Readings- Thoughts and Arguments

For: “Environments for Creativity – A Lab for Making things”

As a computer scientist, I can appreciate the importance of interdisciplinary thinking, especially for problems which are inherently ambiguous. Also, it helps to be assisted by persons who aren’t trained to think in what is called ‘the scientific method’, for at times inspiration yields to further development. The Leonardo model quite aptly suggests the fact that generalism is necessary for fostering creativity.

Against: “Design Protocol Data and Novel Design Decisions”

The paper attempts to give a scientific model for novel design decisions. However, given the lack of falsifiability of the author’s hypothesis, compounded with the fact that causality is difficult to prove in his model, makes the argument of the paper a little premature. In my opinion the paper is a bit too simplistic, and from a cognitive angle, the hypothesis of the author requires a finer level of granularity.

Questions: “The Creators’ Patterns”

Question 1: Is it always the ‘architect’ (metaphorically speaking) who is a creator, and never the ‘scientist’?

Question 2: Are all ‘creative’ individuals such as Gardner describes? Tesla was as creative as Edison, yet in nature was a taciturn, morose, uncharismatic, definitely not childlike, generally misanthropic but a thoroughly heroic person, thus opposite to Edison in every respect.

My opinion: I think the psychology aspect of creativity is overrated. Creativity is a subjective definition. And being good at something doesn’t require one to be creative.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: