Random Reflections on Creativity

I am in the middle of a book called The Creating Brain: The Neuroscience of Genius.  It was suggested to me by a neuropsychologist whom I met recently through a colleague.  Although I wouldn't necessarily recommend the book, a few ideas came to mind as I read it that I thought were interesting:

1)  The ability to recognize and reconsider relationships is at the core of all creativity.  (I am reminded of Hofstadter's (1995) comments about the critical role that variations on a theme play in creativity.)

2)  Novel approaches to perception, observation, interpretation, and representation are essential components of creative production.

Perception - What falls within the scope of our awareness?  What do we notice?  I believe this to be heavily influenced by our openness to new experience, and by the depth and breadth of our prior knowledge and experience.

Observation - How deeply do we immerse ourselves in both our internal and external worlds?  To which features of those worlds do we attend?  How many layers do we consider?  To what extent are we attuned to the relationships between those layers, or to the dynamic interactions between them?

Interpretation - On which resources do we draw as we seek to understand our experiences?  Do we consider what we have observed from multiple perspectives using a wide variety of heuristics?  Do we look at both individual and systemic factors?  Do we consider sociocultural contexts?  Are our interpretations non-linear, dynamic, flexible, and fluid enough to accommodate change?

Representation - How do we attempt to represent our experiences, our questions about them, and our conclusions?  Do our representations acknowledge that they are necessarily incomplete?

3)  Much research on creativity has highlighted the important role that unstructured down time plays in creativity.  However, that may be because it facilitates unstructured thought.  Andreasen (2005) phrases the idea in this intriguing way: "I would hypothesize that during the creative process the brain begins by disorganizing, making links between shadowy forms of objects or symbols or words or remembered experiences that have not previously been linked" (p. 78).  This might explain why children seem to "lose" their creativity as they progress through school.  Perhaps the highly structured nature of schooling (and the type of thinking it reinforces and rewards) precludes engagement in the types of cognition responsible for creativity.

4)  Creativity is linked to the development of linguistic proficiency.  Language teachers and their students are quick to assume that a large vocabulary is a prerequisite condition for any sort of creative composition in another language.  A quick look at the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012 seems to support that. Yet consider the implications of this statement: "It is likely that one factor contributing to literary creativity is having a lexicon not only large in quantity of words but also rich in associated meanings for each word" (Andreasen, 2005, p. 67).  How frequently do we explicitly engage students in developing associative networks of MEANING around the lists of vocabulary words we insist that they memorize?  It is not uncommon in older textbooks to see words categorized by parts of speech (such as nouns, adjectives, etc.).  At best, we may categorize the words topically (i.e., foods) with a few subcategories thrown in (fruits, vegetables, beverages).  However, textbook drills seldom connect the words to meaningful contexts, much less engage students in exploring layers of meaning associated with the words.  As a result, we severely limit students' ability to create with the language they are learning.

Andreasen, Nancy C.  (2005).  The Creating Brain:  The Neuroscience of Genius.  NY:  Dana Press.  ISBN 1-932594-07-8.

Of Identity, Invisible Audiences, Influence, & Investment

Bradley, a student in Alec Couros's eci831 class, discussed the idea of "invisible audiences" in a recent blog post. His comments sparked a torrent of reflections which certainly won't fit in a single Tweet or even in the comments section of a blog, so I am posting them here instead.

Identity – Who are you? A potentially complicated question often best answered in relation to some person, context, role, responsibility, issue, belief, or perspective. (So, for me, the easy way out of the question would be answers along the lines of: former high school Spanish teacher, professional developer, Assistant Professor of Spanish, supervisor of student teachers, etc.) A quick Google search and perusal of my digital footprints would reveal much more about my personal and professional beliefs and actions over the course of the last 15 to 20 years.

Who am I? In face-to-face relationships, people often rely on age, sex, occupation, title, and other such things to help them know how to behave--selecting comfortable patterns of interaction that fulfill expectations, provide protection, and help them decide how to respond to unanticipated complications in a conversation. Many of those cues are absent online—making it difficult for participants in a conversation to answer the question, “Who am I in relation to you, your expectations for this interaction, and the current topic of conversation?” Consequently, the interaction seems much more fraught with risk and its outcome much less predictable.

Invisible Audiences - Who am I in relation to you? Invisible audiences present even greater challenges in that regard. (I am reminded of Peter Elbow’s reflections on both the positive and negative effects that an awareness can have on the impact of an author’s writing, as well as on the author’s ability to write.) Nonetheless, writing for a relatively invisible audience can also be incredibly liberating—especially for authors who have felt constrained by others’ expectations and/or who are experimenting with their own personal and professional identities. I think a lack of regular feedback may make some authors wonder if participating online is worth the investment.

Influence - Who reads what I write anyway?  I also think that many bloggers significantly underestimate the scope of their own influence.  Many times while in search of something else, I stumble across insightful blog posts written by people I do not know.   Although I frequently read, ponder, and incorporate them into my life, most of the time, I do not comment on them.  Nonetheless, my life has been greatly enriched by reading such blogs.  I don’t think I am unique in that regard.  With that in mind, I choose to “pay it forward,” sharing my own writing (i.e., thinking in process) publicly from time to time as well. 

However, I think writing is a gift of self—one that provides privileged access to the mind, heart, and/or soul of another person.  And, as is true of all gifts of the self, to give such a gift requires a certain measure of vulnerability.  That vulnerability is part of what makes the gift so valuable.  And THAT is a scary prospect when one considers the many issues you raised in your post.

I try to read generously, recognizing that most writing is thinking in process and therefore, probably incomplete.

I try to write with an awareness that my posts are likely to be read by a variety of unintended audiences. This gives me the chance to consider my opinions from multiple perspectives which, although they may not explicitly appear in my writing, certainly strengthen its quality.

I try to respond with an eye toward the person behind the words—remembering that it is likely that most of my online conversations are being “viewed” or “overheard” by invisible third parties who are interpreting not only the words, but also the relationship between me and the other person with whom I am conversing.

Investment - What role do I play and how much am I willing to invest in doing so?  In other words, ultimately, I think conversing online is an act of faith in the sense that it requires people to believe that what they have to offer will, ultimately, matter in some way.  It also demands that writers trust their audience(s) not to misinterpret, manipulate, or misuse what they may share.  Unfortunately, as is true in most face-to-face relationships, sometimes that trust is abused.  I think this is one of the reasons that issues of audience, purpose, context, and community seem to play such important roles in online writing.  A strong community, in particular, can help us mitigate the risk of sharing our best selves with the world (by creating conditions that support that kind of sharing, by protecting those who do share, and by publicly censuring those who abuse the trust of individuals or the community as a whole).  Paradoxically, the strength of such communities seems to come from the committed engagement, investment, and participation of each of its individual members.

Thanks, Bradley, for giving me so much to think about (and Alec Courosa for pointing me to Bradley's post via your link on Twitter)!

A Shadow Story

Have you ever thought about the stories that are hidden? You know, the ones that whisper from deep within the shadows of the books that have already been written? What follows is one such story—two “chapters” long, and stitched together from three different texts. Each paragraph addresses one or more issues I’ve been considering over the last few months in relation to my own life, and offers a nugget of insight worth pondering.

I

"Mysteries, she realized, had their own laws. No matter how marvelous they appeared to common folk, they still followed their own natural order. As a hound couldn't fly nor an apple tree blossom with roses, so those of the green had their own strictures that they must observe" (de Lindt, 1993, p. 88).

“First, look at people and try to find the truth within them. You need to understand people, really understand them, if you’re going to be a hero . . . . Second, beware of things that shine and glitter and make promises, especially promises that play on your weaknesses . . . . Third, you have to have a strong imagination” (Bode, 2007, p. 43).

"But knowing took the sight, to see beyond the world that is . . . and practical as housey-folk were, they believed only what they could hold and weigh . . ." (de Lindt, 1993, p. 92).

" . . . a good thing, to be sure, but a place of limited joys" (Dunkle, 2008, p. 3).

II

"The witch wanted him to feel again, but feeling encompassed remembering, and remembering only hurt. What use was the gift of the green if all it brought was pain?" (de Lindt, 1993, p. 136).

"We all carry the dark places inside us . . . ." "'I'm not . . .' Angharad began, but then she thought. Not what? Not a bad person? Perhaps. But had she never known anger? Never held unkind thoughts? The stranger's observation was valid. No one was innocent of darkness" (de Lindt, 1993, p. 85).

"She turned, not sure she could bear another of his sorrows. He might be able to forget them, but she could not. They were a part of her now. She took them willingly--for that was part of a poet's task--regretting only that in taking them, she did not lessen his burden" (de Lindt, 1993, p. 98).

"So Angharad sang to him before she left, a song of the loneliness that wisdom can sometimes bring--when the student won't listen, when the form is bound to the earth by its roots and only the mind ranges free" (de Lindt, 1993, p. 54).

References

Bode, N.E. (2007). The slippery map. NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

de Lindt, Charles. (1993). Into the green. NY: Tom Doherty Associates, LLC.

Dunkle, Clare. (2008). The sky inside. NY: Atheneum Books for Young Readers.

Entanglement

"Any time two entities interact, they entangle. It doesn't matter if they are photons (bits of light), atoms (bits of matter), or bigger things made of atoms like dust motes, microscopes, cats, or people. The entanglement persists no matter how far these entities separate, as long as they don't subsequently interact with anything else--an almost impossibly tall order for a cat or a person, which is why we don't notice the effect. . . . . It starts when they interact; in doing so, they lose their separate existence" (Gilder, 2008, p. 3).

I find the conceptual implications of the above quotation (and the Wikipedia definition of entanglement) captivating. It comes from a book on the history of quantum physics which I am currently (if somewhat guiltily) enjoying. Like most non-fiction books, this one is also organized much too chronologically for my taste. However, the author has done a beautiful job of grounding the development of quantum theory in the daily lives of those through whom it was revealed to the world. She also does a brilliant job of reconstructing conversations from historical documents in a way that highlights the significant influence the scientists' personal and social "entanglements" had on theoretical developments in the field of physics.

It is interesting to consider the degree to which we are consciously aware of our "entanglement" with others, the relative strength of each of those connections, and how intensely the connections persist in the face of prolonged separation (due to death, the decay of a friendship, divorce, or simply increased absence from the realities of one another's normal, daily routines). Have you ever spent time trying to isolate and unravel the "entanglements" that are most persistent in your life? Are there people who are no longer physically part of your daily routine with whom you continue to be deeply entangled (in terms of the influence they exert on your thoughts and actions)? Do you ever wonder why THOSE particular people seem to have such a disproportionate influence within your sphere of existence?

From an alternative perspective, have you ever wondered what noticeable effect your individual existence has on the rest of the world? Do you ever ponder whether the brief comments, insignificant interactions, or trivial activities in which you engage affect anyone else in deep and lasting ways? Have you ever thought about the degree to which the effect of those tiny expressions of self may be magnified by their absence in someone else's life? Have you ever considered the effect that your unspoken musings would have on the world if you were to share "the real" you with more of the world? Conversations about the concept of entanglement merit a much greater investment than the time and space inherent in a midnight blog post. For now, I'll suffice to say that the manner in which we live would surely change if we truly believed and viewed ourselves as connected to others and our environment in physical ways.

References

Friendwheel.

Gilder, Louisa. (2008). The age of entanglement: When quantum physics was reborn. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

How's Your Math These Days?

Cherice x Your Mind = ?

It occurs to me that I am a product of all the people whose minds I have experienced. With every blog or book I read, every conversation I have, every del.icio.us account I explore, every non-verbal communication I notice, every piece of music I listen to, every website I view, I am taking the best of other people's minds into myself . . . internalizing them . . . making them a part of me.

Cherice x School = ?

I have concluded that, for the most part, the institution of school gets in the way of learning. Its conventions and structures constrain natural patterns and rhythms of learning (which I believe to be highly complex, embodied, non-linear, and relational) and limits understanding by chopping everything up into itty bitty decontextualized pieces in the name of making it all comprehensible.

So with what answers would YOU complete the equations above? :-) Do the answers change when you insert your own name into them?

Progress?

The Passing, peaceful.
The eyes, blind--
Full of grief,
Left behind.

Cherice Montgomery, August 24, 2007