Creative Ignorance

The other day, I was in a discussion about whether computers can be creative. Personally, I thought the answer was a big “duh, yes”, if only because programs (often even my own) often do things that surprise me, but at least I managed to shift the conversation toward the question of “what is creativity? How will you recognize it when a computer achieves it?” And along the way, I noticed a couple of things about creativity.

For one thing, the perception of creativity can depend on the audience’s ignorance. Years ago, I wrote a custom email filter for my boss, because none of the commonly-used ones could easily do what he wanted (like filter on the number of people in the “To:” and “Cc:” lines). When I showed it to him, he thought it was the most amazing thing ever, that we should write a paper about it, and send it in to a research journal. I told him that this was too trivial, and that I couldn’t in good conscience call it groundbreaking or innovative, and that I’d be embarrassed to send it to a research journal.

In short, my boss thought my code was innovative because he knew far less than I did about the state of mail filters. And to this day, whenever I see a statue or painting or something and think, “Oh, that’s cleverly cool! I never would’ve thought of that”, I immediately have second thoughts along the lines of “Yes, but that’s because you don’t hang out with artists and go to galleries and such. The person who did this probably just took five or six ideas that were floating around the technisphere and tweaked them.”

A lot of the proposed definitions of “creativity” circled around the general idea of “using a tool in a new or unexpected way”. And it occurred to me that you don’t need intelligence to be creative in this way. If you don’t know what a tool is for, you won’t be burdened with preconceived ideas of how you ought to use it. In fact, that’s how natural selection works: it has no intelligence whatsoever, and doesn’t know that wings are “for” protecting eggs, and doesn’t punish those individuals that manage to use them for gliding or flying.

Of course, if you’re an adult human, then you’re intelligent (at least compared to natural selection or a bacterium), so this type of creativity is harder. But you can use first sight.

In Terry Pratchett’s A Hat Full of Sky, Tiffany Aching is said to have “first sight and second thoughts”. First sight is the ability to see what’s actually in front of you, rather than what you think is there.

There’s an old story about a student who was asked on a test to measure the height of a building with a barometer that I’m sure you’re all familiar with. Because the problem specified the use of a barometer, clearly the instructor expected students to use the barometer for the thing that barometers are supposed to be used for, namely measure air pressure.

The student’s smartass answers seem creative (oh, come on, admit it: you thought it was cool, the first time you heard the story) is that he ignores the fact that barometers are for measuring air pressure, and sees its other properties: it has mass, so it can be swung like a pendulum; it has length, so it can be used to count off units of height; it has value, so it can be offered as a bribe.

Outside of the world of contrived puzzles, first sight can also be useful, because it lets you stop asking “what is this for?” and start asking “what can I do with this?”. That last question, in turn, breaks down into sub-questions like “what tools do I have?”, “what properties do they have?”, and “how does this property help me solve my problem?”

For instance, spreadsheets are nominally for tabulating data, aggregating sums and averages of interesting numbers, and like that. But people have noticed that hey, Excel does arithmetic, so why not use it as a calculator? I’ve also worked with people who noticed that hey, it lays things out in neat columns, so why not use it as a to-do list?

When technology advances, old tools sometimes become cheap enough to do simple tasks. Car phones have existed for a long time, but if you grew up in the 1960s, you probably decided that they were just fancy toys that rich people used to flaunt their wealth. But in the 1990s, they became cheap enough that anyone could have one. So if you were running a business in the 90s and were expecting people to use pay phones to stay in touch with the office while they were traveling, you were going to have your lunch eaten by the people who had looked at the field the way it was, not the way you imagined it, and realized that they could just give all their salespeople and field techs cell phones.

On a grander scale, the Internet was originally set up for government researchers to share data, and as a nuclear-war-resistant means of communication for the military. It certainly wan’t built to help you find friends from High School or coordinate popular uprisings in the Middle East. That part came from people looking at the thing for what it was, and ignoring &mdash: or often ignorant of — what it was supposed to be for.

What’s interesting about this, I think, is that you don’t need to be a genius to be creative. In fact, you don’t even need intelligence at all. A lot of creationists look at the complexity of biological systems and can think only in terms of a superior intellect putting the pieces together to achieve a goal.

But if I’m right, then it’s possible to be creative simply by being to stupid to know what’s impossible. Creativity can be what Dennett called a crane, rather than a skyhook.

This entry was posted in Miscellaneous and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Creative Ignorance

  1. Eamon Knight says:

    My favorite current example of technological exaptation:

    a few spare bytes in the second generation cellphone signalling protocol => SMS => Twitter



  2. arensb says:

    RT @EamonKnight:

    a few spare bytes in the second generation cellphone signalling protocol => SMS => Twitter

    → coordinating popular uprisings → democracy in the Middle East? → cute Arabian ponies?


  3. Eamon Knight says:

    At the risk of playing “my example is better than your example”: it seems to me your concept of “creativity” turns on obvious vs. non-obvious applications of whatever resources you happen to have on hand at the moment. To me (and I work in wireless telecom), it is non-obvious to second a few spare signalling bytes to provide users with what amounts to a cheap-n-dirty email service, bolted on to what is basically a voice service. It’s also non-obvious to aggregate those mini-emails and turn it from a one-to-one channel into a broadcast medium. But someone did (and boy, I wish I could have one of those Bright Ideas, and retire filthy rich….).

    But now that we have a general-purpose comms medium, it seems obvious to me that we can use it coordinate revolutions as easily as pub crawls. In Ye Olde Days, revolutionaries used walkie-talkies, megaphones, clandestine radio transmitters, samizdat handbills, etc — SMS and Twitter are just improved mechanisms to fulfill the existing need of all popular movements since time immemorial.

    Now, I definitely get the sense that the advent of mobile comms + internet has become a democratizing force in the way the printing press was. Suddenly, people can communicate world-wide in ways they never could before, be exposed to ideas, be aware that there are other ways of thinking and living; and it’s no surprise that it’s the generation that grew up in this ubiquitously-connected world that’s leading the push against the old regimes.


  4. arensb says:

    Eamon Knight:

    I think you’re getting sidetracked onto what is or isn’t an obvious use of resources, whereas the point I was trying to make in the OP is that if you have preconceived notions about what things are supposed to be used for, that can blind you to the resources you have available.

    Not that the question of what is or isn’t obvious isn’t a good one, it’s just that I don’t have a good handle on how to approach it.


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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.