On Tuesday 13 April 2004 04:36 pm, Edward K. Ream wrote:

...

...

Why ask why? It's their problem :-)

I disagree: we, the uncreative, provide most of the indispensable support and follow-through for most creative people's "sparks".

Interesting reply. I doubt that we are in great disagreement here. My question "why ask why" was meant to convey that we needn't get too concerned about what other people do: there is little we can do about it

OK -- but I don't see it as "their _problem_", see.

anyway. Another reason I'm not too concerned about the question is that I think most people are creative in ways that may not be apparent to the casual observer.

We may indeed be talking at cross-purposes wrt the very definition of "creativity". I have clarified in my last message what I mean by it (and I think that's quite a widespread meaning...) -- inventing new stuff (including new ways of doing things) rather than applying existing ideas, criteria, rules. Would you want a "creative accountant" keeping your books? At least, if you suspected a strict audit was likely to be coming?-)

Perhaps we have slightly different views of the "scale" of creativity. In my view, there is potential for creativity almost everywhere, including in the "long, careful, systematic, painstaking, often-boring and always-tiring work, implied by that 99% of perspiration."

In my own work, the "big aha" happened 9 years ago, and it took about 10 minutes of using a prototype (The MORE outliner) to see that a programming style based on outlines would work. That programming style has remained almost unchanged ever since. Was that the end of creativity? I don't think so! There is lots of room for creativity in "dotting the i's". In fact, I think this is where almost all creativity is. It's not particularly glamorous, and it _is_ real creativity.

Clearly we do disagree about the word itself. I would not WANT a judge to display creativity. When I enter a local restaurant and order tagliatelle al ragu`, I don't want any creativity either -- I want tagliatelle and ragu` sauce made _exactly_ according to the classic local recipe (I can get creativity in my food when I'm in Gothenburg, if my wallet can stand it;-). You may choose to claim that there is creativity in exactly and meticulously applying invariant accounting procedures, laws, or recipes, but I think you'd be stretching the word.

Again, I doubt we are in much disagreement. Alex, surely your life must be highly creative, even if most of it seems like "perspiration" :-) I wasn't

By your definition, which I'm only guessing at, it may be. But then I wonder whose _isn't_;-).

trying to dismiss people who aren't creative; I was trying to dismiss worrying about whether people are creative or not.

OK, if we can't agree about what the word means, then ceasing to apply it does seem advisable!-) Alex

On Tuesday 13 April 2004 04:36 pm, Edward K. Ream wrote:

...

...

Why ask why? It's their problem :-)

I disagree: we, the uncreative, provide most of the indispensable support and follow-through for most creative people's "sparks".

Interesting reply. I doubt that we are in great disagreement here. My question "why ask why" was meant to convey that we needn't get too concerned about what other people do: there is little we can do about it

OK -- but I don't see it as "their _problem_", see.

anyway. Another reason I'm not too concerned about the question is that I think most people are creative in ways that may not be apparent to the casual observer.

We may indeed be talking at cross-purposes wrt the very definition of "creativity". I have clarified in my last message what I mean by it (and I think that's quite a widespread meaning...) -- inventing new stuff (including new ways of doing things) rather than applying existing ideas, criteria, rules. Would you want a "creative accountant" keeping your books? At least, if you suspected a strict audit was likely to be coming?-)

Perhaps we have slightly different views of the "scale" of creativity. In my view, there is potential for creativity almost everywhere, including in the "long, careful, systematic, painstaking, often-boring and always-tiring work, implied by that 99% of perspiration."

In my own work, the "big aha" happened 9 years ago, and it took about 10 minutes of using a prototype (The MORE outliner) to see that a programming style based on outlines would work. That programming style has remained almost unchanged ever since. Was that the end of creativity? I don't think so! There is lots of room for creativity in "dotting the i's". In fact, I think this is where almost all creativity is. It's not particularly glamorous, and it _is_ real creativity.

Clearly we do disagree about the word itself. I would not WANT a judge to display creativity. When I enter a local restaurant and order tagliatelle al ragu`, I don't want any creativity either -- I want tagliatelle and ragu` sauce made _exactly_ according to the classic local recipe (I can get creativity in my food when I'm in Gothenburg, if my wallet can stand it;-). You may choose to claim that there is creativity in exactly and meticulously applying invariant accounting procedures, laws, or recipes, but I think you'd be stretching the word.

Again, I doubt we are in much disagreement. Alex, surely your life must be highly creative, even if most of it seems like "perspiration" :-) I wasn't

By your definition, which I'm only guessing at, it may be. But then I wonder whose _isn't_;-).

trying to dismiss people who aren't creative; I was trying to dismiss worrying about whether people are creative or not.

OK, if we can't agree about what the word means, then ceasing to apply it does seem advisable!-) Alex