People are biased against creative ideas, studies find

People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely practical

We should realize, every creative idea extrapolates human thinking outside of perspective, which directly testable. In addition, new creative ideas cannot gain some advantage, which follow from principles of scientific funding, like the number of citations. When you're developing new idea, you cannot cite your predecessors, so you're not interesting person for them.

Testing of new ideas is unrewarding activity from many reasons: you cannot get the priority credit, you're forced to adopt your research program to foreign ideas instead of the opposite and you're appearing in psychosocially ungrateful position at the moment, when you cannot confirm foreign idea. At the very end, but not least comes trivial psychological motivations, like the rivalry and jealousy.

From this reason, they scientists tend to ignore creative ideas in general, especially under conditions of the current low financial support

The spreading of new ideas is similar to gravity field behaviour in many aspects. Every provocative idea is surrounded with hostile atmosphere of its opponents of the opposite space-time curvature ("antiparticles"), which are known as a dark matter. This aspect is the more pronounced, the stronger causality gradient is formed around new idea (the higher number of extradimensions such idea is representing). Instead of it, the conformal ideas are accepted rather smoothly. For example the relativity theory was rather convenient for many Einstein's contemporaries (Lorentz, Poincare, Hilbert), so it had spread well through formally thinking community of formally thinking physicists.

We should realize, every new paradigm, which brings many quantitative relations into formal models is welcomed with theorists, because it brings many new jobs positions into their community. From this reason the string theory gained a significant support, despite it failed from solely practical perspective.

It is funny that (having worked in SW testing for over 20 years,) recently I was asked to take a personality test at a job interview, I'd been through several interviews and thought this was a good sign. My graph of answered questions appeared (loosely) like a flat bottom pit. There were 4 points on the graph, so I had #1 near the top, #2 at the bottom with #3 one tick above #2's and #4 back up to the top. When I saw it I thought I must have done pretty bad with those very low areas, but the results said I was highly creative.

I did not get the job.

Nobody likes a thinker, that's what I learned in school. Introverts are often polymaths as well, and the wider knowledge base you have, the bigger the gap in between you and other people.

What makes a real difference is an ability to articulate your ideas with a new eye, and Feynman-esque passion.

My own experience ~ doing poorly in school, going from A's in grade school to F's by 9th grade, failing once in 5th, twice in the 9th, finaly dropping out and getting my GED...having started school a few years early, at that point I decided to go right to community college to avoid wasting time, earned a degree by the time I was 18. Never used it once.

I've been quite successful in life, also fallen flat on my face multiple times...c'est la vie, but the point is that even though I was for the most part highly uneducated, having never really been instilled with the lessons of what is " not possible, etc " heightened my abilities like unorthodox problem solving.

..cont.

Now going back later in life and starting to study all the great things I missed out on when I was younger, science, physics, philosophy, I find that most of my intuitional thinking when it comes to such things is more often than not, spot on.

Of course, now I'm just old and and narcissistic for the most part, being right most of the time really just gets old,lol.

The DunningKruger effect people. That's all I'm saying. You should read this series in the NY Times.

http://opinionato...lemma-1/

Kudos issacsname, hilarious article, and it seems sadly true.

Kudos issacsname, hilarious article, and it seems sadly true.

Thanks. Don't forget to wear the juice.

You must remember that people have a remarkable range of tolerance of novelty, and not just change, but the very rate of change...

Nobody likes a thinker, that's what I learned in school. Introverts are often polymaths as well, and the wider knowledge base you have, the bigger the gap in between you and other people.

Indeed.

In school I tended to read a lot, more than most I'd guess.

I was at a community college a while back, and the dean there actually had the instructor delete my work off the computer because I finished it early...so I could help other students. He deleted my work and made me do it again!

I've never seen something so insane in any school invironment in my life, that I was "punished" for actually doing well in class.

Bad enough to have out-dated family members who live 50 to 100 years behind the times, but to have a college dean punish you for doing good was BS.

So much for America being the "Innovative Society!" LOL

I know China is catching up and will pass us soon, but don't pronounce us "dead" just yet.

@rawa TL;DR
Keep it shorter

I teach math in a U.S. high school. This is a recent occupation. I've spent most of my life creating speculative philosophy and music. I can't tell you how many times I've spotted brilliant/creative kids who have been passed over by other teachers because those teachers seem unable to recognize the creative spark.

To realize the truth of this article, we need only glance casually at government, big business, or the military . . .

Autistic individuals are unable to tolerate change; older people are generally less able to cope with change; conservative (in the behavioural rather than political sense) have a greater affinity with tradition and resist change ~ a healthy young brain embraces change and this is most probably an evolutionary dynamic in that uncommitted young people can explore new ideas, new places, new foods, new tools and so on.

Intellectual lightweights are the most likely to reject change at an earlier age, real brains are still thinking about new things on their death bed...

POPPYCOCK! There are two kinds of thinkers in this world: Those who truly are innovative and those who only think they are.

Most of this "resistance to change" is because some self styled thinker believes he knows more than everyone else. But before you change a system, you have to know how it got that way in the first place and what advantages it has. Too many fools think that they have a better idea without any understanding of what the present systems do or what assumptions it is built upon.

In other words, I'm all for thinking outside the box, as long as you know where the old box is, and what is inside it.

Most do not. Resistance to change is a good thing at this rate. It keeps us from throwing out many babies with the bathwater.

When you can show me not only a good idea, but why it is better than what we have, I'll listen. Until then, you're just another crackpot.

The DunningKruger effect people. That's all I'm saying. - Easie

Except for the spam just posted, every commentary here and elsewhere will and does reflect this effect.

The physical analogy 'blind spot' for the eye is inadmissible.
Outside of math, you can not divide by zero and make sense.

The bullet points are BS.

.1)Creative ideas are by definition novel, and novelty can trigger feelings of uncertainty that make most people uncomfortable.

Meanings and definitions change daily (through usage).

2.)People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely practical -- tried and true.

Tell this to Ptolemy and Copernicus.

3.)Objective evidence shoring up the validity of a creative proposal does not motivate people to accept it.

No such thing: "Objective evidence" or "validity". Creativity do not motivate acceptance. So? What's the author's point?

cont...

4.)Anti-creativity bias is so subtle that people are unaware of it, which can interfere with their ability to recognize a creative idea.

Cognitive biases are the objects of research, science and study.

And here is one last bias I leave you with:
You are simply a reader's victim along with the 200 people the author uses to support his boredom, or if you will, "paper". At you expense, the author addresses your vanity, nothing more. Something you don't read want to read here.
Something you don't want written by anyone.

@hush1
W
T
F

Since 2 is the only thing that made sense, I'll address it.

2.)People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely practical -- tried and true.

Tell this to Ptolemy and Copernicus...

and Galileo, Tesla, and Darwin... oh wait... turns out they were ridiculed for their innovation. To death. And then some.

@Doschx
We are not talking about ridicule.
We are not talking about ridicule for an innovation.
We are talking about the dismissal of an idea.
Get out of your jerk mode.

@hush1
Stop trying to sound smarter than everyone else, you are not...
Your critique of the article and it's associated paper (even though you clearly did not read the whole paper, which is enough to let others see your childish desire to sound smart) is lacking one essential thing: actually making any sense...

Once again, please stop trying to sound smarter than the rest, you are not.

@tt
Simply state you do not understand.

...which is enough to let others see your childish desire to sound smart...

It is impossible to know what others see.
It is impossible to know my childish desires unless I state them.

Stop second guessing sounds and intelligence.
And you will sense.

Typo corrections in CAPS:
"And you will MAKE sense."

Beautiful thing about this study is if someone calls it bologna, it's kind of proving their point. This is because everything is attracted into relativistic macroscopic past with gravity and repulsed from microscopic quantum future via pressure of radiation in neverending tautology ("..the past world was Eden garden, the future goes to hell...").

@hush1

Really man, you make no sense. Try and learn some proper english before you go around trying to sound smart using it... And no, english is not my first language, I had to learn it too and by myself since I could never afford a teacher or an english school...

And yes, I and others can easily spot your childish desire ( I don't think you understand that statement judging by what you had to say about it... ask someone that can speak good english to explain that for you) to sound smart in front of other people when all you are doing is writing long comments with long sentences that say nothing concrete but only makes unfounded critiques of studies or subjects you don't really understand...

Again, please stop trying to sound smart than the rest of us, you are simply not...

If dismissal = bias, (pertaining to novel thought), then math is complete, sufficient and necessary.

In other words, any conclusion is premature, no matter now long the novel idea persists.

@tt
You simply exhibit your lack of understanding and the lack of desire to understand. What did you not understand? Specifically.

Or better yet, tell me what you understand. Why do you agree with the paper?

Have you notice something here? The hallmark to understanding is asking questions.

Typo correction in CAPS to preceding post:

"In other words, any conclusion is premature, no matter How long the novel idea persists."

Individuals are quite creative.
If those individuals have the self-esteem to ignore their critics, great things happen.
Paradoxically, Kaizen, initially implemented in Japan encourages and rewards creative improvement.
http://www.valueb...zen.html

To realize the truth of this article, we need only glance casually at government, big business, or the military . . .

The military must be creative if it is to be successful.
Improvise, adapt, overcome.
Such creativity is stomped on by senior officers who are more worried about promotion than results.
Just like our current regime is more worried about being elected than results.
The USA was created to be a federation of states that could be creative, and fail early and often if needed, which would benefit all.
Same in the military or business, small units are most creative and successful: Skunk Works, SEALS, Marines,...

I see this at my job every weekly meeting...

Hopefully taxpayers weren't bilked out of millions for this "no shit" conclusion...

I think also, that enthusiasm is very important to sell an idea, because that's in essence what we are doing when we are trying to convince someone about a particular idea making sense. We are selling them something. I always tended to admire people like Clifford Stoll for their ability to really captivate people. It shows you really believe what you say is standing on terra firma.

Of course, I also found that leading by example is very effective, but sort of removes us and our egos from the mix, so it is a little-used method, most people want credit for what they see as " their " ideas ( a concept I have problems with -ownership of ideas ). Ho Chi Minh said the best leader leads from behind....it can be a difficult decision whether to toil twice as hard to show somebody something new and gain the admiration and loyalty as a manager/CEO/leader/whatever, or forgo the recognition in exchange for easy implimentation of a new idea, basically taking advantage of people's tendancy

To imitate behavoirs.

There is a reward to be gleaned for selfless sharing of ideas though.

Satisfaction and a healthy taming of the ego.

Think about people like Pauli, who never really cared to be credited, they were just happy to be who they were, doing what they were doing, very Zen-like imo.

Does this mean there is still hope for neutron repulsion ?

@hush1
Stop trying to sound smarter than everyone else, you are not...
Your critique of the article and it's associated paper (even though you clearly did not read the whole paper, which is enough to let others see your childish desire to sound smart) is lacking one essential thing: actually making any sense...

Once again, please stop trying to sound smarter than the rest, you are not.

Hush is an Artiste. Hes the guy who does the crappy paintings they hang up in the library, outside the restrooms.

The trick is to use paints that never dry. Or do you think the restroom graffiti is written with lemon juice?

Yeah. Maybe you need some lessons?
http://www.youtub...a_player

For 10 yrs I suggested creative ideas to my company regarding product design and cost savings. Every idea was ignored and I even had some derided. I watched as several ideas were implemented very successfully by other companies in the same industry. Some were implemented after someone in the "correct" department "suggested" it. Sadly, I've given up and just try to do well at my own job.

However, I think the fault is largely my own. I know how people are and I've never learned to correctly inspire others to see the concepts as I see them. So, I must still improve myself if I wish to change my experiences.

@hushi

Okay, I'll take the bait.

The physical analogy 'blind spot' for the eye is inadmissible.
Outside of math, you can not divide by zero and make sense.

Why is this analogy inadmissible? Besides the fact that you can't divide by zero inside of math either, what does this have to do with the analogy?

.1)Creative ideas are by definition novel, and novelty can trigger feelings of uncertainty that make most people uncomfortable.

Meanings and definitions change daily (through usage).

Are you refuting this statement by challenging the definition of the word "creativity"? If so, what is your working definition of creativity, and your response to the assertion that NOVEL ideas make people uncomfortable?

3.)Objective evidence shoring up the validity of a creative proposal does not motivate people to accept it.

No such thing: "Objective evidence" or "validity". Creativity do not motivate acceptance. So? What's the author's point?

The existence or not of objective reality makes for an interesting topic of philosophical discussion, but the outright dismissal of it negates all scientific endeavor. We strive to perceive reality as objectively as possible, which is an unattainable if worthy goal. So, if - to the best of our ability - all evidence points to the validity of a new and creative idea, people still reject this evidence in favor of what they already know and are comfortable with. I think the author's point is that this bias leads to the rejection of potentially advantageous changes to whatever facet of society the new idea is dealing with.

So... what's YOUR point? I can't really tell what position you're advocating.

FAMOUS QUOTES

- Inventor of Present Day Satellite Technology Arthur C. Clark "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
Arthur C. Clark

" Imagination is more important than knowledge. "
- (A. Einstein)

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a person does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses their intelligence."
--Albert Einstein

"Today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science fact."
(Stephen Hawking)

"Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new."
- (Galileo)

One cautious corollary to the Clarke's Law mentioned above warns that 'magic' may be covert tech...
And, tangentially, "A simple solution to a complex problem may betray a higher order."

@cad

Why is this analogy inadmissible? Besides the fact that you can't divide by zero inside of math either, what does this have to do with the analogy?

I.)
1.)
Bias is an internal mental state. If you are blind to bias you have to take someone's word that you are bias. You don't have to take someone's word that you have a blind spot in your eye.
2.)The DunningKruger effect is an inconsistent construct. Division by zero in math is used daily. This is a construct too. A consistent construct that extends math's limits.

Are you refuting this statement by challenging the definition of the word "creativity"?

II.)
1.)Yes. There is no scientific working word definition for "creativity"
2.)My response to the assertion that novel ideas make people uncomfortable is that: The assertion is not falsifiable. You can extrapolate any internal mental state needed to satisfy your assertion. The paper is not science. I have no science working definition for the word "creativity".

We strive to perceive reality as objectively as possible

III.)
1.)In science we do nothing of the sort. We collect data. There is zero reliance on human perception. The only thing we are willing to assign the label "objectivity" to, are objects that have been measured with an arbitrary unit of measure to which everyone agrees. We agree to label the recorded measurements as "objective reality".

So... what's YOUR point? I can't really tell what position you're advocating.

My point is the paper has nothing to do with science.
The greatest disservice done, if not retracted, is done to the author, encouraging bias for falsehoods instead of science.

@holoman

"The latter cannot understand it when a person does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses their intelligence."

You have thoughtlessly submitted to quoting cherry picked quotes. This is much less than honestly and courageously using your own intelligence.

Hush, enough. You're right, bias IS an internal state. However, it is ALSO a real state, that is falsifiable. The fact that you don't believe in the "provable-ness" of cognitive bias is what is actually meaningless here. The discovery and mapping of cognitive bias is not questioned in the literature, or the scientific body at large. Also, its application has led to more than a few Nobel prizes in Economics.

Additionally, your argument that there is no "scientific definition of creativity" is absurd. Your reliance on semantics to refute a peer-reviewed paper is juvenile at best. If you want to play word police, first, go read some people who are MUCH better at it than you are. Like Wittgenstein.

The author used established methods and controls in a, forgive me, creative way...and got novel results. These results were accepted as valid by a jury of peers. If you want anyone to take your assault on accepted principles seriously, start citing primary sources.

Recognition of creativity is the focus of the research. It is a very old story and one with vast important ramifications.
For example how many people lived between the time people learned to work wood and leather and domesticated horses? It was at least five thousand year between the domestication of the horse and the invention of the horse collar which doubled the food a man and a horse could produce. The horse was never a practical draft animal before the horse collar invention around the tenth century. The horse collar did not increase in value after five thousand years of domestic horses.
The same is true today with hundreds of good ideas unnoticed generally
The Pareto principle may explain why the rich are always with us.
The Laffer curve seems to be the most obvious thing in the world but why was it written down only in the last forty years? The conclusion has been supported by the objective data for thousands of years.
This is worthy of research.

There is zero reliance on human perception.

That is impossible.
All is heuristic. http://www.me.ute...ory.html

Regarding perception, I wonder how many people looked at a photo of Pluto and Charon before Jim Christy saw Charon and received credit for it. His perception of the image led to the discovery of Charon.

Nanoparticler

Also, its application has led to more than a few Nobel prizes in Economics.

Applications leading to prizes rather than to the advancement of Economics you meant to say.

The discovery and mapping of cognitive bias is not questioned in the literature, or the scientific body at large.

So say the self appointing guardians of critical commentary.

Your reliance on semantics to refute a peer-reviewed paper is juvenile at best.

The author counts on your bias and your alliance to all things peer reviewed. Easy prey.

If you want anyone to take your assault on accepted principles seriously, start citing primary sources.

If I mount an "assault" on "accepted principles seriously", Phsyorg commentary thread is no such place to do so.

Your unquestioning nature is not strength. And the author will christen you as unbiased. I will not stoop to congratulating a weakness. An effect, I will assert this author does for you.

POPPYCOCK! There are two kinds of thinkers in this world: Those who truly are innovative and those who only think they are.

Very true. You just have to look at all these 'theories' being propagated in the commnet sections on physorg. The proponents surely think they are 'creative' or 'unsung geniusses'. But all 99.9% of the time it's blindingly obvious that the person just has no clue what he's talking about and that anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject can point out many, many flaws with the theory.

The same is true today with hundreds of good ideas unnoticed generally

Chinese people can claim credit for many creative innovations and the Chinese Emperors can take credit for stopping any further development of those ideas.
The same general concept extends to the world. Creativity is inhibited by govts, society and even professional associations.
For all you creative types, if you support 'progressivism', central planning, etc, ask yourself why.

"a Cuban immigrant who currently resides in Oregon. His name escapes me and I would really like to give him credit for this notion. His talk was on our (relatively) free-market system, and how lucky we are to have it, how we take for granted the abundance and the diversity of selections that are available to us when we go to a grocery store or any other market. What he ended with the idea that whacked me right on the side of the head was this: the notion that without liberty, there is no creativity. Without freedom, there is no reason to endure the pain of discipline that is required for creative problem solving."
http://mises.org/daily/3461

or maybe ryg the "centrally planned, progressivists" are inhibited when these "free-markets" decide to place an embargo on them and sap out all the economic capability of them to fund any creativity?

IMO you'd have to be über creative just to survive on the little that they have.

IMO you'd have to be über creative just to survive on the little that they have.

That's the 'progressive' argument for more oppression?
Those that are still alive in North Korea must be the most creative people on earth.

Interesting Article.

More 'creativity' from the inventor of the internet:
"One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, at least so says former Vice President Al Gore.

Read more: http://dailycalle...WLCluhDk
"
Imagine, a 'liberal' playing a race card. How can it be?

In my efforts to convince people to *read* what the Electric Universe says, so that people can judge the theory on their own, I've encountered a hostility which was far beyond anything I had ever imagined. It seems that questioning a person's existing belief system -- even if the reasoning is based upon evidence -- is oftentimes interpreted as a hostile attack.

I've always been open to people disagreeing with the evidence and inferences. That is healthy. What I've had to fight is people refusing to read and educate themselves.

I increasingly view this, however, as an opportunity. Education is the next big thing to hit the Internet, and there are now books -- like Shelley Carson's "Your Creative Brain" -- which teach people how to perform creative problem-solving (how to put your subconscious to work for you!). The transformed educational system will, without a doubt, integrate these techniques.

One of the things which have become apparent in science is that ideas are judged on the basis of how different they are from the existing consensus. In this manner, you can easily end up with hypotheses which are incredibly explanatory and predictive, and yet lack much in the way of support.

I would point to David Talbott's Saturnian hypothesis as the perfect example. It explains the large majority of the most enigmatic observations of human mythology, but people are so incapable of imagining it because it also proposes that our solar system has dramatically changed over the course of just 5,000 years.

People put so much stock into dating techniques, but the dates are ultimately selected by humans, based upon a set of values offered by machines. And the dating technique assumes that they are impervious to catastrophic planetary-scale electrical discharges.

There is a point where faith in scientific consensus starts to seem like a religion.

Just a thought - I have a HEAP of really brilliant, innovative, creative, talented, inspirational, and wonderous ideas all the time - so this being a genius applies to me - BUT - the flips side of it is, is that as much as I LOVE doing all this really creative work - I run into a heap of issues such as planning, design, testing, product evaluation, production line tooling, distribution, marketing, sales and, and, and, and - and when you creat a situation where you have about 50 MAJOR projects running at the same time - there are days I leap out of bed and say, "I have never had it so good, I am living the life of my dreams, I get to do ALL these amazing things all the time - I love it, it's fabulous, I can hardly wait to start etc.

And there are other days - I get my head up over the blankets, start looking all all I HAVE TO DO, and think of about 200 things to go along with them and say, "There is too much to do - I can't cope" and I feel overwhelmed and have to start small & simple.

This is why it is essential for a creative person to develop skill in reassuring people that their ideas are not really very creative. Learn to bridge the gaps between what you propose and other things that have worked well in the past.

IMO a bias against jerks is often more in play than a bias against creativity. Consider the "creative" ideas one normally encounters in the workplace. At least half of them are self-promotion schemes by the people pushing them. The only creativity demonstrated is how easy it can be to make management think they have a clue.

Many of the remaining ideas do not allow adequate, if any, funding and time for effective implementation. The people pushing the ideas could care less about such real world concerns.

A related issue is how employees are typically evaluated. God forbid anyone make a mistake. It might follow them their whole career. Tried and true techniques are generally so familiar that mistakes are very rare. Yet, even the most creative idea will generally result in numerous mistakes in the implementation. Most people do not desire to take on this risk to their career.

Yeah, yeah - you are all Einsteins who just don't have the time, equipment, blah, blah, blah.

Not.

I've done original research and I've invented something new - and you know what? It was hard work. The 'grand idea' that started it off - and of which I was so sure was utterly brilliant - didn't survive the first encounter with reality for long.

Looking around at other researchers it was always the same (and these are all people with PhDs to their names - so on average a lot smarter and more creative than the average poster here.)

Thinking that you can solve some huge problems with an untested scheme full of technical terms you only have a laymans knowledge of (if at all)? You're just kidding yourselves.

Example: How many fission/cold fusion proponents here? The number of people who couldn't describe fission/fusion in DETAIL if their life depended on it is exactly the same.

IMO many people are hostile against carriers of creative ideas simply because they're concurrence for them. Every crackpot who brings a new idea prohibits to invent it myself. The people aren't born to cooperate, but compete in evolutionary fight. If they cooperate, they only cooperate for being able to compete the other groups better.

I think it's a risk/reward thing. Creative ideas are risky until proven/believed otherwise and the potential reward needs to outweigh the perceived risk.

Ones ability/willingness to accept this risk is what affects their attitude towards these creative ideas. Some people deal really well and even welcome this risk. Others detest it and like to stick with what they know/think works.

The perceived risk/reward also has a great deal to do with who is presenting the idea and the manner in which it is being presented.

When ideas are presented in the form "This is how I things should be and you're an idiot for not realizing it" especially when done so by someone who is unproven, the risk of accepting the idea is too high to justify the potential reward, so the idea is generally discarded.

MOST INVENTORS WERE VIEWED AS CRAZY.

My favorite lines... from the article:

To uncover bias against creativity, the researchers used a subtle technique **snip** they actually associated creative ideas with negative words such as "vomit," "poison" and "agony."

Sounds real subtle.

From the commentary:

Hes the guy who does the crappy paintings they hang up in the library, outside the restrooms.

and

The trick is to use paints that never dry.

Of course people are biased against "creative" ideas. That's because the vast majority of creative ideas are moronic. How often have you been drunk with your friend and he has said something moronic (but creative!) like, "have you ever wondered if like... dude... our entire universe is like inside a single subatomic particle in some other universe!?" There are very, very few creative ideas that are actually worth anything. It is, in general, a waste of one's time to try every new "creative" idea that comes along.

I disagree, nono... People, in general, resist change. It's as simple as that.

Of course people are biased against "creative" ideas. That's because the vast majority of creative ideas are moronic. How often have you been drunk with your friend and he has said something moronic (but creative!) like, "have you ever wondered if like... dude... our entire universe is like inside a single subatomic particle in some other universe!?" There are very, very few creative ideas that are actually worth anything. It is, in general, a waste of one's time to try every new "creative" idea that comes along.

Right. So you are saying the one particle universe idea is only acceptable when brought to the table by people like Dirac, Eddington and Weyl ? And because a stoner has the same idea that it is invalidated as having no merit ?

I couldn't agree with that at all.

So you are saying the one particle universe idea is only acceptable when brought to the table by people like Dirac, Eddington and Weyl ?

Dirac, Eddington and Weyl will have done some work on it before bringing it to the table (showing it integrates with observations from different areas). They'll also argue how you can test it to see if it's a good idea or not (String Theory being a notable exception).

The stoner most likely won't put any work in beyond the initial brainfart. He'll just say: "You do the work...I'm done being 'creative' "

And that basically sums up all the 'theories', 'bright ideas', 'I-thought-of-this-years-agos' and 'creative input' being bandied about in the comments section on physorg.

Stoners.

The lot of 'em.

AP, True, and bring it they did.

My point is that when we say one person having an idea is a fruitcake, and one is a genuis, we are merely addresing our view of the person and not the idea they both share. It's personal bias, and it really does affect how we gain new insights in life, imo.

As far as drug usage and creativity in science, well, ask people like Kary Mullis if it works for him,

http://en.wikiped...y_Mullis

..and Francis Crick

http://en.wikiped...is_Crick

..both Nobel prize winners, neither here nor there, this article wasn't about drugs and creativity in science, but I wanted to point out some drug use in science history and the fact that creativity and motivation are two entirely different things.

Sometimes you just have to start grabbing people and clonking heads together like Moe to get people to listen, I say choose your battles carefully.

Jonathan Swift (1667 1745): "When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him".

Adalbert Chamisso (1781 - 1838): "Pythagoras made one sacrifice to the Gods who sent him this enlightenment; one hundred oxen, slaughtered and burned, professed his gratitude. The oxen, since that day when they scented that a new truth divulged itself, roared inhumanely."

This validates a lifetime of experience. Being blessed and cursed with an abundance of creative thoughts in various areas, I have seen many times the reaction of others to new ideas, insights or alternative solutions. The "gravity" explanation is politically correct, but it boils down to human nature: 1) People who are predominately less capable of creative thoughts are suspicious and envious of those who are, and it manifests itself as skepticism, suspicion, and ridicule, 2) Even when people may suspect that a creative idea has merit and validity, it is easier to dismiss it and avoid the hard work of exploring and developing a new way of doing things, and 3) The unfortunate result is that creativity, rather than spreading and becoming more widespread in society, ends up seeking its own kind, and creative people tend to find each other and create the results (Apple, Hollywood, Media, Technology, etc.) and society tends to segregate rather than integrate creative people.

@ - JAZZ - the signs of our prophets are written on the subway walls - they still eco the sound of silence

rwinners: "I disagree, nono... People, in general, resist change. It's as simple as that."

Yes, that's my point: it is advantageous to do so.

The vast majority of proposed "creative ideas" are stupid and not well thought out.