Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Favorite comments of '16: Anonymous, zb, and Auntie Ann

On Creative Causality

Anonymous said...
Right on. I am with you on almost all points. However, I did like his idea of having no rules for the kids. It is not like that I am trying to nurture creativity. I am just not good at setting rules. Hopefully my son will be very creative.
zb said...
“just 1 percent ended up making the National Academy of Sciences, and just eight have won Nobel Prizes.” -

?? is this really worse than some other group of kids chosen at 17? For example, what percent of kids rated as high in creativity at 17 go on to win Nobels (we'll broaden that to include any of them) or become NAS members (or the equivalent arts version)?

"Do travel, broad interests, dancing, writing poetry make you creative in your field, or does creativity (and ambition) in your field simply correlate with broader creativity and ambition? "

You could also add, does being a Nobel Laureate give you the opportunity to explore other interests in a way that being a workman scientist doesn't? I'm guessing it's easier to get cast in a play if you have the nobel prize cred already.
Anonymous said...
This is from the comment section of "Kitchen Table Math" blog: The Westinghouse winners are about 2,500 times more likely to win a Nobel Prize (Mark Roulo.) I just finished reading "Wired to Create" by Scott Barry Kaufman. Looks to me like the creativity has a lot more to do with nature rather than nurture....
Auntie Ann said...
There's a famous story from my college of a creative type. He nearly got expelled and possibly arrested for stealing a pig from a farm (which would have been a felony) and holding a luau in his dorm. One of his professors knew the student well, and knew he was brilliant. He intervened and did everything he could to help the kid avoid serious punishment, and convince the school not to expel him.

Robert Noyce later went on to be one of the inventors of the integrated circuit and a founder of Intel.

No comments: