A Crisis of Creativity

Article At A Glance : Research demonstrates while intelligence has increased over time, creativity is steadily declining. Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman believes our education system teaches anti-creativity focused on problems to solve –with answers that align with what the teacher is looking for—and that’s exactly, not being creative. In a radical idea to increase creative dialogue, he suggested that the Nobel Laureate Meetings, "Get rid of all lectures". If ideas are the currency of the 21st century, we must invest heavily in supporting a new generation creatives idea that meet 3 requisites--they are novel, valuable, and surprising!

“Being highly intelligent, doesn’t equate to being highly creative.”

Research demonstrates while intelligence has increased over time, creativity is steadily declining.?Does this matter? Absolutely it does.?Stanford University economist and Nobel Laureate, Paul Romer argues “great advances have always come from ideas. Ideas do not fall from the sky; they come from people. People write the software. People design the products. People start the new businesses. Every new thing that gives us pleasure or productivity or convenience, be it an iPod or the tweaks that make a chemical plant more efficient, is the result of human ingenuity.” ?Being highly intelligent, doesn’t equate to being highly creative. ?Innovation [def: a new idea] at its best, is informed by our creativity and creativity, at its best, is ?informed by our pursuit of ideas.

“Great advances have always come from ideas.” Paul Romer

How do we really know that creativity is on the decline? And if it’s truly declining-- for how long has this been a concern? Scientist Kyung Hee Kim has been warning of this crisis in creativity for over a decade (Creativity Research Journal, 2011) using analyses from a validated test called the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT).?I wasn’t particulary familiar with this particular test. So, bear with me as I give you my 30 second overview. ?Developed in 1966 by Ellis Paul Torrance, the Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking (TTCT) was designed to identify and evaluate creative potential using two parts: a verbal test and a figural test. Learn more about the TTCT (click here )

Essentially, this test is a measure of one’s ability for ‘Divergent Thinking’. Ah, but what is divergent thinking, you ask? Simply put,?it’s a process of creating multiple, unique ideas or solutions to a problem that you are trying to solve. Usually the result of free-flow thinking, the process of divergent thinking requires identifying many different answers or routes forward. This contrasts with the term ‘Convergent Thinking’ whereby logic is used to find the correct answer. Convergent thinking focuses on reaching one well-defined solution to a problem. This type of thinking is best suited for tasks that involve logic as opposed to creativity, such as answering multiple-choice tests or solving a problem where’s there are clear correct answers. Both these terms were coined by ?psychologist?J.P. Guillford in 1956. Learn more about J.P. Guillford’s work (click here ). ?To date, several longitudinal studies have been conducted to follow up the elementary school-aged students who were first administered the Torrance Tests in 1958 in Minnesota. There was a 22-year follow-up, a 40-year follow-up, and a 50-year follow-up. ??

“The results indicate creative thinking is declining over time among all ages…the decline is steady and persistent, from 1990 to present” Kyung Hee Kim

Back to Professor Kim’s work.?When predicting creative achievement, she found scores on this test predicted creative achievement better than other measures of creative or divergent thinking. ? She wrote in 2008, “Analysis of the normative data showed that creative thinking scores remained static or decreased, starting at sixth grade. Results also indicated that since 1990, even as IQ scores have risen, creative thinking scores have significantly decreased. The results indicate creative thinking is declining over time among all ages, especially in kindergarten through third grade. The decline is steady and persistent, from 1990 to present.” If this is true, and we take this data at face value—it’s basically saying the our current approach to formal education from kindergarten through university —is increasing intelligence [that is, knowledge acquisition—and finding the right answer] but at the expense of a significant and steady decline in creativity [that is, our ability to find important problems, and many possible—even wildly crazy--solutions].

On a personal note, as both a University Professor (and a student)—re-investing in a creative mindset remains my top priorities for self-reflection —and above all, action. ??I have written many personal anecdotes on giving up creative pursuits during my childhood to focus on school, exams, and degrees. In a recent reflection (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2022), entitled “Looking in the Mirror ”- If I could give advice to my younger self, I would say, “make time for things you love to do now, because in a snap of the fingers, you will find yourself staring into a mirror, regretting that you gave them up.” I’ve pledged since 2018 to make a meaningful commitment to re-invest in my childhood love of painting among many other things. While highly anecdotal and an experiment of N=1 (peppered with a great degree of confirmation bias), I have to say—I’ve never felt more energized, productive, and most importantly—creative! But I digress.

“The education system teaches anti-creativity focused on problems to solve –with answers that align with what the teacher is looking for—and that’s exactly, not being creative”

Carl Wieman, Nobel Laureate, Physics

If ideas are the currency of the 21st century, we are in big trouble. Anybody can have an idea, but an idea worth having is the differentiator. ?We are lecturing the creativity out of our students, it seems. Wolfgang Huang writes, “The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings bring together about 600 excellent young scientists and 30–40 Nobel laureates every year. Traditionally, every Nobel laureate may give a lecture on a topic of his or her choice. There are, however, also very many occasions for small group discussions and social interaction. We asked all Nobel laureates for ideas on how to improve the programme”. Any guesses on the most innovative recommendation? ?Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Carl E. Wieman, ?made the most radical suggestion in 5 simple words—“Get rid of all lectures”. ?As it turns out, Professor Wieman had thought deeply about this crisis of creativity in his paper,?‘Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class’ Science, 2011). Our own work at McMaster University informs the problem with lecture-based learning. ??In our experiments, 15 surgical trainees were fitted with EEG caps and seated during a lecture. ?Consistent with the majority of the literature in the field, we found that mind wandering during lectures occurred on average 35% of the time (Dhindsa, 2019). Indeed, passively listening to lectures -- even while being distracted by our smartphones, or whispering with colleagues) does not help our brain to exercise. ?

?“We’ve forgotten that there is an absolute youngness, forty isn’t the new twenty; twenty is the new twenty.” ?Michael Levitt

It's not just about how we teach, but as Michael Levitt, 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, discusses—it’s also about how mucgh time we spend acquiring knowledge. He writes “I did my best work when I was twenty years old—and I knew nothing. What really worries me today is that people become independent when they know too much—12 years of graduate degrees and post doctoral work—when talking about Creativity, I think the world as whole will become more creative, but actually science-- measured per dollar spent on research—will become less creative.” Excessive educational experience apparently leads to the acceptance of traditional viewpoints, and this can stifle creativity. The optimal level of education for scientists and inventors seems to be a few years of graduate work but not an earned doctorate. For creators in the arts and humanities, the optimal amount of education ?occurs during college but before the completion of a bachelor's degree (Simonton, 1984). I couldn’t agree more. Research funding at the highest levels is highly competitive and devours the early career researchers who struggle with funding their research programs. More often than not, they succumb to abandoning their own ideas in pursuit of education ---more degrees, more post docs, and more experience. Before they know it, these bright young 20 year olds are now age 40 with a lot more knowledge and quite probably more fundable ideas. But are these the ideas that will change the world? Michael Levitt believes “we’ve forgotten that there is an absolute youngness, forty isn’t the new twenty; twenty is the new twenty.” ??

“Creativity is the ability to put two or more seemingly more disparate ideas together in an unexpected combination to yield some novel insight.” Randy Schekman

I’m also mindful that the word “creative” has already appeared 32 times in this article without context to the obvious question: What does being creative really mean? ?Marc Runco and Garrett Jaeger at the University of Georgia believe creative ideas need to meet two requisites. They must be both original and effective. Said another way, creative ideas should be novel and have value. Dean Simonton made a strong case for a third criterion—surprise!?In the context of ideas that could be patented, Simonton, in 2012, ?suggested that a creative idea be novel, valuable, and surprising. Carl Wieman speaks to scientific creativity “as recognizing different patterns—things that turn out to be useful that other people haven’t seen yet”. ?

Creativity involves finding problems worth solving

Stanford University economist and Nobel Laureate, Paul Romer has long argued, great advances have always come from ideas. He argues, “ideas do not fall from the sky; they come from people.” Dwayne Spadlin believes “organizations [and people] need to become better at asking the right questions so that they tackle the right problems.” Problem finding is not a new, nor novel, concept. In 1938, Albert Einstein suggested that "the formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution (Einstein & Infeld). More specifically, he used the analogy - “If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it.” It wasn’t until the early 1970s that Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels initiated the empirical research on problem finding. They found that the exploratory behaviours artists before they actually worked was highly predictive of the quality of the eventual artwork. In the early 90s, Runco described ‘problem finding’ as a general category of skills including problem expression, problem construction, problem posing, problem generation, problem discovery, problem identification and problem definition.

“You can sometimes try too hard on a problem--often when you switch off, is when you get the real insights –when your doing something else. Don’t work all the time, you get very dull, and very tired.” Peter Doherty, Nobel Laureate

Creative insights require time away from the problems at hand.?“If you work too hard, you will keep going in the same direction. People who work all the time—never take off the pressure-and when you take off the pressure, you imagine really good things. So if you really want to be good, you must not work too hard” ?says Paul Nurse, Nobel Laureate. Not focusing on work doesn’t mean ‘doing nothing’; rather, quite the opposite. Our best ideas, I believe, come not during work, but in those times we are doing something else. Whether it’s a walk, a ride, reading, or simply enjoying some time to think. ?As Simonton’s investigations have shown, time spent in academic pursuits is time away from exploration, reflection, and development of individual expertise. In a way, it’s the focus on education that keeps creators away from critical non-academic activities and experiences. But there is a trade-off. ?“And of course, although excessive academic work may inhibit one's creative development, dropping out of academia and concentrating only one's own self-development is no guarantee that one will become eminent.” postulates Runco.?Ultimately, there is a delicate balance between knowledge acquisition (formal education) and creative pursuits (self-development). ?

Each and every one of us has creative potential. The only thing keeping us from realizing it-- is ourselves.

I leave you with more questions than answers. If we truly believe that “ideas’ are the future, then we must recognize that knowledge acquisition alone is insufficient to nurture creative minds. And it’s no longer acceptable to suggest that creativity belongs only in the domain of artists and writers. ?Richard Florida, researcher and professor at University of Toronto writes, “creativity is not a tangible asset like mineral deposits, something that can be hoarded or fought over, or even bought and sold—at its core are the scientists, engineers, architects, designers, educators, artists, musicians, and entertainers, whose economic function is to create new ideas, new technology, or new content. Also included are the creative professions of business and finance, law, health care, and related fields, in which knowledge workers engage in complex problem solving that involves a great deal of independent judgment.” Each and every one of us has creative potential. The only thing keeping us from realizing it-- is ourselves.