Agonizing Creativity

A study to be published in the journal Psychological Science shows that many people harbor an anti-creativity bias that they are generally not aware of. Despite professing a desire for creative thinking, most people are actually unable to identify a creative idea when they encounter one.
Instead, they associate creativity with words like "agony," "vomit" and "poison". They also rejected novel ideas for products that employed new technologies.
The study, "The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas," also revealed that novelty in itself made people squirm: test subjects did not like the idea of a nanotechnology-powered running shoe with the ability to adjust fabric thickness and reduce blisters. Even objective evidence was found not to reduce resistance to new ideas. Anti-creativity bias was found to be unconscious, like racism: the bias was also so subtle that they were simply unaware of it, leaving them unable to recognize creativity.
Uncertain about the value of creative ideas, people eschew the novel and experimental in favor of the tried and tested. In light of this strong general bias against novelty, study co-authors Jack Goncalo, Jennifer Mueller and Shimul Melwani advise that creatives spend more time devising ways to help institutions accept innovation and recognize creative thought.
Image by Kelbv on Flickr, courtesy of Creative Commons Licensing.
Tweet
- 9-7-11
- silentinfinite's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version










Comments
Curtailing the redundantcies
general lack of awareness
natural human state
natural human state
Yah things come and go.
that makes total sense,
Im asleep...
Sounds like a really poorly
That's Nature for ya
But as Stephen Jack mentions above, there's a natural barrier to the acceptance of new ideas - which, like genes, exist in a complex ecology of cooperation. Novelty whatever its medium must be not only new but demonstrably improved in order to fix itself in the minds and bodies of a population.
That said, just as Dean Radin mentioned in his RS article on the psychological barriers some scientists have to accepting the evidence for psi, that "hump" a new idea must surmount often has less to do with the efficacy or other merits of the idea and more to do with the energy required to completely reformat one's understanding and paradigm. There's an intense resistance to the new not because it has yet to prove its worth (necessarily), but because that proof is subconsciously blocked out in order to preserve an "it has worked so far" theory. Which in many cases a person has spent their entire life struggling to develop.
Furthermore, as Charles Eisenstein discusses at length in The Ascent of Humanity, our school system isn't exactly designed to cultivate curiosity. Quite the opposite...
This might be even more a cultural phenomenon than a trait of evolutionary systems in general. http://michaelgarfield.blogspot.com
this is a totally rediculous article