Think! Read Online Free

Creativity can also design new values directly – and then find ways of delivering these new values.
LANGUAGE PROBLEM
    There is a language problem with our understanding of theword 'creativity'. As we understand it, if you create something that was not there before, then you are creative. But this may not necessarily be a good thing. You may have just created a mess.
    This leads to the notion that creativity is just being different for the sake of being different – which is what far too many creative people believe.
    If doors are normally rectangular and you suggest a triangular door, that is not creative unless you can show value for the new shape.
    The problem then is that the word 'creative' does not distinguish between artistic creativity – as we understand it – and idea creativity, which helps with our thinking. That

the result is something new is enough for us to term it 'creativity'. That is why it was necessary to invent the term 'lateral thinking' to refer specifically toidea creativity.
    Although my thinking is quite widely used in the artistic world (especially in music), I am writing here about idea creativity.
    Idea creativity
    Because there is no specific word in the English language for 'idea creativity' there is the possibility of dangerous confusion. Schools claim that they are indeed teaching 'creativity' when they are teaching some music, dancing and finger painting.
    Many people believe that, if you create a mess, then you have created something new and, theoretically, you are therefore 'creative'. The production of something that was not there before implies creation without any regard to the value of that creation. Indeed, many people have come to believe that being different for the sake of being different is the essence of creativity.
    There is a need in our language for a word that emphasises idea creativity, and that also indicates change, newness and value.
REASONS
    There are a number of reasons why we have done nothing culturally, academically, etc., about creativity.
    There is the language problem mentioned above. This leads toproblems with understanding. If you claim to be able to teach peoplecreativity, you are asked if you could ever teach someone to be a Leonardo da Vinci or a Ludwig van Beethoven, a Claude Monet or a Frédéric Chopin. Since this is unlikely, the conclusion is that creativity cannot be taught.
    Since creativity cannot be explained or achievedlogically, it must be some mysterious talent that only some people have and others can only envy.
    All creative ideas will be logical in hindsight – that is, after you have come up with the idea, if the idea is indeed logical in hindsight, then it will be claimed that logic should have reached the idea in the first place. So creativity is unnecessary because logic is enough. The complete nonsense of this attitude in an asymmetric system will be explained later.
    Intelligence is not enough for creativity. So intelligent people defend the position given them by their intelligence by claiming that creativity is not a learnableskill but an inborn talent – which they cannot be expected to acquire.
    These are some of the traditional reasons why we have paid very little attention to creativity.
BRAINSTORMING FOR CREATIVITY
    This method originated in the advertising industry as a formal approach to creativity. It has some value, but overall it is very weak.
    Imagine a person walking down the road. This is an ordinary person – not a musician. This person is then tied up with a rope. Someone now produces a violin. Obviously the person tied up with the rope cannot play the violin. It is then suggested that if the rope is cut, the person will be able to play the violin; to become a violinist. This is obviously nonsense, but it is similar to what happens in brainstorming – simply removing inhibitions (as in cutting the rope) is not enough.
    If you are inhibited and if people attack every one of your ideas, then creativity is indeed