# Creative Thinking



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Do you guys place this type of intelligence above route memorization or just acknowledge it as another skill that can be developed? Do you believe it is more special or not?

Obviously it takes creative power to create music, which is how it applies to this forum section.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I think Creative Thinking is much superior to memorization.

I think memorization is more of a skill. (Even though I've been terrible in it.)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

haydnguy said:


> I think Creative Thinking is much superior to memorization.
> 
> I think memorization is more of a skill. (Even though I've been terrible in it.)


I'm wanting to agree, but I hold back just out of fear of arrogance being that I consider myself highly creative.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

I assume we are reserving this discussion for a musical context. Generally speaking, I would say that creative thinking is superior to an aptitude for rote memorization. But having a mind capable of massive musical memorization is more likely to be creative. The more musical knowledge and vocabulary retained, the more ready and flowing the output should be. Mozart's musical memory was legendary, as was his creativity. And, to be honest, in some musical roles, there is limited opportunity for creativity, but a reliable memory retention can prove invaluable.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It's an interesting point. Beethoven, whom most would consider highly creative, said late in life that he could remember every improvisation he ever did, note for note, and recreate them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It's an interesting point. Beethoven, whom most would consider highly creative, said late in life that he could remember every improvisation he ever did, note for note, and recreate them.


He had to create them in the first place though. Are we just saying he had a highly retentive musical memory too?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It is the creative thinkers who actually make the world move forward. Think of Einstein who was able to do thought experiments while employed as a clerk. Or an entrepreneur who can think out of the box. In art this creativity can come in various ways according to a person's gift. One might be able to write novels, another symphonies, another paintings.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DavidA said:


> It is the creative thinkers who actually make the world move forward. Think of Einstein who was able to do thought experiments while employed as a clerk. Or an entrepreneur who can think out of the box. In art this creativity can come in various ways according to a person's gift. One might be able to write novels, another symphonies, another paintings.


Do we need mere practitioners?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Extrapolating my 30 years of experience in chemical technology, including hiring and assessing staff, to any other field:

- Skilled and highly creative people tend to have good memories.
- Skilled and less creative people tend to have good memories as well.

Good memories are in my experience more associated with skill than with creativity. But highly creative people without sufficient skills in their area are not that successful, so they don't get noticed.

The ratio of highly creative to not so creative people is something like 1:20.

Of course, all of this may be biased by choosing one particular field (and one may argue that arts may attract a higher percentage of creative people than exact sciences).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> Extrapolating my 30 years of experience in chemical technology, including hiring and assessing staff, to any other field:
> 
> - Skilled and highly creative people tend to have good memories.
> - Skilled and less creative people tend to have good memories as well.
> ...


I think one thing to note is what ppl have memories for. One may forget their age, but have the periodic table memorized by heart.


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2018)

Dare I ask what is meant by "creative/creativity"? It's a regular theme in the education world - what it is and how we foster it, and are we depriving our children of a "creative" education by focusing on basic literacy and numeracy at the expense of the "creative" subjects. It seems to be valued over almost any other aspect of intelligence, but it is also treated as though it is a rare commodity.

Gardner's multiple intelligences analysis suggests that "creativity" comes in many guises. It's not just about originality and innovation in the arts.

https://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/mi/index.html

And here's another website (there's dozens of course with differing views) teling us that there is creative potential in us all.

https://creativityworkshop.com/what-is-creativity.html


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Being creative doesn't mean producing worthwhile ideas. You can be creative and produce rubbish ideas. Creativity as such doesn't belong on a pedestal. In institutions there is often an advantage to be had in encouraging creativity - largely because institutions tend to be resistant to new ideas even when they need them - and to find ways to sift the ideas that result to find the useful ones. But is that the sort of creativity referred to in the OP? 

I tend to score very highly in creativity on measures used in corporate environments to identify different people's thinking styles and this is indeed reflected by my often having ideas - some of which are good - for doing things in new ways. But I can't write novels or music and I can't paint worthwhile pictures. Where my creativity can be effective - to the extent that it can sometimes be - is in areas of endeavour where I already know a lot. So, for example, it works best where I have a lot of material in my mind to draw on and perceptions about where existing operations are weak or problematic. In areas where I lack both deep knowledge and any needed skills my creativity is at best an ability to fantasise.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

“Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working.” ―Pablo Picasso


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Depends on what field you are in. For doctors, memorization is paramount. For engineers, creative thinking is. But I would say creative thinking is a more unique ability than straight memorization.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Being creative doesn't mean producing worthwhile ideas. You can be creative and produce rubbish ideas. Creativity as such doesn't belong on a pedestal. In institutions there is often an advantage to be had in encouraging creativity - largely because institutions tend to be resistant to new ideas even when they need them - and to find ways to sift the ideas that result to find the useful ones. But is that the sort of creativity referred to in the OP?
> 
> I tend to score very highly in creativity on measures used in corporate environments to identify different people's thinking styles and this is indeed reflected by my often having ideas - some of which are good - for doing things in new ways. But I can't write novels or music and I can't paint worthwhile pictures. Where my creativity can be effective - to the extent that it can sometimes be - is in areas of endeavour where I already know a lot. So, for example, it works best where I have a lot of material in my mind to draw on and perceptions about where existing operations are weak or problematic. In areas where I lack both deep knowledge and any needed skills my creativity is at best an ability to fantasise.


Creativity can be defined as problem solving.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do we need mere practitioners?


Of course, we always need them


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Creativity can be defined as problem solving.


No problem solving is reactive. Creativity is proactive


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> *Dare I ask what is meant by "creative/creativity"?* It's a regular theme in the education world - what it is and how we foster it, and are we depriving our children of a "creative" education by focusing on basic literacy and numeracy at the expense of the "creative" subjects. It seems to be valued over almost any other aspect of intelligence, but it is also treated as though it is a rare commodity.


Trouble maker!

For me it amounts to something like a capacity for productive play and the imaginative flexibility and lack of inhibition to indulge it. I'm not sure if calling it a kind of intelligence makes sense. I would think it's more a matter of general intelligence enhanced by the capacities and traits listed above(?)


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Intelligence is multi-variate and measures aptitudes/skills/knowledge on a great many axes, with only a very tiny minority (the extreme end of the bell curve -- Leonardo? Shakespeare?) measuring highly on many of them at once. Creativity is an aptitude, and can apply to any number of traits -- music, writing, engineering, mathematical proof, scientific theorizing, etc. alone or in combination with other traits. Memorization can be helpful, but is in itself not the actual skill. (Spelling bee winners are the extreme example -- when you think of it, what good is it?) There is close to zero correlation between creativity (or being a spelling champion) and success in life. But I would find being creative (if poor) much preferable to being dull/mechanical/etc. and being rich.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DavidA said:


> No problem solving is reactive. Creativity is proactive


I disagree. Whenever there is a question that needs an answer, it takes creativity to solve it if it hasn't been answered already, or answered in a new way.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ Yes! Let's not put creativity in a box. If we do we will need people who can think outside the box to rescue it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ Yes! Let's not put creativity in a box. If we do we will need people who can think outside the box to rescue it.


I'd even say a composition is a solution to the problem of composing.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'd even say a composition is a solution to the problem of composing.


So then a piece of toast would be a solution to the problem of toasting?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> So then a piece of toast would be a solution to the problem of toasting?


If you can make a piece of bread into toast, you have probably solved the toasting problem.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> If you can make a piece of bread into toast, you have probably solved the toasting problem.


Someone already solved it, and all of us toast makers are practitioners of the toasting solution; it took creativity to discover toasting; new solutions to the problem of toasting takes creativity.

Any composition that doesn't mimic another 100% solves the problem of composition in a new way. You can begin to understand the varying levels of creativity in looking at this example.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Like Boris Papandopulo, I prefer Croative thinking


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Someone already solved it, and all of us toast makers are practitioners of the toasting solution; it took creativity to discover toasting; new solutions to the problem of toasting takes creativity.
> 
> Any composition that doesn't mimic another 100% solves the problem of composition in a new way. You can begin to understand the varying levels of creativity in looking at this example.


Thus, the less derivative the solution is, that is, the less it is based on old ideas and the more it is focused on novel ideas, the more creative the idea is.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I wonder, how derivative do you all find my compositions to be? I classify it a utilizing pop structures with Classical, Jazz and Blues theory and melody.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyUv3y1LKuZfwbOgBiV30dA


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

If we use my concepts above, of the big three composers, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, Beethoven was the most creative from piece to piece, rarely relying on repeated tricks in his music like Mozart's Trill or way of closing a specific passage.

Now, perhaps being novel in the Arts isn't what you value, but that is less creative based on my definitions.

Surely, creating your own version of a past form is still creative. Examples include: Writing prose in Shakespearean rhyme scheme or composing your own fugue; it still requires creative thinking, you just aren't coming up with a new formula.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> If we use my concepts above, of the big three composers, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, Beethoven was the most creative from piece to piece, rarely relying on repeated tricks in his music like Mozart's Trill or way of closing a specific passage.
> 
> Now, perhaps being novel in the Arts isn't what you value, but that is less creative based on my definitions.
> 
> Surely, creating your own version of a past form is still creative. Examples include: Writing prose in Shakespearean rhyme scheme or composing your own fugue; it still requires creative thinking, you just aren't coming up with a new formula.


I don't think this is entirely fair. How many times did Beethoven start with a theme and then it slowly grows to a crescendo where he repeats it to create a triumphant effect (think the opening movement of the 7th symphony)? I mean it's effective and he does it well but he does it often. Creativity is such a subjective thing to measure that it seems mildly ridiculous to claim that, according to objective measures, one of three obviously highly creative people is the most creative. Plus, everyone knows if we're playing the most creative guy ever game Kurt Gödel would win everytime ;-).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

BachIsBest said:


> I don't think this is entirely fair. How many times did Beethoven start with a theme and then it slowly grows to a crescendo where he repeats it to create a triumphant effect (think the opening movement of the 7th symphony)? I mean it's effective and he does it well but he does it often. Creativity is such a subjective thing to measure that it seems mildly ridiculous to claim that, according to objective measures, one of three obviously highly creative people is the most creative. Plus, everyone knows if we're playing the most creative guy ever game Kurt Gödel would win everytime ;-).


LvB's formulas are at least far less apparent.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Someone already solved it, and all of us toast makers are practitioners of the toasting solution; it took creativity to discover toasting; new solutions to the problem of toasting takes creativity.
> 
> Any composition that doesn't mimic another 100% solves the problem of composition in a new way. You can begin to understand the varying levels of creativity in looking at this example.


The "problem of composition" is a strange notion. No one approaches the creation of a composition as a problem to be solved except in the very rare instance of a puzzle canon or the like, and in such cases the solution already exists. I see no sense in which that makes sense. In what sense are you using the word problem?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> The "problem of composition" is a strange notion. No one approaches the creation of a composition as a problem to be solved except in the very rare instance of a puzzle canon or the like, and in such cases the solution already exists. I see no sense in which that makes sense. In what sense are you using the word problem?


X=Y

X=COMPOSER
Y=MUSICAL COMPOSITION

To solve for Y, we need an X, or a composer.

Composition is a mathematical problem here, and all pieces/songs are various solutions.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think measuring how derivative a work is is useless. It only matters if we create useful solutions.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

The more I think about it, the more I realize all jobs need good employees with problem solving skills and the ability to think on your feet.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Are some concepts harder to grasp than others?


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> LvB's formulas are at least far less apparent.


Maybe for you but I don't think that's anywhere close to being a universal truth. All of the big three certainly had distinctive styles with techniques and elements that were common throughout their pieces.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

BachIsBest said:


> Maybe for you but I don't think that's anywhere close to being a universal truth. All of the big three certainly had distinctive styles with techniques and elements that were common throughout their pieces.


I'd be willing to bet that if laymen were asked to describe patterns they hear in the music, Bach's and Mozart's would stand out strong where Beethoven's wouldn't.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> The "problem of composition" is a strange notion. No one approaches the creation of a composition as a problem to be solved except in the very rare instance of a puzzle canon or the like, and in such cases the solution already exists. I see no sense in which that makes sense. In what sense are you using the word problem?


Creative works are not without their inherent difficulties.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eusebius12 said:


> Creative works are not without their inherent difficulties.


Of course. Composing requires performing lots of difficult tasks and solving lots of little problems. What I'm objecting to is equating musical creativity with problem solving in some quasi-mathematical sense. The creativity isn't so much in solving the little musical problems - that's grunt work - the creativity is in setting the tasks and conceiving the problems.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Of course. Composing requires performing lots of difficult tasks and solving lots of little problems. What I'm objecting to is equating musical creativity with problem solving in some quasi-mathematical sense. The creativity isn't so much in solving the little musical problems - that's grunt work - the creativity is in setting the tasks and conceiving the problems.


Well, I bet any university mathematician would say that there's creativity in solving mathematical problems -- and indeed in "setting the tasks and conceiving the problems."


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> X=Y
> 
> X=COMPOSER
> Y=MUSICAL COMPOSITION
> ...


That equation doesn't jive. You are equating a composer with a musical composition? Composition is not and do not relate to mathematical problems. There are no mathematical problems in music. No more than in playing with play-doh.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Well, I bet any university mathematician would say that there's creativity in solving mathematical problems -- and indeed in "setting the tasks and conceiving the problems."


For sure, there are some math problems that require you to be creative in finding the solution, when you don't have the info to solve head on, sometimes with multiple steps. Art composition is different than math because there are multiple "right answers", depending on perspective, if there was a problem to begin with.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> That equation doesn't jive. You are equating a composer with a musical composition? Composition is not and do not relate to mathematical problems. There are no mathematical problems in music. No more than in playing with play-doh.


I'm explaining phenomenon using math. And there is indirect and/or direct math in composing. Your serial formulas can be seen as math just as Fugues.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Beats/measure, rests, note length are all numeric identities.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Math is in everything. There is geometry in play-doh creations.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you guys place this type of intelligence above route memorization or just acknowledge it as another skill that can be developed? Do you believe it is more special or not?
> 
> Obviously it takes creative power to create music, which is how it applies to this forum section.


I can understand how we came to confuse memorization with intelligence but it's 2018 now, we should now not make this mistake.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"_In the doing comes the knowing_." -Edgar Cayce


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Math is in everything. There is geometry in play-doh creations.


But it is not solving equations and math problems in playdoh or music composition. I think sometimes there is too much drawn between music and math.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Well, I bet any university mathematician would say that there's creativity in solving mathematical problems -- and indeed in "setting the tasks and conceiving the problems."


Of course. What I am objecting to is assuming the problems are similar.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

eljr said:


> I can understand how we came to confuse memorization with intelligence but it's 2018 now, we should now not make this mistake.


I keep forgetting that.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> But it is not solving equations and math problems in playdoh or music composition. I think sometimes there is too much drawn between music and math.


But as I did, we can use math as one way to conceptualize both.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

eljr said:


> I can understand how we came to confuse memorization with intelligence but it's 2018 now, we should now not make this mistake.


Memorization is an important part of brain activity, and is linked with intelligence. Generally speaking.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Eusebius12 said:


> Memorization is an important part of brain activity, and is linked with intelligence. Generally speaking.


I agree. It all works together; knowledge, memory and problem solving (creative thought).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Note the distinction between these two _physicalist _theses

1. _There's a mathematical model for a piece of music_ -- presumably to do with sound waves and stuff like that.

and

2. _The process of reasoning can be modelled in maths_ - presumably to do with all the electrical and chemical activity in our bodies.

and these _mental _theses

3. _The process of composition consists partly in mathematical type reasoning_ -- presumably the calculation of rhythms and stuff like that)

and

4. _The process of composition consists entirely in mathematical reasoning_

I have no idea whether an argument can be made for 4.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> If you can make a piece of bread into toast, you have probably solved the toasting problem.


Ah, but it's not that simple. Since heat rises, you have to flip the bread halfway through to get an even browning. Also, reverse the front-rear axis, to accommodate inconsistencies in distance from the heating elements. This means to completely "invert" the bread.

There's a right way to do things, and a wrong way.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It's an interesting point. Beethoven, whom most would consider highly creative, said late in life that he could remember every improvisation he ever did, note for note, and recreate them.


So, we are to gather from this tidbit that "creativity" is just brute brain power. This sounds more like evidence that Beethoven was OCD, or was simply bragging. 
Besides, if it is true improvisation, it is spontaneous. This kind of "play" might be remembered on some more generalized abstract level ("I played a C-major arpeggio here"), but if one believes Beethoven's statement literally, then one obviously does not understand the nature of improvisation, or how the brain engages in this sort of play. If someone remembered "every improvisation he ever did, note for note, and could recreate them," I would consider this to be an impediment to improvisation, if not a downright brain affliction.

Happy rationalizing!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> So, we are to gather from this tidbit that "creativity" is just brute brain power. This sounds more like evidence that Beethoven was OCD, or was simply bragging.
> Besides, if it is true improvisation, it is spontaneous. This kind of "play" might be remembered on some more generalized abstract level ("I played a C-major arpeggio here"), but if one believes Beethoven's statement literally, then one obviously does not understand the nature of improvisation, or how the brain engages in this sort of play. If someone remembered "every improvisation he ever did, note for note, and could recreate them," I would consider this to be an impediment to improvisation, if not a downright brain affliction.
> 
> Happy rationalizing!


Ken's point is a red herring I think

As far as I recall, memory is to do with understanding, the more you understand something conceptually the more likely you are to remember it. Hence good chess players can remember the moves of games perfectly, mathematicians can remember proofs etc. I bet many musicians can remember their improvisations as well as Beethoven, I don't think it has anything to do with creativity.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I suppose it might be too outrageous to suggest that music lovers actually read what the great composers had to say about their own creative process when they obviously achieved results. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/19423


----------



## atm (Oct 28, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you guys place this type of intelligence above route memorization or just acknowledge it as another skill that can be developed? Do you believe it is more special or not?
> 
> Obviously it takes creative power to create music, which is how it applies to this forum section.


I guess that it is like perfect pitch. If you dont learn it when you are young then you dont have much chance to.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

atm said:


> I guess that it is like perfect pitch. If you dont learn it when you are young then you dont have much chance to.


True, but that doesn't get to the heart of the question.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm bumping this thread for more discussion. I'm so wanting to be inclusive in my thinking rather than exclusive that some ppl are more special than others.

I think some follow their passions and work hard at them to achieve great work, and that is special, but all jobs require some creativity, not as much as others, but that doesn't put it on a pedestal.

One may be a fantastic Bartender and another a great Chemist.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Some people are able to follow their intuition; others cannot. Also, I think people who are "creative" discover things for themselves, rather than accepting what they are told, so it has more meaning to them. This includes various simple "given" things in simple problems, which most people take for granted, and as a consequence, don't fully "grok" the true meaning of in any real way; they are lost in an abstraction which has no real meaning to them.

@Captainnumber36, to me a "genius" is somebody who can do something that I cannot do; conversely, my "genius" is what I can do which you cannot. This goes up by degrees, until we reach the point that _nobody_ can do it; then, you are a true genius at the pinnacle.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I wrote an e-mail yesterday, hooray. I had to copy some text from a paper document I had. I suddenly felt proud that I could copy what was written, and also see some mistakes. Bit of a proof-reader!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I wrote an e-mail yesterday, hooray. I had to copy some text from a paper document I had. I suddenly felt proud that I could copy what was written, and also see some mistakes. Bit of a proof-reader!


Some ppl have the ability to push society forward with their creative thinking, we can certainly celebrate their achievements, but can't we celebrate any great achievements? To someone with severe Autism, writing an email is a great feat!


----------

