W******e
发帖数: 3319 | 1 1. Introduction
My interest in studying creativity was inspired by the frustrations that I
felt as a student, then as a professor. I wanted to know how I could
encourage creativity in myself, my students, and my colleagues.
Politicians, industrial managers, academic administrators, and other leaders
often say that innovation is critical to the future of civilization, our
country, their company, etc. But in practice, these same people often act as
if innovation is an evil that must be suppressed, or at least tightly
controlled.
The purposes of this essay are to (1) quickly examine some of the
personality traits that are associated with unusual creativity and
innovation and (2) to criticize management and educational techniques that
penalize or discourage creativity. The way to increase the productivity of
creative people is simple: give them resources (time, equipment, money) and
stand out of their way!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
2. Definitions
First, consider a definition of creativity. A creative person does things
that have never been done before. Particularly important instances of
creativity include discoveries of new knowledge in science and medicine,
invention of new technology, composing beautiful music, or analyzing a
situation (e.g., in law, philosophy, or history) in a new way.
It is important to distinguish among three different characteristics:
intelligence, creativity, and academic degrees. Intelligence is the ability
to learn and the ability to think. Creativity was defined in the previous
paragraph, as the ability to produce new things or new knowledge. Academic
degrees are what one gets after one has sat through years of classes, passed
the examinations, and completed all of the other requirements (e.g., senior
thesis, doctoral dissertation, etc.). In comparing and contrasting these
three traits, I note that:
Most people who create significant things are intelligent.
There are many people with an earned doctoral degree who do not have a
single creative idea in their head. They are intelligent and highly skilled
problem solvers, but someone else must formulate the problem for them (e.g.,
give them an equation to solve). Thus intelligence and academic degrees are
not evidence of creativity.
Students who are both intelligent and highly creative often make mediocre
grades in school.
Genius is a vague term: sometimes it indicates a person with an unusually
high score on an IQ test, other times it indicates an extraordinarily
creative person (e.g., Mozart or Einstein). I don't like the word genius,
not only because of this vagueness, but also because it often has the
connotation in colloquial American language of indicating a freak, weird, or
abnormal person. I am interested in understanding and encouraging
creativity, not pasting pejorative labels on creative people. Further,
someone who is not a genius can still make a valuable contribution to
progress.
theory of creativity
Readers who have not previously considered the psychology of creativity
might first wish to read my summary of Sternberg's theory of creativity at
the end of this document. In short, the ability to be creative is the
amalgamation of several different kinds of intelligence and personality
traits. Creativity is an amazingly complex subject.
There are many books about the psychology of creativity in artists, but
relatively little about creativity in scientists and engineers. However,
there are (1) a number of biographies of scientists, which give some light
on creativity in scientists, and (2) some books on creativity in
mathematicians.
The following are my own conclusions and comments about creativity, based on:
my observations of colleagues and students, some of whom were highly
creative, but others were not creative, and asking myself why the
differences in creative output,
my personal experiences,
my reading biographies of scientists, mathematicians, and composers of music
, and
my reading psychology books on creativity.
It is obvious that before one can do creative science and engineering, one
must have some technical knowledge of facts, laws, and methods (e.g., study
of physics, chemistry, calculus, differential equations, statistics,
computer programming, etc.). If one compares highly creative scientists and
engineers with their plodding, ordinary colleagues, one finds essentially
the same kinds of intelligence and knowledge in both groups. Therefore, I
conclude that it must be the personality traits that distinguish creative
from noncreative people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
3. personality traits
associated with creativity
A. diligence
Many people who are famous for their creative output are highly diligent,
often bordering on the obsessive. It is common to see creative professors
working 60 to 80 hours/week for the sheer joy of the effort. Creative people
have an inner need to express their creativity. They can not keep their new
idea inside their head forever, the idea needs to be born. In fact, many
creative people would be creative, even if they were not paid for their
effort or output, a situation that has lead society and managers to a
frankly shameful exploitation of many of the greatest innovators in the
history of mankind.
Not all creative people work long hours. I get the impression that
mathematicians and theoretical physicists are often exhausted after 20 to 40
hours/week of intense thought.
In discussing the amount of time a creative person spends on work, it is
important to reward productivity, not number of hours worked. Many times, a
creative person will work a few hours and encounter an obstacle. Continuing
to stare at the work is unlikely to produce a breakthrough. Experience shows
that novel insights often come at unexpected times (e.g., while doing some
mundane task, such as walking or in the shower).
In industry, it is common to see creative engineers working in their spare
time, or working during evenings and weekends, on their "secret" project. If
they asked their manager for authorization, the manager would likely say "
No!", so the creative people keep their project secret until it is completed
or it becomes clear that their concept will not work.
Nights, weekends, and holidays are good times to accomplish creative work,
because there are fewer interruptions (e.g., from telephone calls,
unexpected visitors) to break one's concentration.
I can not emphasize too strongly that a diagnostic sign of a creative person
is that he/she finds their own work to do, rather than sit idly until
someone else gives them an assignment. Creative people need to express
themselves through creative projects. However, one should distinguish
between a workaholic who puts in 80 hours/week doing routine work and a
creative person who works long hours doing new things, often things that no
one else thought could be accomplished.
Many people with unusually great creativity are ambitious, concerned with
their reputation, and apparently need to prove themselves worthy. I suspect
that these characteristics formed the motivation for their diligence, which
is necessary for success. Their need to prove themselves worthy may come
from experiences early in life in which other children, other students, etc.
ridiculed or taunted them.
Reading biographies of famous scientists and inventors shows that many of
these men had an intense focus on their work. One could describe this
intensity with pejorative terms: obsession, monomania, idée fixe. Or one
could recognize that the intense concentration was necessary to take them
beyond the reach of ordinary men.
B. stubborn
In trying to do innovative work, I have often noticed the following problems
(in addition to my ignorance and mistakes!):
My colleagues tell me it is "impossible", "you are crazy to try this", "it
will never work", "it has been tried before", etc. Of course, when I
accomplish my goal, they forget their earlier prediction.
There is nearly always inadequate funding and inadequate laboratory
resources, which makes the experiment take longer than it would with
appropriate equipment.
There is always inadequate time, because the project is in addition to one's
regular activities (e.g., sponsored research, teaching, earning money,
family and personal life)
Being creative is extraordinarily difficult work that is essential to
progress! And society seems to delight in making it more difficult by
denying resources to creative people who need them. The way to succeed in
spite of these artificially created burdens is to have some combination of
the following character traits:
persistent
tenacious
uncompromising
stubborn
arrogant
Most people would characterize these traits as negative or undesirable
qualities, yet I believe they are essential to innovation.
By arrogant, I mean trusting one's own judgment and ignoring other people's
adverse opinion (e.g., "you're crazy to try that", etc.). It is ok to be
arrogant in selecting projects and goals for one's self and allocating one's
personal time.
C. gender
It is well known that, as a general rule, men are more aggressive than women
, owing to testosterone. For example, nearly all violent criminals are male.
It may be that testosterone gives men an advantage over women in persisting
, despite the disappointments and frustrations that are inherent in research
. (Having said something that might be provocative, please do not
misunderstand me! I believe in equal opportunity and removing gender
barriers in life, including professions. I simply observe that there are
differences in genders beyond sexual anatomy. For these reasons, providing
equality of opportunity does not assure equal outcomes.)
The subject of gender differences is complex. For example, one can observe
that an appreciable fraction of undergraduate students majoring in biology
or chemistry are women, while only a few percent of undergraduate students
majoring in mathematics or physics are women. When I have discussed the
issue with women, they have often told me that guidance counselors in high
school and college told them that "women are not able to do physics or
mathematics", advice that is surely not correct. Surprisingly, women seem to
accept such bad advice in a passive way. In contrast, telling a man that he
is not able to do something often serves as a challenge to prove the
advisor wrong. This trait of perversity in men could be valuable in
persisting in the face of inevitable disappointments and frustrations in
creative work.
I am intrigued by the observation that women are much more common in the
police and military, occupations that involve violence and physical courage
(i.e., traditional male attributes), than in physics or mathematics, which
are safe, clean, indoor occupations. Similarly, many attorneys who
successfully litigate cases are female, more proof that women can succeed in
a profession that requires aggression and stamina. So I am baffled by the
absence of women from science and mathematics, particularly when one
considers the success of women in police, military, and litigation.
I have the impression, from my experience teaching electrical engineering
for ten years, that women tend to approach problems in a formal mathematical
way. This earns them good grades in school on textbook exercises, but is
not necessarily the best way to approach practical problems. Many of my male
colleagues are intuitive when approaching problems, the mathematical
analysis comes later as one works out the details. My guess is that men
develop this intuition by building things during childhood and tinkering
with automobiles and computers during adolescence. In contrast, conventional
culture denies these experiences to women, by insisting that girls play
with dolls, sew, cook, etc.
In the USA, there is a toy called an "Erector Set" that consists of a
collection of metal beams, brackets, machine screws and nuts, etc. for
children to build their own toys. During the late 1950's, the Erector Set
was a common Christmas gift for boys, but was conventionally considered not
suitable for girls. I wonder if this gender stereotyping during childhood
translates ten or fifteen years later into a denial of opportunity for women
to compete with men in physics, mechanical engineering, etc.
D. eccentric
From reading biographies of famous scientists and musical composers, one
common personality trait becomes clear: many of them are eccentric. Being
eccentric does not imply that one is creative. Conversely, not all creative
people are eccentric: some creative people have normal family lives and
conventional values.
(Normally, I write about people in a gender neutral way, but most famous
scientists, and all major composers of music, are male. While there are a
few examples of famous women scientists, there are not enough to make any
generalizations about their character traits. So the following paragraphs
are limited to men.)
D.1. reclusive
Many creative men were a hermit, recluse, or loner. Only a few sought
publicity (extroversion), which is contrary to what one would expect from
ambitious men.
The percentage of men who never married, or never had children, is greater
among creative scientists than in the general population. I see three
reasons for this result:
These men rarely met women, since women are rare in physics, mathematics,
and engineering.
Many creative scientists are reclusive. They have difficulty relating to
people, either male or female. This difficulty might be expressed as shyness
.
It may also be that romance, erotic play, etc. were seen as ephemeral
activities and a distraction from their real work.
It is not clear to me if the creative trait of being a recluse is either:
something essential to creativity, because creativity is inherently solitary
work, or
something creative people learn, in order to avoid criticism, taunting,
ridicule, and other abuse. During childhood, such abuse comes from teachers
and school children. These early experiences are reinforced later in life by
abuse from managers and "normal" (i.e., noncreative) colleagues.
Alternatively, it may be less painful to be lonely, than to be among "normal
" people who do not understand what it is like to be creative.
D.2. not religious
Returning to the discussion of eccentric traits in creative scientists, a
larger percentage of scientists were either atheists or agnostics, compared
to the general population. I suspect that these men simply applied the same
objective standards of science to religion, and refused to believe dogma on
faith alone. Further, a person who accepts dogma has the security of knowing
that millions of other people believe the same dogma, which is something
that gives comfort and assurance to many people. In contrast to the majority
of the population, creative scientists are often skeptics, for whom belief
is always tentative and subject to continuing inquiry and testing. Note that
I did not say that religious beliefs are incompatible with being a good
scientist. I only note that religious beliefs are less common among
scientists than in many other groups of people.
D.3. monotonous routine life
Highly creative men often had a monotonous diet or wore the same kind of
clothes every day. I suspect that these men saw routine details of life,
such as eating and clothing, as unimportant and not worthy of thought. It
may be that these men were unconsciously rebelling against conventional
values and concerns that impeded them in their creative pursuits. In some
extreme cases, creative men lived in cluttered, messy environments, because
they did not take the time to clean house.
D.4. bipolar disorder
There seems to be a higher incidence of bipolar disorder (i.e., manic-
depressive disease) in highly creative people than in the entire population.
This disorder causes neither creativity nor intelligence, but it seems to
enhance creativity, perhaps by removing inhibitions and barriers to radical
or complex thoughts.
D.5. enjoy their work
Another reason that creative people are sometimes seen as eccentric is that
creative people genuinely enjoy their work, instead of working only because
they need an income. But creative people should enjoy their work, because it
is significant and original.
E. conclusion
On reflection, one would expect innovative people to be unusual, even
eccentric, when viewed by normal society. If innovative people were ordinary
, they would work like ordinary people and achieve little of historical
significance, because they are only executing routine assignments. Creative
intellectuals are normal when compared to the population in which they
belong.
Conventional people often put pejorative labels on creative people, to
characterize their nonconventional (hence, different) personality traits. In
addition to the "eccentric" label, which was discussed above, there are
labels like "geek" and "nerd". Ordinary people often apply pejorative labels
to intellectuals, who often do creative research, for example: "pointy
headed intellectuals who can't park their bicycles straight" or "eggheads".
Such pejorative labels may serve to identify individuals with unusually high
intelligence or unusually great creativity, in effect making them an
anomalous person, so that ordinary people have an excuse for not being able
to compete with these anomalies. Further, this use of pejorative labels is a
marginalization of creative people, by alleging that creative people are
either defective or have a personality disorder.
One of the principal ways to be creative is to look for alternative ways to
view a phenomena or for alternative ways to ask a question. Conventional
society heaps pejorative terms on creative people (e.g., obsessive,
monomania, stubborn, uncompromising, eccentric). It would be better to see
the behavior that is identified by these pejorative labels in a positive
light: these characteristics are common among creative people, and may be
essential to creative success.
During the 1980's, Senator Proxmire in the USA held regular press
conferences and identified a specific scientific research project as an
example of government waste (i.e., his "Golden Fleece" award). Of course,
the senator, the journalists, and most of the people reading the journalist'
s report would be unable to understand and fairly evaluate an esoteric
research project. The Senator simply denigrated scientific research as a way
of boosting his own public esteem. A rational society should encourage
creativity, not denigrate it with pejorative labels, because creativity is
valuable to society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
4. how creativity occurs
Conception of a new idea often occurs in an intuitive flash of insight, in
which the more or less complete idea is revealed. Equations and logical
analysis come later. Someone who is reading scholarly publications in a
library sees the final result in a format that is quite different from its
initial conception. The fact that the public presentation is different from
the way the idea initially occurred can lead to misunderstandings about how
science is actually accomplished.
One of the principal ways to be creative is to look for alternative ways to
view a phenomena or for alternative ways to ask a question. It is easy to
ask questions that are trivial to solve. It is easy to ask questions that
require extraordinary effort (e.g., 50 man-years of effort and millions of
dollars in expenses) to solve. It is surprisingly difficult to find
questions that lie in between these two extremes, and also have a result
that is worth knowing.
One often-cited example of creativity is George de Mestral's observation of
how cockleburs attach to clothing, which led him to invent the hook-and-loop
fastener known as Velcro®. He transformed a common nuisance to a useful
product. When one looks backward in time to analyze how a creative act was
made, one often finds that creators made a novel interpretation of a well-
known fact or occurrence. Often the interpretation converted a disadvantage
into an advantage.
Another commonly cited example of creativity is Art Fry's development of
Post-It® removable notes at 3M Corporation in 1974. Dr. Spencer Silver,
another 3M scientist, had developed a polymer adhesive that formed
microscopic spheres instead of a uniform coating, and thus was a poor
adhesive that took years to set. Fry wanted a better bookmark for his church
hymnal, so he used Silver's adhesive. The conventional wisdom is that every
adhesive must be strong. By ignoring the conventional wisdom, Fry developed
a highly successful office product. However, not only did he need to
develop the idea, but he also had to sell the idea to his management and
marketing departments, which were resistant to his new idea. A creative
manager, if there be such a person, would have redefined the problem to find
a use for a weak adhesive, but the conventional wisdom that all adhesives
must be strong is apparently overpowering. There is a second exception to
the "all adhesives must be strong" rule: thread locking compounds that
prevent machine screws and bolts from loosening during vibration must be
weak enough to allow removal of the screw or bolt during repair.
Prof. David Swenson has posted a web page with a rich collection of examples
of innovation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
creativity is solitary work
Creativity is essentially a solitary enterprise. Most landmark discoveries
in science and all major musical compositions are the work of one person.
New ideas are often tentative, half-baked, and difficult to communicate in a
persuasive way. On the receiving side, most scientists and engineers
generally react to someone else's new idea by discouraging it: "It won't
work.", "It's a waste of your time.", etc. Colleagues tend to reject
unorthodox views, at least until those views are convincingly presented, in
a complete form. But such a completed form occurs at the end of a research
project, not at the beginning or middle. So, as a defensive measure, it is
best to keep new ideas to one's self, until one reaches an unresolvable
problem that requires someone else's assistance.
Further, creative work is inherently personal. Involvement of other people
diverts the creator's unique vision of the final product and how to create
it. When multiple people are involved, there are inevitably compromises and
the final product is mostly a consensus view. As an aside, French law
recognizes that the creator of a work expresses his/her personality in the
work, so – while the creator may sell the copyright or object – the
creator always retains the "droit moral" in his/her work. See my separate
essay at my professional web site on moral rights of authors, which are not
recognized in law in the USA.
Still further, the personality trait of stubborn and uncompromising makes it
difficult for many creative people to work in groups, where compromises are
routine practice.
There are certainly large projects that require too many man-hours and too
many different technical skills for one person to do all the work. Examples
of such projects are particle accelerators used by nuclear physicists,
optical and radio telescopes, design of aircraft, etc. However, in practice,
these large projects are broken down into many small tasks, with a few
people (perhaps only one person) having the responsibility for each task. If
multiple people work together on one task, or different people supervise
and approve the work on one task, the approach will tend away from
innovation and tend toward a consensus view that uses proven ideas. While
this approach may increase reliability, it also thwarts creativity.
Sometimes a scientist working on a problem is frustrated and discusses the
problem with a colleague, who suggests a way of solving the difficulty. In
this way, the final work may be published as a multiple-author paper, but
each part of the solution was the responsibility of one person. The
colleague may contribute a mathematical or experimental technique, or
knowledge of some fact, that was not known to the first scientist.
Another way to get multiple-author papers on innovative topics is for a
professor to have more good ideas than the professor can personally develop.
So the professor gives good idea(s) to a graduate student, and the student
does the work to develop the idea into a publishable paper. It is
traditional for both the student's and professor's name to appear on the
final paper: the student did nearly all of the work, the professor
contributed the initial idea, equipment and resources, and helped the
student with difficulties along the way. This process is more than merely
preparing the student's doctoral dissertation: it is teaching in a Master-
Apprentice style. Besides benefits to the student, it also increases the
productivity of the professor and, by increasing the professor's reputation,
makes it easier for the professor to obtain future financial support.
Carried to an extreme, the professor will become a manager who writes
proposals for financial support, generates new ideas, and allocates
resources, but is no longer personally involved in scientific research. In
the long-run, removing the professor from personal involvement in doing
experimental or theoretical work could decrease the rate at which the
professor generates significant new ideas, and make the professor less
familiar with techniques for solving problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
5. management of creativity
In a later section of this essay, I discuss management of creative employees
. Here I want to make a critical point: one of the worst things a manager
can do to creative employees is have the employees adhere to a rigid
schedule of delivery dates for assignments. Naturally, the manager will, in
addition to the rigid schedule, insist that all of the employee's time be
spent on projects that the manager has approved. Such a rigid policy of
assignments and schedules kills creativity.
History teaches that many important discoveries were made accidentally. If
the discoverer had some "spare time", he could investigate this unexpected
curiosity. But if the discoverer was working diligently on a tight schedule,
then there was no time to follow this detail that was not essential to the
completion of the assigned project, and the discovery was forgotten.
People who are highly organized express their love of schedules with various
clichés, such as:
"If you do not know where you are going, you will not know when you arrive."
or
"If you do not know where you are going, you will be lost when you get there
."
There is much truth in these clichés. Little good can come from truly
aimless work. My point is that when something unexpected and interesting
happens, there should be some time available to explore this serendipity.
People who are intelligent and creative, and who are familiar with the
subject matter, generally have good intuition for when some unexpected
occurrence is worth exploring further. Making them ask for permission only
slows the discovery process, it does not produce better results. If the
unexpected result is, with hindsight, seen to be a mistake, at least it was
an interesting mistake from which one learned something.
There is another cliché that is popular amongst some scientists who I have
known:
"If I knew what I was doing, it would not be research."
For the kind of research that involves discovery of facts that were
previously unknown, this cliché is correct: the results are unpredictable
and many of the methods will fail, before there is any success. The kind of
research done by physicists and chemists in universities often falls in this
category. For lack of a better name, this is conventionally called "pure
research".
However, there is another kind of research – called applied research – in
which the goal might be (1) to design a new product to meet certain
specifications or (2) evaluate a product, perhaps a drug, for safety and
efficacy. Applied research can be managed successfully. The scientists and
engineers who work in applied research definitely know what they are doing
and they frequently almost meet their deadlines. I discuss applied
research more in the section on industrial management, later in this essay.
The point to be made here is that scientists and engineers who are doing
applied research also can have unexpected results, in addition to simply
doing their assignment. If they have some spare time, the unexpected results
can be investigated and might become more significant than the original
assignment. Commonly there is no time and the unexpected results are
forgotten.
I have come to believe that it is not rational to attempt to manage pure
scientific research. True research involves a quest for the unknown that is
inherently unpredictable. Even the people doing the research, who are
experts in their field, have difficulty predicting the applications and
consequences of their discoveries. If the experts can not see the
consequences, there is no reasonable hope that a manager without technical
expertise can see the consequences. Some "insignificant" projects might
become significant many years after they are published, when someone else
recognizes a use for the result of the old work. The most famous example of
this was Einstein's use of non-Euclidian geometry in his gravitational
theory – before Einstein, non-Euclidian geometry had been pure mathematics
without any practical application.
Research is often highly personal. Researchers do not like to ask permission
to explore ideas that may be tentative, intuitive, and difficult to
communicate. Many good ideas begin as a mistake or error, which produced an
unexpected result, and few people like to mention their mistakes or errors
to their supervisor!
Finally, I observe that pure research is inherently wasteful: one often
spends money on projects that fails to give any really useful information.
One must simply accept such dross as part of the price of progress. If the
results were predictable, then it wouldn't be pure research. Diamond mines
also produce lots of worthless rock, but are still profitable enterprises.
When we look back on the history of the Bell Telephone Laboratories in the
USA, we remember the invention of the transistor, the invention of the laser
, the discovery of cosmic background noise remaining from the Big Bang, not
to mention the development of a highly reliable telephone network. Who cares
about the dross that was produced in that Laboratory? Research should be
supported because it is the engine that fuels modern economies (by creating
new products and new ways of working), as well as improving the quality of
life, and because men's spirits are lifted by discovery of knowledge, just
as putting a man on the moon made everyone in the USA proud.
Many people whose familiarity with science comes from reading a book will
wonder why scientists do not go into a laboratory and emerge with an
important results, such as a cure (or vaccine) for some dreadful disease.
Progress in science is generally slow. Each scientists makes small
incremental steps of progress, building on the published results of others,
as well as their own experience. Rarely – and only rarely – will a
scientist have an inspired, novel thought that is truly revolutionary. These
people often get a Nobel prize for their achievement.
In looking at biographies of Nobel-prizewinners and other famous scientists,
I see two classes of innovation:
competent scientists who were in the right place at the right time. Some of
these people apparently do not make any other truly great achievement during
the remainder of their career. Perhaps this kind of significant innovation
is a random event.
true genius, who is able to repeatedly develop significant innovative ideas
(e.g. Einstein)
It appears that very few scientists are blessed with one great moment, even
fewer are blessed with several great moments. It is the same in music: some
composers (J.S. Bach, F.J. Haydn, W.A. Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert) wrote
large quantities of outstanding music at a frantic pace, while other
composers produced only a few outstanding compositions during their lifetime
. How can we, as professors, leaders, managers, encourage great discoveries
to occur more frequently?
History shows us that many important discoveries are made by young
scientists, during their time in graduate school or in the few years after
they receive their doctoral degree. The conventional interpretation is that
the time between ages 20 and 30 years are the "best" years of a scientist's
life. The reason for this phenomena seems to be that young scientist have
learned the basic skills (e.g., calculus, differential equations, statistics
, computer programming, scientific theories) but are inexperienced. In this
way they are like a child in a new environment: the child is naturally
curious and almost everything is unfamiliar. But, unlike a child, a young
scientist is articulate, knows how to observe and record facts, and knows
how to interpret the facts.
When someone has worked or lived in an environment for more than about ten
years, they tend to be less observant and less curious, because they are
familiar with the environment. With this interpretation, the solution to
increasing creativity is clear: scientists should change fields
approximately every ten years, so they continue to seek big, new challenges,
instead of becoming comfortable experts. I do not necessarily mean radical
changes, such as from nuclear physics to collecting butterflies in a rain
forest, although a nuclear physicist would bring a rich collection of new
techniques to taxonomy. Linus Pauling is an outstanding example of a
person who changed fields and was productive in each field where he worked.
Of course, changing fields periodically will stop the production of wise,
old men who have 40 years of experience in a field. Exactly! Many of these "
wise" old men know that something can not be done, whereas an inexperienced
person simply does it and is rewarded. Many of these "wise" old men know
that something is not worth doing, whereas a less experienced person puts
facts together in a new way and makes an important discovery. I am not
against the wisdom that comes with experience, but I would prefer to see
experience in many different areas instead of 40 years of experience in one
narrow area. There is also a valuable cross-fertilization between areas:
techniques that are well-known in one field can enrich another field.
We can also encourage creativity by changing the way that schools are
operated, which I discuss in the next session of this essay. If schools
produce more creative people, our government must give financial support for
creative activities, not just scientific research, but composition of music
, and other forms of creativity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
6. issues in education
of creative students
My observation is that many instructors, from elementary school through
undergraduate college courses, have a standard, orthodox, only "one right
way" approach to the material. A student who does it differently from the
instructor is labeled "wrong". I believe that such an approach is often the
result of the limited intellectual ability of the instructor, who only knows
one reliable technique.
Conventional instructors ask students to recite on an examination
information from lectures or the textbook. This is a difficult task for
creative students, because creative people naturally add something new to
what ordinary people consider a straightforward problem.
As a simple example of rigidity, when I was a pupil in elementary school,
the textbook and instructor taught that the definition of a noun was "the
name of a person, place, or thing." But I had read my mother's old college
grammar book, which said that a noun was "the name of anything". I liked the
latter definition better, because it was logically simpler: any name is a
noun. But I was marked wrong for not using the official definition, although
the definition I gave on the examination was equivalent.
A more serious example of rigidity in education was given in a letter to the
New England Journal of Medicine. The author had attended medical school in
the late 1800's, when patients with bacterial infections often died. During
bacteriology class, he had carelessly allowed his culture dish to become
contaminated with mold, which killed the bacteria. His professor berated him
for his sloppiness in allowing the contamination. Looking backwards from
the antibiotic era, this example of education seems stubbornly rigid.
Because of the focus was on obtaining the "correct" result, neither the
professor nor the student asked the proper question, namely "Can the
property of molds to kill bacteria in vitro be used to cure bacterial
infections in vivo?" In 1928, Alexander Fleming isolated penicillin, the
first of the antibiotics, from the common mold Penicillium, an achievement
for which he received the Nobel prize in medicine in 1945. Fleming's
discovery of penicillin came from asking the proper question, which
instructors of bacteriology in medical school could have (but did not) asked
fifty years earlier.
I remember a test question from my wife's medical journal in the early 1980s
, along the following lines. You are a physician in an emergency room. Joan,
who is known to you as a diabetic who uses insulin, arrives by ambulance
and is comatose. Her husband says she was vomiting earlier in the evening.
What do you do immediately?
Administer glucose intravenously.
Administer insulin intravenously.
Draw blood and measure serum glucose level.
Check airway, breathing, and heart rate.
The correct answer, according to the medical journal, is D, because the
physician must always check airway, breathing, and circulation when
initially examining a patient under emergency circumstances. When my wife
gave me the question and I chose B, her comment was that I knew too much
about biochemistry. Medicine, or at least medical education, is about
following rules, not about thinking. My reaction is that a paramedic with no
knowledge of physiology or endocrinology would do better than a scientist
on this examination. When I was a law student during 1995-98, I saw the same
rule-following behavior that rewarded memorization and penalized creative
thinking. In my view, law and medical schools should post yellow warning
signs at every entrance, marked NO THINKING ZONE.
Students who are both intelligent and highly creative often make mediocre
grades in school, because these creative students see issues and ambiguity
in examination problems that the instructor did not intend. Creative
students "misread the question", according to the view of the conventional
instructor. This problem is particularly severe on multiple choice
examinations where a creative student can quickly find situations in which
either all or none of the answers are correct, whereas a noncreative student
who knows the material in a conventional way simply selects the best answer
and gets marked correct. On an essay or problem-solving examination where
the student is expected to explain the student's answer, the student has an
opportunity to show the instructor other ways to interpret the problem.
However, conventional instructors are often intolerant of such creative
interpretations.
Moreover, many creative students are bored by pedestrian classes that are
pitched at the intellectual level of the middle of the class (or, worse,
pitched at a low level so that everyone passes), so the creative students
devote more of their time to their personal creative projects and neglect
their regular classes, which often leads to a grade average between C and B.
I am concerned that many intelligent and creative students may prematurely
abandon their education, because of boredom with the curriculum and teaching
methods.
Around 1960, it was the custom in the USA for elementary schools to spend
the first half of each school year repeating material that had been taught
during the previous year. This repetition is not only a waste of time for
pupils who learned it the first time, but those pupils become bored with
school.
Many graduate students with high grades (i.e., nearly all A grades) are
unable to do research, in which their assigned problem had no known solution
. I saw this phenomenon when I was in graduate school during the 1970's and
many of my fellow students dropped out of school. I saw this phenomena again
during the 1980's when I was supervising graduate students' research work.
On the other hand, I could find students with B grades in regular classes,
and even C grades, who not only could do research work, but also seemed to
enjoy the challenges of doing research work. Classes prepared students to
take more classes, not to do original thinking, a conclusion that shows that
schools and universities are failing in their basic mission. I think the
concept of grades is sound, because grades provide a short-term motivation
to study diligently. The real problem is not grades, but curricula and
examinations that are filled with arbitrary textbook problems with little
relevance to success in the actual practice of science or engineering, such
as research or design of a new product.
In teaching electrical engineering to undergraduate students, it is
conventional to give them a circuit diagram with the values of all of the
components (e.g., resistance, capacitance, inductance, independent voltage
source, etc.) and ask the students to calculate either the output voltage or
the current in some branch of the circuit. Engineering textbooks are filled
with such problems, but (1) the circuits are arbitrary and without
practical utility and (2) learning how to solve such problems does not
produce better engineers. However, it is relatively easy to teach students
to solve these problems and it is easy for the instructor to grade their
work, since there is only one correct answer. In contrast, I invented my own
homework problems that asked a student to design a circuit having certain
properties (e.g., input impedance, specified relationship between input
voltage and output voltage, etc.). To make the exercise more realistic, I
penalized the students slightly for using more components than my design:
this emphasized that simple designs were better. The amount of my grade
penalty was proportional to the cost of the extra component(s), but I would
waive the penalty if the student's circuit had some feature that was better
than my straightforward solution. The reaction of the students to these
problems was interesting to me. Most of the students found my homework
frustratingly difficult, because they had never done such problems before,
although they had attended 12 years of education in public schools plus at
least 2 years of college before I taught them. Many of the students who had
received A grades in most of their previous science, mathematics, and
engineering classes were struggling hard to earn a C grade in my class. More
surprisingly, some of the nominal C students were earning an A grade in my
class, and they suddenly came alive for the first time in many years of
school.
Among physics teachers, there is a famous story of a student who does not
give the expected answer to a straightforward examination question. If you
have not already read this story about determining the height of a building
with a barometer, now you have the opportunity. Many physics
professors see this story as illustrating adolescent rebellion or mere
scholasticism. However, I am very sympathetic to the student's boredom and
defiance: physics is about more than pendula, balls rolling down inclined
planes, and measurements of mass and distance. Physics is about
understanding the universe – space, time, energy, symmetry – and
discovering new knowledge. Learning to solve boring textbook problems is a
poor preparation for a career in scientific research.
Students need to see more homework problems in school that require creative
solutions:
Instead of asking for one solution, require the A students to give two
different methods of solving one problem. Encourage students to find
creative solutions instead of prosaic solutions.
Give problems that are unreasonably difficult to answer correctly, and have
the students find a rough approximation.
Give students problems without adequate information; let them go to the
library and find the information that they need.
Give more problems that ask the student to design a circuit, interpret data,
design a method of doing an experiment, ....
Assign term papers that require reading from multiple sources, making a
creative synthesis of the information, and finding contradictions or
inconsistencies in authoritative, published works.
Occasionally assign exercises that show an incorrect solution to a problem (
e.g., computer program that contains at least one bug, electronic circuit
that will not function properly) and have the students find the defect and
suggest a correction.
Assign laboratory experiments that allow students freedom to choose
technique(s) and topics.
Arrange or compose music, not merely playing music.
I have posted some comments on the value of attending a small liberal arts
college for the bachelor's degree, then a large research-oriented university
for a doctoral degree. That essay also has some comments on the value of
colleges for women only.
Children seem to have an innate sense of curiosity, enthusiasm, and
imagination. Mature adults generally lack these qualities. Where did these
qualities get lost? I believe that teachers and industrial managers beat
these qualities out of people, in order to make them easier to control and
manage. In my experience, both as a student and professor, organized
education – as a bureaucracy – actively discourages creativity. I believe
that creativity can be taught and encouraged in a master-apprentice setting,
such as a student working in a research laboratory. It is much more
difficult to teach and encourage creativity in a classroom with more than
twenty students, but I believe it can be done in a small way, if the
instructor makes a great effort. Of course, there is no reward for the
instructor who makes that effort, and with the many other demands on the
instructor's time in American universities, it is unlikely that the
instructor will make the effort.
A related problem is the intellectual egalitarianism in the USA: it is ok to
select athletes with unusual abilities and train them hard, but the same
process with intellect is seen as snobbish. That is a recipe for disaster in
an economy that depends on technological innovation. And yet that is
exactly the route taken by public elementary schools and high schools in the
USA, as well as by most state colleges and universities in the USA.
television
Aside from the insidious effects of formal education on creativity, I am
concerned with the effect of television. When one reads a book, one forms a
mental image of what is happening. When one listens to the radio (e.g., a
baseball game), one also forms a mental image of what is happening (i.e.,
remember the positions of the players and imagine how they are moving). But
television explicitly shows the correct image, so there is nothing left to
the imagination. I believe that reading books, and listening to the radio,
stimulate the imagination, which is a very valuable skill for creative
people. The ubiquitousness of television after the mid-1950's may be
depriving children, and adults too, of opportunities to expand their ability
to imagine.
The insipid content of television programs in the USA is a separate problem
that is not relevant here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
7. industrial management of research
If an industrial manager finds out about an unauthorized project by a
creative engineer, the engineer will generally be ordered not to do it.
There are a variety of reasons for this heavy-handed control of creative
engineers by management. First, managers believe "good ideas" come from the
top manager down to the workers, "good ideas" can not possibly originate
from mere workers. Second, "it's not in the budget." – it would be horrible
if an industrial group did more than it was assigned and paid to do! Third,
people in positions of power and authority see creative people who are
enthusiastic about their new ideas as loose cannons, who are dangerous and
need to be controlled. Creative people often have their own vision of the
future, which disagrees with the manager's direction. Managers want
everything under control and on schedule, creative people are generally
disorganized and unpredictable. One can neither schedule nor predict a
brilliant idea.
My cynicism in the previous paragraph is based on my personal experience
working in a major American corporation (Xerox), augmented by tales from
many of my associates who continue to work in industry, despite their
frustrations. The popularity of the Dilbert comic strip is testimony to how
common nonsensical management is in the USA.
The fundamental organization of a business day into work from 8 AM to 5 PM,
Monday through Friday, disrupts the way many creative people work. For
example, when I program computers, I tend to work continuously for about 14
hours, then collapse in bed and sleep for 8 hours, then go back to work on
my program. I repeat this cycle until the program is finished, even if it
means working on Saturday and Sunday. If I were to break up my work into
shorter blocks of time, I would be much less productive, because I would
need to spend more time picking up the thread of my previous thoughts. When
I talk to other programmers among university faculty, I find that my binge
behavior is typical. Similarly, some composers retreated from society and
worked continuously until their musical composition was completed.
As effort becomes more routine, it also become less creative. For example, a
bank manager would not want a creative bank teller, instead, a manager
would want to treat tellers as generic, interchangeable commodities, who do
their work in the same way. Indeed, "creative bank teller" or "creative
accountant" sounds like a euphemism for fraud!
Creativity is essentially a solitary enterprise. Most landmark discoveries
in science and all major musical compositions are the work of one person.
However, teamwork, not individualism, is the standard pattern in industry.
There is a funny experiment of mine that you can reproduce. Engage a
businessman or industrial manager in a discussion about creativity. Then ask:
"Would Beethoven have been more productive if he had been working
in a team?"
The question is absolutely ludicrous to anyone who understands either the
art of musical composition or Beethoven's personality. I have difficulty
asking this question without giggling, because it is such an outrageous
suggestion! But, astoundingly, industrial managers tend to say:
"Yes, I would have put Beethoven in a team and increased his
productivity."
My conclusion is that such industrial managers do not understand the first
thing about either creativity or development of art. I see close parallels
in composing music and making scientific discoveries, and the personality of
Beethoven is close to the personality of many creative professors of
science, despite the differences in subject matter and methods. Aside from
issues of management of creative people, I think attempting to increase
Beethoven's productivity by putting him in a team is akin to killing the
Goose that laid the golden egg. Beethoven was incredibly productive without
any management or teamwork: during 33 years of work, he composed more than
50 major works that bridged the Classical and Romantic periods, and
introduced numerous innovations. All this without a consistent patron or
employer, and with deafness during the last years of his life, particularly
when he composed the Ninth Symphony.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
8. bibliography
books
Teresa M. Amabile, Creativity in Context, Westview Press, 1996.
This book is an update of her classic work, The Social Psychology of
Creativity that was published in 1983.
Frederick P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month, Addison Wesley, 1975. Brooks
was the manager for the development of the IBM System 360, the operating
system for the most common mainframe computers in the USA during the 1970's.
Jacques Hadamard, The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field,
Princeton University Press, 1945. Reprinted by Dover Press. Hadamard was a
professor of mathematics.
G. H. Hardy, A Mathematician's Apology, Cambridge University Press, 1940.
The classic book on what it means to do pure mathematical research. The
editions in 1967 and thereafter have an interesting forward by C.P. Snow.
Clifford A. Pickover, Strange Brains and Genius, Plenum, 1998. The book is
not a technical work for professionals, but was written for a popular
audience. In places, it barely rises above an exhibition of freaks and
eccentric behaviors. Nonetheless, there are some interesting insights in
this book.
George Polya, How to Solve It, Princeton University Press, 1946. A professor
of mathematics gives some hints about the creative process. This book is
written at the popular level.
Robert J. Sternberg and Todd I. Lubart, Defying the Crowd: Cultivating
Creativity in a Culture of Conformity, The Free Press, 1995.
This book was written by two psychologists and is intended for an audience
of laymen, but does have some references to technical literature. The
authors believe that everyone has some creativity, but that society and
managers discourage creativity. The authors consistently use financial
analogies in their book: "buy low, sell high" is particularly prevalent.
Many of the examples are taken from observations of pupils or students in
schools, not from professional scientists or engineers. The book contains
some errors in science and technology, none of which detract from the
underlying message.
Gerald M. Weinberg, The Psychology of Computer Programming. The author is a
professor of computer science who advocates "ego-less" programming.
journal articles
Kenneth R. Hardy, "Social Origins of American Scientists and Scholars,"
Science, Vol. 185, pp. 497-506, 9 Aug 1974.
Reports that membership in Unitarian church, Society of Friends (Quaker), or
secularized Jewish religions were highly overrepresented among scholars
when compared to the entire U.S. population.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Sternberg's Theory of Creativity
In my reading of psychological literature, there are numerous hypotheses and
theories of creativity that conflict with what I have observed in creative
colleagues and what I have read in biographies of creative scientists and
composers of music. However, the following theory of creativity, put forth
by Prof. Sternberg at Yale University, makes sense to me. Sternberg says
that all of the following are essential: a lack of any one item in the list
precludes creativity. I think he is correct, except for the last item: it is
not necessary to have a favorable environment, although such an environment
certainly makes life easier for creative people.
Intelligence
synthetic intelligence. The ability to combine existing information in a new
way.
analytic intelligence. The ability to distinguish between new ideas that
have potential, and new ideas that are not worth further work. This ability
is essential to an effective allocation of resources, by evaluating the
quality of new ideas.
practical intelligence. The ability to sell one's ideas to funding agencies,
managers, editors, reviewers, etc. Without "practical intelligence" the
creative person will not be allocated resources to develop their ideas, and
the creative person may achieve recognition only posthumously.
Knowledge gives the ability to recognize what is genuinely new. The history
of science shows that many good ideas are discovered independently by more
than one person. Scientists and engineers must be familiar with the
technical literature, in order to avoid "reinventing the wheel". On the
other hand, too much knowledge might block creativity, by immediately
providing reasons why a new idea is not worth pursuing and by encouraging a
person to be rigid in their thinking.
Knowledge is also important to provide skills necessary to design
experiments, to design new products, to analyze the results of experiments,
do computations, etc.
Thinking Styles. Creative people question conventional wisdom, instead of
passively accepting that wisdom. Creative people question common assumptions
and rules, instead of mindlessly follow them. This style brings creative
people into conflict with society around them, so it is also essential to
have a personality that tolerates this conflict, as explained in the next
item in this list.
Personality. Creative people take the risk to defy conventional wisdom and
to be a nonconformist. Creative people have the courage to persist, even
when the people around them provide objections, criticism, ridicule, and
other obstacles. Most people are too timid to be really creative.
Motivation
intrinsic or personal. Creative people genuinely enjoy their work and set
their own goals.
extrinsic. There are a number of extrinsic motivators: money, promotions,
prizes, praise, fame, etc. Extrinsic motivators mostly focus on an end
result, not the process of discovery or creativity. In highly creative
people, extrinsic motivators appear to be less important than intrinsic
motivators.
Environmental Context. Many environments (particularly managers and
bureaucracy) discourage creativity. A creative individual who could flourish
in one environment can become a routine, ordinary worker in another
environment. The optimum environment for creative people is where they can
be paid to do their creative work, so creativity is a full-time job, not a
spare-time hobby.
Permit me to explain my disagreement with Prof. Sternberg on the last item:
a favorable environment. Many types of creative work (e.g., research in
theoretical physics, writing books, composing music, etc.) require minimal
physical resources, so such creative activities can be accomplished in one's
personal time at nights, weekends, and holidays. If one is employed in an
environment that discourages creativity, one can still be creative on one's
personal time. In this sense, a favorable environment is not necessary for
creativity.
On the other hand, other types of creative work (e.g., experiments in
physics, chemistry, engineering, etc.) can require expensive laboratory
apparatus. A scientist without access to such laboratory facilities is
prohibited from doing creative work in experimental science. So, in this
sense, I agree with Prof. Sternberg that a favorable environment can be
necessary for creative work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
this document is at http://www.rbs0.com/create.htm
begun 25 May 1997, revised 25 Dec 2002 | W******e
发帖数: 3319 | 2 1。介绍
我的兴趣在研究创造性的灵感的挫折，我
觉得作为一个学生，那么作为一个教授。我想知道我怎么能
鼓励在自己的创造力，我的学生，我的同事。
政治家，工业管理，教务管理员和其他领导人
常说，创新是文明的未来至关重要，我们的
的国家，他们的公司，但在实践中，同样是这些人往往充当
如果说，创新是一个邪恶的，必须加以抑制，或至少是紧密
控制。
这篇文章的目的是：（1）一些快速检查
不寻常的创造力和相关的人格特质，
创新（2）批评管理和教育技术
惩罚或阻碍创造力。的方式来增加的生产率
创意的人很简单：给他们的资源（时间，设备，资金）
脱颖而出，他们的出路！
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
----
2。定义
首先，考虑创造力的定义。有创造性的人做的事情
从来没有做过的事情。特别重要的情况下，
创意，包括科学和医学方面的新知识，发现，
发明的新技术，组成优美的音乐，或分析
一种新的方式的情况下（例如，法律，哲学或历史）。
区分三种不同的特性是很重要的：
智力，创造力，和学位。情报的能力
学习和思考的能力。创意在前面的定义
段，产生新事物或新知识的能力。学者
度是什么人后，一个人坐在经过多年的类，通过
考试，并完成了所有的其他要求（例如，高级
论文，博士论文等）。在比较和对比这些
三个特点，我注意的是：
大多数人谁创造显著的事情是很聪明的。
有很多人获得博士学位，谁没有
一个有创意的想法在自己的头上。他们是很聪明和高技能人才
解决问题的，但其他人必须制定问题（例如，
给他们一个公式来解决）。因此，智能和学位
没有证据的创造力。
谁都是聪明和充满创造力的学生往往平庸
在学校的成绩。
天才是一个模糊的术语：有时它表示一个人与一个不同寻常的
高的IQ测试上的得分，其他时候，它表示非常
有创造力的人（例如，莫扎特和爱因斯坦）。我不喜欢这个词天才，
这不仅是因为这种模糊性，而且还因为它往往具有
表示一个怪胎，古怪的美国通俗的语言内涵，或
不正常的人。我感兴趣的理解和鼓励
创造力，而不是创造性的人的贬义标签粘贴。此外，
是不是天才的人仍可以作出宝贵的贡献
的进展。
理论的创造性
以前没有考虑过的心理，创意的读者
可能首先想读我总结的斯腾伯格的理论创新
本文件的结束。总之，有创意的能力是
合并的几种不同类型的智力和个性
特征。创新是一个非常复杂的问题。
有许多书籍创造力的艺术家的心理，但
相对较少的创造力的科学家和工程师。但是，
有（1）一些科学家的传记，这给一些光
科学家的创造力，及（2）一些书本上的创意
数学家。
以下是我自己的创造力，结论和建议的基础上：
我的同事和学生的观察，其中有些人高度
创意，但其他人没有创意，并问自己为什么
创意输出的差异，
我个人的经验，
我的科学家，数学家和作曲家的音乐，阅读传记
，和
我的阅读心理学方面的书籍创造力。
很明显，才可以做创造性的科学与工程，
必须有一定的技术知识，事实，法律和方法（例如，研究
物理，化学，微积分，微分方程，统计，
计算机编程，等等）。如果有一个比较富有创造性的科学家和
工程师与他们单调乏味的，普通的同事，你会发现基本上
同种，在这两个群体的智慧和知识。因此，我
得出这样的结论：它必须是人格特质，区分创造性的
从noncreative人。
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
----
3。人格特质
与创造力
A.尽职调查
谁是著名的为他们的创意输出的很多人是非常勤奋，
经常接壤的迷恋。这是常见的创造性的教授
工作60至80小时/周的努力为纯粹的喜悦。创意人
有一种内在的需要，来表达他们的创造力。他们不能保持他们的新
在他们的头永远的想法，这个想法需要就要诞生了。事实上，许多
创意人的创意，即使他们没有支付他们的
工作或输出，这种情况导致社会和管理人员到
坦率地说可耻的剥削在许多最伟大的创新
人类的历史。
并非所有创意人的工作时间很长。我得到的印象是
数学家和理论物理学家往往耗尽后20〜40
小时/周的激烈的思想。
在讨论的一个有创造力的人花费大量的时间工作，这是
重要的是要奖励的生产力，而不是工作小时数。很多时候，一个
有创意的人将工作几个小时，遇到的障碍。持续
盯着的工作是不太可能产生突破。经验表明，
经常会在意外的时间（例如，新的见解，同时做一些
平凡的任务，如散步或在淋浴）。
在工业中，是很常见的创造力的工程师在业余时间工作
时间，或在晚上和周末工作，他们的“秘密”项目。如果
他们问他们的经理进行授权，经理人可能会说“
不！“，使创作人保持他们的秘密，直到它完成项目
它变得清晰，他们的理念将无法正常工作。
晚上，周末和节假日的好时机完成创造性的工作，
因为有更少的中断（例如，从电话，
意外人次）打破的浓度。
我不能太强烈强调，一个有创意的人一个诊断标志
他/她发现自己的工作要做，而不是坐视不管，直到
别人给了他们一个分配。有创造力的人需要表达
通过富有创意的项目。但是，应该区分
之间的工作狂了80小时/周做日常工作和
有创造力的人，工作很长时间，做新的事情，经常的事情，没有
其他人认为可以完成。
很多人不寻常的巨大的创造力是雄心勃勃的，关注
他们的声誉，显然需要证明自己值得。我怀疑
这些特点形成的动机，他们的勤奋，
是成功的必要条件。他们需要证明自己值得来
在生命的早期经验中，其他儿童，学生等。
讥讽或嘲笑他们。
阅读著名的科学家和发明家的传记显示，许多
这些人有一种强烈的对工作的专注。一个可以说明这
强度与轻蔑的条款：痴迷，偏执狂，固定观念[192。或一
能认识到，有必要采取激烈的浓度
超出了普通的男人。
B.顽固
在试图做创新性的工作，我常常注意到以下几个问题
（除了我的无知和错误的！）：
我的同事告诉我，这是“不可能的”，“你是疯狂的尝试”，“它
永远不会工作“，”它已经被尝试过的“，等等，当然，当我
实现我的目标，忘记了他们的早期预测。
几乎总是资金不足和不够实验室
资源，这使得实验需要更长的时间比它会与
适当的设备。
总是有足够的时间，因为这个项目是在另外一个人的
定期的活动（如赞助的研究，教学，赚钱，
家庭和个人生活）
创意是非常困难的工作是必不可少的
进步！社会似乎使之更难以取悦
否认资源，以创造性的人谁需要他们。通往成功的道路
尽管这些人工创建的负担是组合有一些
性格特征：
一贯
顽强
坚定的
顽固
傲慢
大多数人会描述这些特征为负或不良
的素质，但我相信他们是至关重要的创新。
由傲慢，我的意思是相信自己的判断，而忽略其他人的
不利的意见（如，“你疯了尝试，”等）。它是确定是
在一个人的自我选择的项目和目标分配一个人的傲慢
个人的时间。
C.性别
这是众所周知的，作为一般规则，男性比女性更积极
由于睾丸激素。例如，几乎所有的暴力罪犯是男性。
这可能是因为睾丸激素的男子对妇女的优势，在坚持
，尽管在研究中固有的失望和挫折
。 （说了些什么，可能是挑衅，请不要
误会我的意思！我相信机会平等和消除性别
生活中的障碍，包括专业。我只是观察到有
超越性解剖在性别差异。出于这些原因，提供
机会平等并不能保证相同的结果。）
性别差异的主题是复杂的。例如，人们可以观察
的可观部分的本科学生，主修生物学
或化学是妇女，而只有百分之几的本科学生
主修数学或物理是妇女。当我已经讨论了
妇女问题，他们经常告诉我，辅导员高
学校和大学对他们说：“女人不能做物理或
数学“，意见，肯定是不正确的。令人惊讶的是，女性似乎
被动地接受这样恶劣的意见。与此相反，说一个人，他
是不是能够做一些事情往往是一个挑战，以证明
顾问是错误的。可能会的刚愎在男人的这种特质是有价值的
面对不可避免的失望和挫折的坚持
创造性的工作。
我好奇的观察，女性更常见的是在
警察和军队，职业涉及暴力和身体的勇气
（即，传统的男性属性），而不是在物理或数学，这
是安全，清洁，室内的职业。同样，许多律师
成功的诉讼案件是女性，更证明了妇女能成功
需要一个专业的侵略和耐力。因此，我百思不得其解的
缺乏科学和数学的妇女，尤其是当
认为成功女性警察，军队和诉讼。
我的印象中，从我的教学经验，电气工程
十年来，妇女往往在一个正式的数学处理问题
方式。这赢得他们的好成绩，在学校课本练习，但
不一定是最好的方式来处理实际问题。许多我的男
同事是直观的，当接近的数学问题，
分析是后一个作品的细节。我的猜测是，男子
开发这种直觉的东西在童年和他的动手能力
在青春期的汽车和电脑。相比之下，传统的
文化否认了这些经验的妇女，坚持认为女孩子玩
布娃娃，缝纫，厨师等
在美国，有一个扭蛋称为“成型机集”，它由一个
收集的金属梁，支架，机螺钉和螺母等。
孩子建立自己的玩具。在20世纪50年代后期，架桥机设置
是一种常见的圣诞礼物男孩，但传统上认为不
适合女生使用。我不知道，如果这种性别刻板印象在童年
意味着十年或十五年后的妇女拒绝的机会
竞争与男子在物理，机械工程等
D.偏心
从阅读著名科学家的传记和音乐作曲家，
共同的人格特质变得清晰：其中不少是偏心的。存在
偏心并不意味着是创造性的。相反，并不是所有的创意
人是偏心：一些有创意的人有正常的家庭生活，
传统的价值观。
（通常情况下，我写的人在性别中立的方式，但最有名的
科学家和所有主要的作曲家的音乐，都是男性。虽然有
几个例子，著名的女科学家，有没有足以让任何
概括自己的性格特征。因此，下面的段落
仅限于男性。）
D.1。深居简出
许多有创造力的人是一个隐士，隐士，或独来独往。只有少数几个寻求
宣传（外向），这是违背人们所期望
野心的人。
男人谁没有结婚，或从未有过的儿童，比例大
在创造性的科学家，比在一般人群中。我看到有三
这一结果的原因：
这些人已经很少见了妇女，因为妇女是罕见的，在物理，数学，
工程。
许多创造性的科学家是深居简出。他们有困难有关
人，无论是男性还是女性。这可能表现为害羞的困难
。
它也可能是短暂的浪漫，色情游戏等，被视为
活动和干扰，从他们的实际工作。
这是我不清楚，如果是一个隐士的创作特征是：
一些必不可少的创意，因为创意本质上是孤独的
工作，或
一些创造性的人学习，以避免批评，嘲笑，
嘲笑，以及其他虐待。在儿童时期，这种滥用来自教师
和中小学生。这些早期的经验得到了加强，在以后的生活
从管理者滥用和“正常”（即，noncreative的）的同事。
或者，也可以不那么痛苦是孤独的，是“正常
“谁不明白是什么样的有创意的人。
D.2。而不是宗教
回到讨论的偏心特征创造性的科学家，
较大比例的科学家们相比，无论是无神论者或不可知论者
向一般人群传播。我怀疑，这些人只是采用了同样的
科学，到宗教的客观标准，并拒绝相信教条
信仰孤独。此外，接受教条的人，有一个人知道的安全性
数以百万计的其他人相信同样的教条，这是一件好事
对很多人来说，让舒适性和保证。在相对于多数
的人口，创造性的科学家往往持怀疑态度，对他们的信仰
始终是初步的，继续调查和检测。需要注意的是
我不说，宗教信仰是不相容的，是一个很好的
科学家。我唯一要注意的是不太常见的宗教信仰
科学家比在许多其他群体的人。
D.3。单调的日常生活
高创造力的人往往有一种单调的饮食或穿着同样的种
衣服的每一天。我怀疑，这些人看到了日常的生活细节，
如饮食和服装，不重要，不值得的思想。它
可能是因为这些人不自觉地反抗传统
妨碍他们在他们的创作追求的价值观和关注。在某些情况下，
极端情况下，有创造力的人住在杂乱，凌乱的环境中，因为
他们没有考虑的时间来清理房子。
D.4。双相情感障碍
似乎是双相情感障碍的发生率较高（即躁狂
抑郁症）的高度创造力的人比在整个人群。
这种疾病会导致不的创意也不情报，但它似乎
增强创新意识，或许是消除压抑和激进的障碍
或复杂的想法。
D.5。享受自己的工作
有创意的人有时会被视为偏心的另一个原因是，
创意人真正享受自己的工作，而不是仅仅是因为
他们需要的收入。但创意的人应该享受自己的工作，因为它
是显着和原来的。
E.结论
在反思，希望创新的人是不寻常的，甚至
偏心，当正常的社会。如果是普通的创新型人才
，他们会像普通人一样工作，实现小历史
意义，因为它们只执行例程分配。创作的
知识分子是正常的人口相比，他们
属于。
传统的人们常把创意的人，贬义的标签
非常规的（因此，不同的）人格特质的特点。在
除了“偏心”的标签，这是上面所讨论的，有
标签，如“怪人”和“书呆子”。普通百姓往往贬义的标签
知识分子，他们经常做创造性的研究，例如：“尖尖
为首的知识分子，谁也不能停放自行车直“或”理论家“。
这种贬义的标签可能有助于确定个人与异常高
情报或不寻常的巨大的创造力，影响他们的
异常的人，让普通百姓有一个借口，不能够
这些异常与竞争。此外，使用贬义的标签是一个
边缘化的创意人，声称有创意的人
无论是有缺陷的，或有人格障碍。
勇于创新的主要方法之一是寻找替代方法
查看某一现象或替代的方法来问一个问题。常规
社会堆贬义创意的人（例如，强迫，
偏执，顽固，不妥协，偏心）。这将是更好看
以一种积极的行为是由这些贬义标签标识
光：这些特性是常见的创意人，并可能
创意的成功至关重要。
在20世纪80年代，参议员普罗克斯迈尔在美国举行例行记者
会议并确定了具体的科研项目作为
例如政府浪费（例如，他的“金光奖”）。当然，
参议员，记者，和大多数的人读记者
的报告将是无法理解和公正地评价一个深奥的
研究项目。参议员简单的一种方式诋毁科研
提升自己的公众中的信誉。一个理性的社会应该鼓励
创造力，而不是诋毁它与贬义的标签，因为创意是
对社会有益的。
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
----
4。如何创造性
一个新的想法的构想往往发生在一个直观的闪光的洞察力，
或不完整的想法被揭示出来。方程和逻辑
分析还在后面。有人谁是在阅读学术刊物
库看到的最终结果的格式，这是相当不同于其
初步的设想。一个事实，即公开介绍不同于
最初的想法发生可能会导致误解如何
科学实际上是完成了。
勇于创新的主要方法之一是寻找替代方法
查看某一现象或替代的方法来问一个问题。这是很容易
问的问题是微不足道的解决。这是很容易问的问题，
需要非凡的努力（例如，50个人多年的努力，并以百万计的
美元的开支）来解决。这是令人惊讶，很难找到
问题在于这两个极端之间，也有一个结果
这是值得了解的。
一个经常被引用的例子的创意是乔治de Mestral公司的观察
苍耳连接到服装，这导致他发明的钩环
紧固件被称为Velcro®固定。他改变了一个共同的一个有用的滋扰
产品。看着一个个落后的时间来分析一个创造性的行为是怎样的
，经常会发现良好的创作者做出了新的解释
已知的事实或事件。通常的解释劣势转换
进入的优点。
另一个经常引用的例子，创意艺术弗莱的发展
报事贴®移动票据3M公司在1974年。斯宾塞博士银，
另一个3M的科学家，已开发形成的聚合物粘接剂
微观领域，而不是均匀的涂层，因此是一个贫穷的
粘合剂，花了几年来设置。弗莱想要一个更好的效果，他的教会
赞美诗，所以他用银的粘合剂。传统的观点是，每
胶粘剂一定要坚强。无视传统智慧，弗莱开发
一个非常成功的办公产品。然而，他不仅需要
发展的想法，但他也有出售的想法，他的管理和
市场营销部门，这是抵抗他的新想法。一个富有创造性的
管理器，如果有这样一个人，会重新定义的问题找到
一个使用一个弱的粘合剂，但传统的智慧，所有的粘合剂
一定要坚强，显然是强烈的。还有第二个例外
“所有的粘合剂必须是强”的规则：螺纹锁固化合物
防止机器螺钉和螺栓的松动在振动过程中必须
足够弱，以便除去在维修过程中的螺钉或螺栓。
教授大卫斯文森网页已经发布了一个丰富的例子
创新。
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
----
创造力是孤独的工作
创新是企业本质上是一个孤独的。最具有里程碑意义的发现
在科学和所有主要的音乐作品，是一个人的工作。
新的想法往往是试探性的，半生不熟的，且难以沟通的
有说服力的方式。在接收端，大多数科学家和工程师
一般反应，通过阻止别人的新想法：“这将不
工作。“，”这是一个浪费你的时间。“，同事们往往会拒绝
非正统观点，至少要等到这些观点是令人信服的，
一个完整的形式。但是，这样完成的形式发生在一个研究结束
项目，而不是在开头或中间。因此，作为一种防御措施，它是
最好是保持一个人的自我的新的想法，直到达到一个无法解决的
的问题，需要别人的协助。
此外，创造性的工作本质上是个人的。其他人的参与
转移的最终产品的创造者的独到眼光，以及如何创建
它。当多的人都参与其中，难免有妥协，
最终的产品大多是达成一致意见。作为一个一边，法国的法律
认识到创作者的工作表示他/她的个性
工作，所以 - 而创作者可能会出售的版权或对象 -
创造者始终保持他/她的工作，但“droit道德经”中。看到我的独立
文章在作者的道德权利，这是不是我的专业网站
在美国，在法律上确认。
再有，固执和不妥协的人格特质，使得它
对于许多创造性的工作的人，其中妥协是困难
常规的做法。
当然，还有大的项目，需要太多的工时和太
许多不同的技术技能，一个人做所有的工作。实例
这些项目是核物理学家所使用的粒子加速器，
光学和射电望远镜，设计的飞机等。然而，在实践中，
这些大项目分解成许多小任务，有几个
有责任为每个任务的人（也许只有一个人）。如果
多人一起工作的一个任务，不同的人监督
并批准一项任务的工作，这种方法往往会远离
创新和趋向一个共识，即使用经过验证的想法。而
这种方法可能会增加其可靠性，它也乏力，创造力。
有时，一个科学家在一个问题上屡屡受挫，并讨论了
同事的问题，谁提出了解决困难的方式。在
这样一来，最后的工作可能会多作者的论文发表，但
每个解决方案的一部分的时间是一个人的责任。 “
同事可能会导致一个数学或实验技术，
知识的某些事实，是不知道的第一位科学家。
另一种方法是一个多作者的论文创新的主题
教授有更多的好点子比教授亲自开发。
因此，教授给出好主意（S）的研究生，和学生
工作发展的想法变成一个可发布的纸张。这是
传统的学生和教授的名字出现在
期末论文：学生做了几乎所有的工作，教授
贡献了最初的设想，设备和资源，并帮助
前进的道路上有困难的学生。此过程是更不是仅仅
准备学生的博士论文：它是在主教学
学徒的风格。除了对学生的利益，同时也增加了
生产力的教授，教授的声誉，
使得它更容易为教授获得未来的财务支持。
进行到了极致，教授会成为经理，谁写的
建议提供财政支持，产生新的想法，并分配
资源，但不再亲自参与科研。在
从长远来看，除去教授亲自参与做
实验性或理论性的工作可以减少的速度，
教授产生显着的新思路，并教授少
熟悉的技术来解决问题。
5。创新管理
在这篇文章的后面部分，我将讨论创造力的员工管理
。在这里我想作一个临界点：最糟糕的事情经理之一
可以做，以创造性的员工有员工坚持刚性
如期交付日期的任务。当然，经理，
除了硬性的时间表，坚持所有员工的时间
花费的项目经理批准。这种僵化的政策
任务和时间表杀死创造力。
历史告诉我们，许多重要的发现意外。如果
发现者有一些“空闲时间”，他调查这起意外
好奇心。但是，如果发现者勤奋工作，在时间紧，
再有就是没有时间去遵循这个细节，这是没有必要的
完成指定的项目，以及发现被遗忘了。
谁是高度组织的各种表达自己的爱的日程表
陈词滥调，如：
“如果你不知道你要去哪里，你不会知道你什么时候到达。”
或
“如果你不知道你要去哪里，你会被丢失，当你到达那里
“。
有许多真理，这些陈词滥调。小佳来自真正的
漫无目的的工作。我的意思是，当一些意想不到的乐趣。
情况下，应该有一段时间探索这个偶然。
聪明和创造性，谁是人谁是熟悉的
标的物，一般有良好的直觉时，一些意想不到的
事件是值得进一步探讨。他们要求的权限只
减慢发现过程中，也不会产生更好的结果。如果
事后，看到是错误的，至少它是意想不到的结果是，
一个有趣的错误，从中学到了一些东西。
还有另一种陈词滥调，是深受我有一些科学家
已知：
“如果我知道我在做什么，它会不会是研究”。
对于什么样的研究，涉及的事实的发现
以前未知的，这句话，是正确的：结果是不可预知的
和许多的方法将失败，之前有任何的成功。种
在大学的物理学家和化学家的研究工作往往属于这一
类别。由于缺乏一个更好的名字，这个被习惯地称为“纯
研究“。
然而，还有另一种研究 - 应用研究 -
它的目标可能是：（1）设计一个新产品，以满足某些
规格或（2）评估一个产品，也许是一种药物，对安全和
疗效。可以成功地应用研究。科学家和
工程师工作中的应用研究的人肯定知道自己在做什么
他们常常几乎满足了他们的最后期限。 我讨论应用
研究产业化经营的部分，在这篇文章的后面。
点这里进行的是科学家和工程师们正在做的
应用研究也有意想不到的效果，除了简单
做他们的任务。如果他们有一些空闲时间，意想不到的结果
可以进行调查，并可能会变得更加显着比原来
分配。通常有没有时间和意想不到的结果
被遗忘的。
我开始相信，这是不理性的管理纯
科研。真正的研究涉及追求的是未知的，
难以预料。即使是做研究的人，谁是
专家在各自的领域，很难预测的应用程序和
他们的发现的后果。如果专家不能看到
后果，有没有合理的希望，没有技术经理
专业知识可以看到的后果。一些“微不足道”的项目可能
成为显着的多年后，他们出版了，当别人
识别用于旧的工作的结果。最有名的例子
这是在他的引力爱因斯坦的使用非欧几里得几何
理论 - 爱因斯坦之前，非欧几里德几何纯数学
没有任何实际应用。
研究往往是高度个人化的。研究人员不喜欢问权限
探索的想法，可能是试探性的，直观的，而且很难
沟通。有很多好的想法开始作为一个失误或错误，产生一个
意想不到的结果，而且很少有人想提一提他们的失误或错误
他们的上司！
最后，我观察到纯理论研究本质上是浪费：一个常
花钱的项目，没有给予任何真正有用的信息。
进步的代价的一部分，我们必须简单地接受这样的糟粕。如果
结果是可以预测的，那么它会不会是纯理论的研究。钻石矿
同时产生大量毫无价值的岩石，但企业仍然有利可图。
当我们回顾历史的贝尔电话实验室在
美国，我们记得晶体管的本发明，本发明的激光
，其余的从宇宙大爆炸的宇宙背景噪音，而不是发现
提一个高度可靠的电话网络的发展。谁在乎
在该实验室中的糟粕，怎么样？研究应
支持，因为它是发动机的燃料现代经济（通过创建
新的产品和新的工作方式），以及质量的提高
生活中，所发现的知识，因为人的精神被取消，只是
如把一个人在月球上的每个人都在美国引以为傲。
很多人熟悉科学读一本书将
不知道为什么科学家没有进入一个实验室，并出现了一个
重要的结果，如一些可怕的疾病治愈（或疫苗）。
科学的发展是普遍缓慢。每个科学家使小
渐进的步骤的进展，已公布业绩的人的基础上，
以及自己的经验。很少 - 只有很少 - 一个
科学家的灵感，新的思想，是真正的革命。这些
人们常常为他们的成就获得诺贝尔文学奖。
在2000年诺贝尔文学获奖者和其他著名科学家的传记，
我看到了两个类别的创新：
能干的科学家在正确的时间在正确的地方。一些
这些人显然不作任何真正伟大的成就，在
其余的自己的职业生涯。也许这种显著的创新
是一个随机事件。
真正的天才，谁是能够反复显着的创新理念
（如爱因斯坦）
看来，一个伟大的时刻，即使很少的科学家们有福
较少的祝福与一些伟大的时刻。这是相同的，音乐：
作曲家（巴赫，海顿，莫扎特，贝多芬，舒伯特）写道：
在疯狂的步伐，大量优秀的音乐，而其他
作曲家在其一生中只有少数的优秀成分
。我们怎能教授，领导者，管理者，鼓励伟大的发现
更频繁地发生？
历史告诉我们，许多重要的发现是由年轻
科学家，在他们的时间，毕业学校，或在几年后
他们收到的博士学位。传统的解释是，
20岁和30岁之间的时间是“最佳”多年的科学家的
生活。这种现象的原因似乎是，年轻的科学家，有
学会的基本技能（如微积分，微分方程，统计
科学理论，计算机编程，），但缺乏经验。在这
方式，他们是在一个新的环境像一个孩子：孩子是自然
好奇，几乎一切都是陌生的。但是，不像一个孩子，一个年轻的
科学家是能言善道，知道如何去观察和记录的事实，并知道
如何解释的事实。
当有人居住或工作的环境中，超过大约10
多年来，他们往往是观察，好奇，因为他们是
熟悉环境。有了这个解释，该解决方案
增加创造力是明确的：科学家应该改变字段
大约每10年，让他们继续寻求大的，新的挑战，
成为舒服的专家。我并不一定意味着激进
变化，如从核物理收集蝴蝶在雨中
森林的核物理学家，虽然会带来丰富的新
技术分类。 莱纳斯·鲍林是一个杰出范例，
人谁改变了领域，他在那里工作的每一个领域是有生产力的。
当然，变化的领域，定期将停止生产明智的，
老男人有40年的经验，在一个领域。没错！许多这些“
聪明的“老男人知道的东西不能这样做，而一个没有经验的
只是不和奖励。许多这些“聪明”的老男人知道
的东西是不值得做的事情，而经验不足的人把
一种新的方式的事实，并提出了一个重要的发现。我不
反对的智慧来自经验，但我更愿意看到
在许多不同的领域，而不是40年的经验，在一个体验
狭窄的区域。也是一个宝贵的区域之间的相互交流：
技术是公知的在一个字段中可以丰富另一个字段。
我们也可以鼓励创造性的改变了，学校是
操作，这是我在这篇文章的下一届会议讨论。如果学校
产生更多的创意人，我们的政府必须给予财政支持
创造性的活动，不仅是科学的研究，但组成的音乐
和其他形式的创意。
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
----
6。教育问题
创造性的学生
据我观察，许多教师，从小学至
普通高校本科课程，有一个标准的，正统的，只有“一个正确的
办法“的材料。它不同于一个学生
教练被标记为“错误”。我相信，这样的做法往往是
导致有限的智力能力的教练，他只知道
一个可靠的技术。
传统的导师要求学生背诵考试
演讲或课本的信息。这是一个艰巨的任务，
创造力的学生，因为创造力的人自然增加一些新的
一般人认为一个简单的问题。
刚性一个简单的例子，我是一个学生在小学时，
教科书和教师教一个名词的定义是“
一个人，地方或事物的名称。“但是，我看到了我母亲的旧大学
语法书，说一个名词是“什么”的名称。我喜欢
后一种定义更好，因为它在逻辑上是简单的：任何名称是一个
名词。但我是标错不使用官方的定义，虽然
我给考生的定义是相同的。
僵化的教育，更严重的例子中给出了一封信给
新英格兰医学杂志“。笔者曾就读医学院，
1800年底，当患者常死于细菌性感染。中
细菌学类，他不小心让他的培养皿中成为
模具，杀死细菌污染。他的教授骂他
他的草率，让污染。回头看，生命的轨迹
抗生素时代的教育，这个例子似乎固执地僵化。
由于重点是在获得“正确”的结果，无论是
教授或学生问正确的问题，即“可
财产的模具，以杀死细菌在体外可用于治疗细菌
在体内的感染？“1928年，亚历山大·弗莱明孤立的青霉素，
第一次的抗生素，从普通模具青霉，成就
他在1945年获得了诺贝尔医学奖。弗莱明
青霉素的发现来自问正确的问题，
细菌学医学院导师可能有（但没有）问
五十年前。
我记得有一个测试问题在20世纪80年代初从我妻子的医学杂志
，沿以下几行。你是一个医生在急诊室。琼
谁是众所周知的糖尿病患者使用胰岛素，由救护车到达
是处于昏迷状态。她的丈夫说，她是在晚上呕吐在先。
你马上做什么？
管理静脉注射葡萄糖。
静脉注射胰岛素。
吸取血液和测量血糖水平。
检查气道，呼吸和心脏率。
根据医学杂志，正确的答案是D，因为
医生必须经常检查气道，呼吸和循环
最初检查的病人在紧急情况下。当我的妻子
给了我这个问题，我选择了乙，她的意见是，我知道得太多了
关于生物化学。医药，或至少医疗教育，是关于
下面的规则，不是思考。我的反应是，没有一个辅助
生理学和内分泌学的知识会做的更好，而不是科学家
这次审查。当我是一个学法律的学生，在1995年至1998年期间，我看到了同样的
遵循规则记忆行为，奖励和惩罚创意
思维。在我看来，法律和医学院校应发布黄色预警
每个入口的标志，标志着没有思想的ZONE。
谁都是聪明和充满创造力的学生往往平庸
在学校的成绩，因为这些创造性的学生发现问题和模糊性
在考试的难题，老师并未打算。创作的
学生“误解的问题”，根据常规的观点，
讲师。这个问题尤其严重，多项选择题
检查一个创造性的学生可以很快找到的情况下，
要么全部要么没有一个答案是正确的，，而一个noncreative的学生
谁知道材料用常规的方法，只需选择最佳答案
被标记为正确的。在一篇文章或解决问题的检查
学生解释学生的回答，学生
机会来展示导师其他方法来解释这个问题。
然而，传统的师傅们往往无法容忍这种创造性的
诠释。
此外，还有许多具有创造性的学生感到厌烦的行人类
投之类的中间（或者更糟糕的智力水平，
定在一个较低的水平，所以，每个人都通过），使创作的学生
投入更多的时间到他们的个人创意项目和忽视
普通班，这往往会导致平均成绩C和B之间的
我所关注的，很多的智慧和创造力的学生可能会过早
放弃学业，因为无聊的课程和教学
方法。
大约在1960年，这是自定义在美国的小学花
上半年的重复材料已被教导每学年
在过去的一年。这种重复不仅是浪费时间
学生谁学会了它的第一次，但这些学生成为无聊
学校。
许多研究生与高年级的学生（即，几乎所有A级）
无法做研究，在分配给他们的问题没有已知的解决方案
。我看到了这个现象，当我在研究生院在1970年的
我的许多同学辍学。我看到了这个现象再次
在20世纪80年代，当我正在指导研究生的研究工作。
另一方面，我能找到的B级普通班的学生，
甚至C级，不仅可以做研究工作，但也似乎
享受做研究工作所面临的挑战。类准备学生
需要更多的类，而不是做原始的思维，结论表明，
学校和大学都没有在他们的基本任务。我认为，
概念的成绩是合理的，因为成绩提供了一个短期的动机
勤奋学习。真正的问题是没有成绩，但课程和
填充具有任意教科书问题很少考试
相关科学或工程的实际做法，如成功
作为研究或设计的新产品。
电气工程本科学生在教学中，它是
常规给他们的所有的值的电路图
组件（例如，电阻，电容，电感，独立的电压
源等），并要求学生计算的输出电压或
一些分支电路中的电流。工程教科书都充满
这样的问题，但（1）的电路是任意的，没有
实用和（2）学习如何解决这样的问题不
产生较好工程师。然而，这是比较容易教给学生
要解决这些问题，它是容易讲师等级其
工作，因为只有一个正确的答案。相反，我发明了自己的
问一个学生设计一个电路，有一定的家庭作业的问题，
（例如，指定的输入阻抗，输入输出之间的关系
电压和输出电压等）。为了使演习更加逼真，我
受罚的学生，稍微使用更多比我设计的组件：
这强调，简单的设计更好。我的成绩
刑罚额外的元件（S）的成本是成正比的，但我想
如果学生的电路有一定的功能，更好的免除处罚
比我简单的解决方案。这些反应的学生
我的问题是有趣的。大部分学生找到了我的功课
令人沮丧的困难，因为他们从来没有做过这样的问题之前，
虽然他们参加过12年的教育，公立学校加
至少2年的大学之前我教他们。许多学生谁
他们以前的科学，数学A级成绩最
工程类，努力奋斗，在我的班上来赚取C级。更多
令人惊讶的是，一些收入的名义C + +的同学在我的A级
阶层，他们突然活了过来第一次在多年的
学校。
在物理教师中，有一个著名的故事的学生，谁不
一个简单的检查问题得到预期的答案。如果您
还没有看过这个故事的建筑物高度的确定
一个晴雨表，现在你有机会了。 许多物理
教授看到这个故事，说明青春期的反叛或仅仅是
经院哲学。不过，我很同情学生的无聊，
的蔑视：物理学是多垂，滚动的球沿斜面向下
飞机的质量和距离的测量。物理学是关于
了解宇宙 - 时间，空间，能源，对称 - 和
发现新的知识。学习解决枯燥的教科书问题是一个
科研的职业生涯准备不足。
学生需要在学校看到更多的家庭作业的问题，需要创造性的
解决方案：
要求一个解决方案，而不是要求一个学生给两个
解决的一个问题的不同的方法。鼓励学生发现
创造性的解决方案，而不是平淡无奇的解决方案。
给予是不合理的困难的问题，回答正确，并有
受影响的学生粗略的估计。
给学生的问题没有足够的信息，让他们去
库，并找到他们所需要的信息。
给予更多的问题，要求学生设计一个电路，解释数据，
设计的方法，做一个实验，....
指定的学期论文，需要从多个数据源读取，使得
创造性的综合信息，并发现矛盾或
不一致的权威，发表的作品。
，偶尔分配显示不正确的解决问题的练习，（
例如，计算机程序，其中包含的至少一个错误，电子电路
不会正常），让学生发现的缺陷和
建议改正。
指定实验室的实验，让学生自由选择
技术（S）和主题。
安排或创作音乐，不只是播放音乐。
我已经发布了一些意见上的价值出席一个小文科
大学学士学位，再大的研究型大学
博士学位。那篇文章也有一些评论的价值
学院只为女性。
孩子们似乎有一种与生俱来的好奇心，热情，
想象力。成熟的成年人普遍缺乏这些特质。在哪里做这些
品质迷路？我相信，教师和工业管理人员殴打
这些特质的人，以使他们更容易控制和
管理。根据我的经验，无论是作为学生和教授，组织
作为一个官僚机构 - 教育 - 积极不鼓励创造性。我相信
创造力可以被教导，并鼓励在师徒设置，
如一个学生在研究实验室工作。这是更
难教，并在课堂上多鼓励创意
20个学生，但我相信是可以做到的，如果在一条小路上
教练做了很大的努力。当然，有没有奖励
教练谁使这一努力，并与许多其他要求
在美国大学教师的时间，这是不可能的
教练会作出的努力。
一个相关的问题是在美国的知识产权平均主义，它是确定
选拔运动员不寻常的能力，培养他们努力，但同样的
与智慧的过程，被视为势利。这是一个灾难性的后果
一个经济体依赖于技术创新。而且这部分是
正是所采取的路线的公立小学和高中在
美国，以及在美国最先进的高校。
电视
除了正规教育对创造力的阴险的影响，我
电视与效果有关。当一个人读一本书，形成了一个
精神的形象正在发生的事情。当一个监听到的无线（例如，一个
棒球游戏），也形成了一个精神的形象正在发生的事情（即，
记住位置的球员，想象他们是如何移动）。但
电视明确地显示正确的图像，所以有什么东西剩下来
的想象力。我认为读书和听收音机，
激发想象力，这是一个非常有价值的技能创意
人。 20世纪50年代中期以后的普遍性，电视可能是
剥夺儿童和成人的机会，扩大自己的能力
想象的。
平淡内容的电视节目在美国是一个单独的问题
是不相关的，在这里。
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
----
7。产业化经营研究
如果发现的违例项目由工业经理
创造性的工程师，工程师一般会责令不这样做。
此重手控制的创意，有各种各样的原因
工程师的管理。首先，管理者认为来自“锦囊妙计”
高层管理者的工人，“好点子”不能可能起源
从单纯的工人。其次，“它不在预算之内。”- 这将是可怕的
如果工业集团也多被分配做支付！三，
职位的权力和权威的人看到谁是创意人
热衷于他们的新想法，松散的大炮，是危险的，
需要加以控制。有创造力的人往往有自己的眼光
未来，不同意经理人的方向。经理要
一切都在控制和计划，有创意的人一般都是
混乱和不可预测的。既不能安排也预测
绝妙的主意。
我在上一段的犬儒主义是基于我个人的经验
工作中的一个主要的美国公司，施乐公司（Xerox），增强的故事，从
很多我的同事们继续努力，在工业，尽管他们的
坎坷。的Dilbert漫画的普及是如何的见证
常见的无意义的管理是在美国。
投入到工作中的基本组织一个工作日8点到下午5点，
周一至周五，破坏，还有许多具有创造性的人们的工作方式。为
例如，当我程序的计算机，我倾向于连续工作约14
小时，然后折叠床上睡觉8小时，然后回去工作
我的计划。我重复这个循环，直到程序完成后，即使
是指在星期六和星期日工作。如果我打破了我的工作
更短的时间段，我会少得多，因为我会
拿起我以前的想法线程需要花费更多的时间。当
我跟其他程序员之间的大学教师，我发现我的狂欢
是典型行为。同样地，一些作曲家回落，从社会和
连续工作，直到完成他们的音乐作品。
努力变得更为经常的，这也成为缺乏创造力。例如，一个
银行经理不会希望有一个创造性的银行出纳员，而不是一个经理
要正确对待计票通用，互换的商品，谁做
他们以同样的方式工作。事实上，“创造性的银行出纳员”或“创意
会计师“听起来像一个委婉的说法进行诈骗！
创新是企业本质上是一个孤独的。最具有里程碑意义的发现
在科学和所有主要的音乐作品，是一个人的工作。
然而，团队精神，而不是个人主义，是行业的标准模式。
有一个有趣的实验，我可以再现。聘请
商人或经理讨论创意工业。然后问：
“贝多芬已经生产的，如果他一直在努力
在一个团队？“
现在的问题是绝对可笑的人，无论是谁知道
艺术，音乐作品或贝多芬的个性。我有困难
没有咯咯地笑问这个问题，因为它是这样一个粗暴的
建议！但是，令人吃惊的是，产业管理人员往往会说：
“是的，我已经把贝多芬在一个团队中，增加了他的
生产力。“
我的结论是这样的工业经理不明白第一
无论是创意或艺术发展的事情。我看到密切的相似之处
在作曲和科学发现，和个性的
贝多芬的个性，还有许多具有创造性的教授
科学，尽管题材和方法上的差异。除了
有创造力的人的管理问题，我认为试图增加
贝多芬的生产力，让他在一个团队中是类似于杀
奠定了金蛋的鹅。贝多芬是令人难以置信的生产力没有
任何管理或团队合作：在33年的工作期间，他创作了多
50个重大工程，弥合了古典和浪漫时期，和
推出了大量的创新。所有这一切都没有一致的守护神
雇主，在他生命的最后几年，耳聋，特别是
当他创作的“第九交响曲。
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
----
8。参考书目
书籍
邓丽君M.阿马比尔，创意语境中，Westview出版社，1996年。
这本书是她的经典之作的更新，社会心理学
创意，出版于1983年。
冯检基P.布鲁克斯，人月神话，Addison Wesley出版，1975年。布鲁克斯
经理的IBM System 360，操作为发展
在1970年在美国最常见的电脑主机系统。
雅克·阿达玛，在数学领域中的发明心理学，
普林斯顿大学出版社，1945年。多佛出版社再版。阿达玛是
数学教授。
GH哈代，一个数学家的道歉，剑桥大学出版社，1940年。
经典的书意味着什么，做纯数学的研究。 “
在1967年及以后的版本有一个有趣的前锋CP下雪了。
祈福A. Pickover，奇怪的智慧与天才全会精神，1998年。这本书是
不是专业技术工作，但写的一个流行的
观众。在一些地方，它几乎没有上升以上展览的怪胎和
古怪的行为。然而，也有一些有趣的见解
这本书。
乔治·波利亚，如何解决这个问题，普林斯顿大学出版社，1946年。一位教授
数学的创作过程中提供了一些提示。这本书是
写的火爆程度。
罗伯特·J. Sternberg和托德一吕巴尔，不畏人群：培养
创意文化的整合，出版社，1995年。
这本书是由两位心理学家的目的是为观众
外行，但也有一些技术文献的引用。 “
笔者认为，每个人都有一定的创造性，但社会和
管理人员劝阻的创造力。作者一贯使用金融
类比在他们的著作：“低买高卖”是特别普遍。
很多的例子都是从观察学生或学生在
学校，而不是从专业的科学家或工程师。这本书包含
科学和技术中的一些错误，没有这些都会影响
相关消息。
杰拉尔德·温伯格，心理学，计算机编程。作者是一个
计算机科学教授倡导“自我”编程。
期刊文章
肯尼思·R·哈迪，美国的科学家和学者的社会起源“，”
Science，第185，497-506页，1974年8月9日。
报道称，在一神论教会的成员，公会的朋友（贵格会），或
高度世俗化的犹太人的宗教学者之间过多
相比整个美国的人口。
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
----
斯腾伯格的理论创新
在我读心理学文献中，有许多假设和
与我所观察到的创意理论的创造性冲突
同事和我已经阅读创造性的科学家的传记，
作曲家的音乐。但是，下面的理论创新，提出了
在耶鲁大学教授斯腾伯格，对我来说很有意义。斯腾伯格说：
所有以下是至关重要的：在列表中任何一个项目缺乏
排除创造力。我认为他是正确的，除了最后一个项目：它是
没有必要有一个有利的环境，虽然这样的环境
肯定让创意人的生活更轻松。
情报
综合情报。现有信息的能力结合起来，在一个新的
方式。
分析情报。能够区分新的思路，
有潜力，新的想法，不值得进一步的工作。这种能力
是必不可少的有效分配资源，通过评估
质量的新思路。
实用情报。销售能力的想法，供资机构，
经理，编辑，评论等没有“实用智能”
有创意的人不会被分配的资源来发展自己的想法，和
有创造力的人可能获得认可，只追授。
知识给人的认识到什么是真正的新的能力。历史
科学表明，有很多好的想法，发现更多的独立
不止一个人。科学家和工程师必须熟悉
技术文献，以避免“重新发明轮子”。在
另一方面，太多的知识可能会阻止创意，立即
提供一个新的想法是不值得追求的原因，并通过鼓励
人在他们的思想中是刚性的。
知识也是重要的是提供必要设计技能
实验，设计新产品，分析实验结果，
计算，等等。
的思维方式。创意人质疑传统的智慧，而不是
被动地接受，这一点智慧。有创造力的人对常见的假设提出质疑
和规则，而不是盲目地跟着他们。这种风格带来的创意
与他们周围的社会发生冲突的人，所以它也是必不可少的
有个性能容忍这种冲突，在接下来的解释
此列表中的项目。
人格的塑造。创意人铤而走险，无视传统智慧，
是不落俗套。有创造力的人有坚持的勇气，甚至
当身边的人提供反对意见，批评，嘲笑，和
其他的障碍。大多数人都太胆小，是真正的创意。
动机
内在或个人。有创造力的人真正享受自己的工作，并设置
自己的目标。
外在的。
激励因素。
环境。
个人的时间。 | W******e
发帖数: 3319 | |
|
