. It doesn't have to be a practical or profitable purpose. It can be for the purpose of making others laugh, cry, or reflect upon their identity. But the "constraint" of using what's created to impact something is what makes it both difficult (random originality is very easy) and makes the result far more likely to be not merely original but purposeful.

It's true creativity can't be taught, but there's really no need or demand for that kind of thing.

It creativity is merely "originality", then it not only doesn't need to taught, it cannot really be "killed" by education either. However, if it is novel use of something that exists (knowledge, skills, objects) to achieve some goal which includes (as you point out) the ability to evaluate whether what is produced has the desired impact, then there are aspect of it that likely can be taught and it means that reasoning and creativity are co-dependent. Thus, it isn't distinct from classic notions of being knowledgeable and "intelligent" but partly tied to these. Both domain related "expertise" and general reasoning skills tend to predict such creativity, so fostering knowledge and reasoning skills will increase creativity, even if there is a component of creative cognitive processes that goes beyond knowledge and reasoning skills and may not be itself teachable.

The question of whether creativity, talent, PYL, can be taught is an existential dilemma that only pops up in academic circles, where teaching things and learning things is their reason for existence. The claim, "talent can't be taught," is really just one of those phrases along the lines of, "your mother dresses you funny." It's only real purpose is to accuse a teacher of being useless, or a student of being helpless.

It turns out, after something worthwhile has been created, and this can be a novel, a painting, a theorem, a new plastic, whatever, the creative spark which started the process becomes a very small part of the final product. Creativity and talent cannot be taught, but what can be taught is the skills needed to continue the process until something worthwhile emerges. The world is full of creative people who have never created anything.

Your argument presumes that "creativity" is only some magical random "spark" that is uninfluenced by any aspect of cognition that is non-random and can be influenced. Its a notion quite out of step with modern cognitive science. If you define "talent" as "the innate factors that contribute to some observable performance", then of course "talent" cannot be taught by definition. However, we never actually observe talent or the unlearnable contributors to creative outputs. What we observe is the performance or creative outputs that are the result of complex interactions among unlearnable and learnable aspect of mental processes. Thus, anything produced that we call "creative" is partially determined by learnable skills and knowledge, and thus people can learn things that increase the creativity of what they produce, not just via after-the-fact revision but the creativity of the initial output.

My argument does not presume any such thing. It's not magical, but the elements which go into a creative moment are so complex, they will apparent to be random. Every once in a while, hindsight allows me to recognize why a particular idea came to life. It's often as straightforward as meeting a particular person at a particular time. The smallest change in the tides of the universe and something else would have happened. The problem comes when a person wants to go from the spark to the fire. If this is a flower arrangement, it may only take a few minutes. Whether it is ten minutes or an hour, the florist must have the mental tools, which we call skills, to understand the materials in order to fashion the arrangement seen in the mind. Skills can be taught and learned. After the skills are mastered, then comes the work. When the spark is measured in terms of time and effort, it is seen to be a very small part of the process. Most people stop at the spark.

 

[doubtingt]

And such recognition involves the application of knowledge, reasoning, logic and intellectual skills that can be fostered in education, and even entail general aptitudes that are a good part of what those evil and worthless general intelligence tests measure.
In addition, I'd say the trick is to actually apply intellect in the process of producing the outputs in the first place, rather than only after the fact trying to pick the best of unintelligent randomness. Actual creativity that is worth promoting and preserving is not random originality, but a goal directed act. It is a way of making use of something you have (knowledge, skills, etc.), with a key being "making use" and "use" means their is some purpose or goal. It doesn't have to be a practical or profitable purpose. It can be for the purpose of making others laugh, cry, or reflect upon their identity. But the "constraint" of using what's created to impact something is what makes it both difficult (random originality is very easy) and makes the result far more likely to be not merely original but purposeful.

It's true creativity can't be taught, but there's really no need or demand for that kind of thing.

It creativity is merely "originality", then it not only doesn't need to taught, it cannot really be "killed" by education either. However, if it is novel use of something that exists (knowledge, skills, objects) to achieve some goal which includes (as you point out) the ability to evaluate whether what is produced has the desired impact, then there are aspect of it that likely can be taught and it means that reasoning and creativity are co-dependent. Thus, it isn't distinct from classic notions of being knowledgeable and "intelligent" but partly tied to these. Both domain related "expertise" and general reasoning skills tend to predict such creativity, so fostering knowledge and reasoning skills will increase creativity, even if there is a component of creative cognitive processes that goes beyond knowledge and reasoning skills and may not be itself teachable.

The question of whether creativity, talent, PYL, can be taught is an existential dilemma that only pops up in academic circles, where teaching things and learning things is their reason for existence. The claim, "talent can't be taught," is really just one of those phrases along the lines of, "your mother dresses you funny." It's only real purpose is to accuse a teacher of being useless, or a student of being helpless.

It turns out, after something worthwhile has been created, and this can be a novel, a painting, a theorem, a new plastic, whatever, the creative spark which started the process becomes a very small part of the final product. Creativity and talent cannot be taught, but what can be taught is the skills needed to continue the process until something worthwhile emerges. The world is full of creative people who have never created anything.

Your argument presumes that "creativity" is only some magical random "spark" that is uninfluenced by any aspect of cognition that is non-random and can be influenced. Its a notion quite out of step with modern cognitive science. If you define "talent" as "the innate factors that contribute to some observable performance", then of course "talent" cannot be taught by definition. However, we never actually observe talent or the unlearnable contributors to creative outputs. What we observe is the performance or creative outputs that are the result of complex interactions among unlearnable and learnable aspect of mental processes. Thus, anything produced that we call "creative" is partially determined by learnable skills and knowledge, and thus people can learn things that increase the creativity of what they produce, not just via after-the-fact revision but the creativity of the initial output.

My argument does not presume any such thing. It's not magical, but the elements which go into a creative moment are so complex, they will apparent to be random. Every once in a while, hindsight allows me to recognize why a particular idea came to life. It's often as straightforward as meeting a particular person at a particular time. The smallest change in the tides of the universe and something else would have happened.

Yes, many things trigger the initial formation of an idea, and some of those things are learned knowledge and skills. "New" ideas are all recombinations of pieces of old ones. The old ones (i.e., knowledge) you have the more potential new ones you can have. The better developed your skills at abstracting general principles, the more likely you are to notice a connection among pieces of ideas at the abstract level that is not obvious at the surface or concrete level. Thus, the spark of creativity is impacted by learnable knowledge and thinking skills. I am not saying that people can be directly taught to be creative at will, as though it like deliberately turning on a switch. But people can be taught things that are hugely impactful on their likely creativity. It is much like great athletic performance. Roger Federer does/did things that weren't and couldn't be taught. But those were insufficient for his greatness. Things that he was taught directly and other things he learned implicitly via structured extensive practice are the fodder on which the unlearned contributions feed and depend to produce great performance. In the same way, there are unlearned and somewhat uncontrollable contributors to creative thoughts but their contributions feed and depend upon learned knowledge and experience to actual produce a creative output.

 

[Juma]

Math, physics, etc is much more about creativity than painting and making sounds.

you think this is a contest?

Do you?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

you think this is a contest?

Do you?

No more than I think there is a contest between Neal Tyson and BB King. So now you can answer the question, which you probably won't, since you definitely didn't.

 

[Juma]

Do you?

No more than I think there is a contest between Neal Tyson and BB King. So now you can answer the question, which you probably won't, since you definitely didn't.

No I do not.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No more than I think there is a contest between Neal Tyson and BB King. So now you can answer the question, which you probably won't, since you definitely didn't.

No I do not.

what is the point of this?

Math, physics, etc is much more about creativity than painting and making sounds.

How is it much more? Much more of what? How are you comparing the two?

 

[Bronzeage]

No I do not.

what is the point of this?

Math, physics, etc is much more about creativity than painting and making sounds.

How is it much more? Much more of what? How are you comparing the two?

Most people see creativity as a good and positive trait, with a few notable exceptions. No one wants to be labeled as creatively impaired or an unimaginative drudge.

This is a problem for people who not have anything to display as examples of their creativity. This is really difficult for a mathematician. There are only ten distinct numerals and after that, it's just a matter of rearranging and stacking them higher. Except for putting a new name on a really big number, such as a google, there's not much to show a non-mathematical person.

 

[Juma]

No I do not.

what is the point of this?

Math, physics, etc is much more about creativity than painting and making sounds.

How is it much more? Much more of what? How are you comparing the two?

Because in art creativity is not needed. Conformance is in much higher demand.
Its most about making you heard.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

what is the point of this?

Math, physics, etc is much more about creativity than painting and making sounds.

How is it much more? Much more of what? How are you comparing the two?

Because in art creativity is not needed.

What?!?

Conformance is in much higher demand.

Prove it.

Its most about making you heard.

And mathematicians and scientists don'r want to be heard?

And you still have not answered much more of what or how much more.

 

[Bronzeage]

what is the point of this?

Math, physics, etc is much more about creativity than painting and making sounds.

How is it much more? Much more of what? How are you comparing the two?

Because in art creativity is not needed. Conformance is in much higher demand.
Its most about making you heard.

This doesn't make sense in English.

 

[Sabine Grant]

what is the point of this?

Math, physics, etc is much more about creativity than painting and making sounds.

How is it much more? Much more of what? How are you comparing the two?

Because in art creativity is not needed.

That is one of the most absurd statements I have ever viewed.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition of art

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
"his collection of modern art"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
"she's good at art"
2.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"
3.
subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).

Do you believe that "human creative skill and imagination" somehow is not needed for art?

Conformance is in much higher demand.

Care to explain how Dali and Gustave Courbet would be in "conformance" with each other? How Erik Satie and Mozart would be in "conformance" with each other? How Rodin and Antoine-Louis Barye would be? How Edgar Allan Poe and Scott Fitzgerald would be? More importantly ,what is it specifically they are supposed to be conformed to? Considering that art is the ultimate escape from conformity or conformance.

Its most about making you heard.

How does "making you heard" not include reliance on creativity since you have stated that "in art creativity is not needed" and I do contend that art relies on "the expression and application of human creative skill and imagination" (see definition above).?