Study: People Are Biased Against Creative Thinking

An anonymous reader writes "Despite how much people might say they like creative thinking, they don't, at least according to studies. 'We think of creative people in a heroic manner, and we celebrate them, but the thing we celebrate is the after-effect,' says Barry Staw, a researcher at the University of California–Berkeley business school who specializes in creativity. 'As much as we celebrate independence in Western cultures, there is an awful lot of pressure to conform,' he says."

Comments

The problem:

[Anonymous Coward]

Creative people just can't shut up and do what they're told.

Re:The problem:

[TWiTfan]

People are frightened by what they can't control, can't predict, and don't understand. That's why people invented gods to help explain unpredictable weather and other disasters. It works that way with people too. People want other people to be predictable, controllable, and understandable.

Re:The problem:

[jones_supa]

Also, the hive mind.

Here is a good philosophical exercise that everyone can do. Think about your values and opinions on various things. Ponder which ones of them are just you repeating what you have been told to think about the particular topic.

Re:The problem:

[lightknight]

Granted, but the other problem exists...without creativity, you become a soul-less automaton. Your whole world is a static dying place...dead because no new life is growing in it.

Re:The problem:

[blackbeak]

Monotheism arose contemporaneously with modern civilization as a control framework for large societies. Monotheism encourages homogenous culture, thus discouraging creativity. Prior to that, polytheism, which implicitly implies multiplicity and diversity in all things, was the culture's guide. In a polytheistic culture every man can have his own muse without ridicule, fear or ostracism.

Re:The problem:

[Opportunist]

Well, what reasons are there to invent Gods?

The main reason I could come up with is explaining what cannot be explained and thus control what cannot be controlled.

If you don't know how something works, you might try to find out, but if you can't find out, it scares you. Mostly for the reason that you have no way to control it. You can't say "if I do this, $bad_thing will not happen and/or $good_thing will". There is no "if I don't touch the hot stove I won't get burned" with whether lightning hits your hut or whether the weather finally gets better so your crops will grow enough to feed you the next Winter. And of course our fear of dying. Not only do we not want to die, but we want to have that nice, fuzzy feeling that there's something better coming for us afterwards. Or at least that there is something and that we're important enough that we don't simply cease to exist.

But the main thing is trying to control what can't be controlled. Because with a God, you can. You can pray. You pray and then God will make the lightning not hit your hut and your crops will grow well. You will not die in that next war and the plague will not kill your family. There is no "worldly" way to do that. And humans are scared of things that are beyond their control. They need something to comfort them. And even if their loved ones die, at least they need to be comforted that they're in some "better place" now.

That's where gods come in.

Re:The problem:

[kilfarsnar]

Also, the hive mind.

Here is a good philosophical exercise that everyone can do. Think about your values and opinions on various things. Ponder which ones of them are just you repeating what you have been told to think about the particular topic.

That'd be most of them. Most of people's ideas, attitudes and opinions are not their own. They have either been told what to think, or have selected a position from a menu presented to them by some teacher, parent, P.R. firm, news channel, religion, etc. Careful though, most people are likewise unreceptive to that idea. I include myself in this estimation, though I do try to examine my beliefs. It is unavoidable, in a way. It's not easy to transfer knowledge, information or something like values without some form of indoctrination.

But people come to see the established order, or consensus as iron-clad. They are threatened by the idea that the truth can be fluid, and facts they have known their whole lives could turn out to be wrong. It is unsettling, so they avoid such realizations. We see this dynamic in studies that show how people will retain a belief even in the face of contradicting evidence. They will explain away or discount the new evidence so that they may continue with their belief. It is interesting and sometimes maddening to me. But as I said earlier, I know what I think and why I think it. So when most people disagree with me on some subject, I am not bothered as much.

Re:The problem:

[kilfarsnar]

This gets to an interesting dynamic; that people can disagree, or have differing viewpoints and not have one be "wrong". This comes up quite a bit on the topic of religion or the existence of God. Religion is certainly a situation in which people have been told what to think. All of these Christians or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or whatever did not come to their beliefs independently. I very much agree with your point that it is a control structure; they all are. They are more about regimenting behavior and beliefs than anything truly spiritual.

As to the existence of God, we don't know either way. A god or gods may exist or he/they may not. I personally believe that there exists an entity who created the universe. But I have absolutely no issue with Atheists. My belief is personal, held for personal reasons. I cannot prove the existence of this higher consciousness that I believe in, so why would I expect anyone else to share my belief? It's not about right and wrong, it's about what works for a person in their life. I have become more comfortable with the concepts of "maybe" and "I don't know".

Re:The problem:

[Grey Geezer]

Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence. It follows then that some of us are incapable of objective reasoning. Many of us who are capable of rational thought are just plain intellectually lazy. And many of us who are intellectually challenged put a lot of effort into trying to figure things out. It is a complicated issue.

Re:The problem:

[stranger_to_himself]

Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence. It follows then that some of us are incapable of objective reasoning. Many of us who are capable of rational thought are just plain intellectually lazy. And many of us who are intellectually challenged put a lot of effort into trying to figure things out. It is a complicated issue.

That was just about the most intellectually lazy comment I have ever seen.

I was going to post a point by point rebuttal....but I couldn't be bothered.

Re:The problem:

[AthanasiusKircher]

Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence.

I'm not sure what this statistical tautology has to do with anything.

It follows then that some of us are incapable of objective reasoning.

Are you claiming that anyone of "below average intelligence" is "incapable of objective reasoning"? That's a pretty strong claim. (And weird -- why exactly would the threshold of "objective reasoning" capability fall along some arbitrary statistical dividing line?) And if you're not claiming that, I don't know how it "follows" from the first statement.

Anyhow... actually, there are a number of studies that have shown that more intelligent people are often the ones with the most rigidity in their beliefs -- particularly when confronted by evidence that conflicts with them. A person of lesser intellect may simply accept new findings from a reputable source or authority, but smart people are significantly better at "explaining away" information that conflicts with their views.

Many of us who are capable of rational thought are just plain intellectually lazy.

Laziness probably has much less to do with it than egotism does. A dumb person who encounters something that conflicts with his/her beliefs may simply ignore it or avoid it, and perhaps you might call that "lazy." Smart people are much more likely to find reasons to be dismissive, particularly if they view themselves as superior to others... e.g., among the chosen few "capable of rational thought."

Makes Sense

[west]

Just like most mutations are unsuccessful, most creative ideas are not "welfare increasing", after all, the status quo came about for a reason and your idea has to be pretty clever to beat it in all, or even most, metrics.

Of course, on the off chance a creative idea *is* successful, we're all for it, but that's pretty hard to determine in advance. And more importantly, after the fact, all the discomfort from change (and one shouldn't underestimate how much change hurts psychologically) has already been paid for, so we can simply enjoy the benefits.

Re:Makes Sense

[m00sh]

Just like most mutations are unsuccessful, most creative ideas are not "welfare increasing", after all, the status quo came about for a reason and your idea has to be pretty clever to beat it in all, or even most, metrics.

Of course, on the off chance a creative idea *is* successful, we're all for it, but that's pretty hard to determine in advance. And more importantly, after the fact, all the discomfort from change (and one shouldn't underestimate how much change hurts psychologically) has already been paid for, so we can simply enjoy the benefits.

The status quo doesn't have to come about because it is the best solution to a problem. There are many times when status quo can appear because it was first to the market, or because it was pushed by the giant gorilla of the market etc. Just look at web standards and internet and there are so many status quo ideas that are established not because they are the best but for a variety of different reasons.

Gene mutations are random whereas creative ideas are directed. Perhaps gene mutations would be comparable to random thoughts in people's heads. Creative ideas are more refined than that.

I agree that its hard to determine which creative idea is going to be successful and maybe even successful for completely different reasons. I admit than when Twitter first came out, I thought it was a dumb idea. But, there lies the problem. Out society of innovation is based on creative ideas and there are no ways of determining which ideas are great and which are not. As the article suggests, the only way to make your idea take effect is through extreme perseverance and mountains of rejection. I remember reading that JK Rowling had her Harry Potter manuscript rejected over a dozen times.

If there is an inherent psychological bias against new ideas, then maybe the psychologists should create a procedure in which we can develop new ideas without having the creative idea having to face rejections.

Conservatives Survive

[pubwvj]

Makes sense that there is some animosity to creativity.

Being conservative, doing the same thing that worked for your ancestors, is generally a good way to survive. Thus evolution would select for people who tend to be conservative and stick with the tried and true.

On the other hand, the guy who makes a pointy stick and sticks said stick in the side of an animal in attempt to kill and eat it providing more food for his family is being creative but if he picks the wrong animal he ends up rather dead. If he wins then he stands a chance of becoming the new tried and true, the new way. But until he proves it the majority of his peers are wise to be a bit hesitant to follow his lead. If he shows a good history of creative successes then adaptable individuals will follow him because that is a good survival strategy.

George Bernard Shaw

[zm]

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

Re:George Bernard Shaw

[TWiTfan]

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.

And the real genius does BOTH.

Well, duh

[argStyopa]

Culture and civilization are all great, but doesn't really change the fact that deep down we're social ANIMALS, and probably the greatest evolutionary advantage that we have had was that we could cooperate.

There's a clear Darwinistic pressure to confirm, so long as there's a little percentage of (expendable) individuals willing to experiment creatively - since for the bulk of history and prehistory, 'creativity' was a great way to get you and others killed.

The kicker...

[fruey]

In terms of decision style, most people fall short of the creative ideal unless they are held accountable for their decision-making strategies, they tend to find the easy way out—either by not engaging in very careful thinking or by modeling the choices on the preferences of those who will be evaluating them.

This is the kicker. Not only do people reject creativity, but they hamper their own responses by conforming to what they think the boss will like. So if you don't agree with your colleague or their interpretation of what the boss will like, you're screwed. What tends to then happen is a breakdown in communication, as you will want to present to the boss directly instead of via the misguided (in your opinion) minion.

If people stopped trying to predict other people's reactions, they'd be more likely to be themselves. Sadly in the corporate world this means that bosses only get a limited set of responses from anyone not directly below them in the hierarchy. Shame.

As a creative thinker...

[Vitriol Angst]

... I can attest to this bias against me, likely the cause of mega jealousy!

Non-Creative; "What do you make of this report?"

Me; "Well I can make a hat, an airplane or a little swan..."

Re:BZZZZT! Article Suspect!

[somersault]

To be fair, he introduced a lot of innovation into the mainstream, even if the ideas already existed beforehand.

The problem is that technically innovative people often aren't talented or even interested when it comes to marketing or interface design. Steve was good at bringing new ideas to market in a way that people found attractive and easy to use, and thus the ideas became mainstream.

As I usually say in reply to comments like this: I don't want an iPhone, but I'm glad they exist.

Re:Creativity often equates to "Different"

[GrumpySteen]

For many people/sheeple

And there's where I stopped reading your comment. If you can't refrain from using childish insults, you don't deserve to be heard.

Re:BZZZZT! Article Suspect!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The mention of Steve Jobs as an "innovator" makes the article suspect. E.G. the author does not know what she is talking about.

It's arguably worse than that: Jobs (and Apple generally) don't really do 'innovative', in the sense that nearly everything they produced had some sort of less-well-refined immediate antecedent elsewhere, or was purchased, or or the like. However, Jobs is quite notable indeed for his willingness to take successful products out and shoot them in order to make room for something new(even when the new thing is still not a safe bet in competition with the older; but cheaper, widely adopted, and widely accepted thing), to tell people who demand backwards-compatible whatever where they can file their futile protests, and other behaviors that, while not innovative in themselves, are more or less required to take an innovation from 'tech demo' to 'product' in a reasonable amount of time. On the other hand, of course, his enthusiasm for ruthless focus would likely have been a very poor fit indeed for a 'blue skies' R&D operation(and indeed, stodgy old Microsoft is the company that has one of those, and seems to carefully avoid applying what it comes up with to anything they actually sell...)

If you want to look at 'innovation' in an institutional context, he isn't a good example of it; but characters like him are clearly relevant to how the broader institutional context interacts with 'creative' or 'innovative' people.

Two parametres

[joe_frisch]

An idea can be judged on "creativity" and "practicality". A creative practical idea is a wonderful thing, but its also quite rare. Fairly often people use "creativity" to excuse not considering practical issues. Flying cars, stratospheric power generation kites, vacuum tube trains, etc. are all "creative" but are not currently practical. Some people, including me, get irritated when someone claiming to be creative effectively says: "here is my design for a flying car - just a few engineering details to work out", when in fact it is the engineering "details" that have prevented practical flying cars for the last 50 years.

People are against Change, not Creativity

[Tora]

The article is close, but just barely misses the mark.

People don't mind creativity on its surface, but what they dislike is the change that inevitably comes from it. People resist change, for all the reasons outlined in the article. People like things to stay the same, not change. And creativity drives change.

I am proudly biased against creative thinking

[SirGarlon]

TFA is basically a "creative" type whining about her kind not being appreciated for their brilliance. For example:

A close friend of mine works for a tech startup. She is an intensely creative and intelligent person who falls on the risk-taker side of the spectrum. Though her company initially hired her for her problem-solving skills, she is regularly unable to fix actual problems because nobody will listen to her ideas. "I even say, 'I'll do the work. Just give me the go ahead and I'll do it myself,' " she says. "But they won't, and so the system stays less efficient."

If _nobody_ is listening to her ideas, let's run down the possibilities of why not:

1. 1. Her ideas are crap and she's too sophomoric to know (Dunning-Kroger effect)
2. 2. She comes across as an abrasive know-it-all, or her communication skills are severely deficient in some other way
3. 3. A combination of 1 and 2
4. 4. She is actually an unsung genius, all her colleagues are mendacious dullards, and life isn't faiiiiiir

If option 4 is correct, then she should start her own company. I suspect 3 is more likely.

Generally, I consider it more valuable to have someone who is a good listener, a quick learner, and works well with others. If you have an idea about changing the way the company does things, the burden is on you to demonstrate the value of that change. If you can't, then the "creative" idea isn't worth much.

Re:I am proudly biased against creative thinking

[sydneyfong]

But she has offered to implement her ideas herself. So let her. If she is wrong, her lack of capability will be revealed. However, if she is right, management looks like morons.

This argument is just lame. When a company pays you a salary, you work for them. So "offering to implement her ideas" is almost like "offering to work during office hours". Worse, it's "offering to do something really risky instead of your assigned task during office hours".

If she is wrong, of course her lack of capability will be revealed -- but will she be able to fix the mess if it goes wrong? What about the cost of the mistake?

Re:People are stupid.

[PopeRatzo]

50% of people are practically thinking

I think that's what you meant to say.

Does this study show bias against creative thinking or bias in favor of thinking that promotes safety, security, comfort.

I used to think the world was just too stodgy for my brilliance. As I got older, I realized that I just lacked sufficient skill, empathy, finesse. It wasn't their problem, it was mine.

Re:Creativity often equates to "Different"

[Walterk]

Replying instead of moderating..

Things like the medieval opinion that the world is flat

They never did think that, it's a modern invention, introduced as late as 1828 after Washington Irving's publication of A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. The ancient Greeks could show that the Earth was round already. In fact, if in the medieval ages they thought that the Earth was flat, why would Columbus (and his contemporaries) even bother sailing west in order to reach India?

You have some points but please do not perpetuate this myth.

Re:BZZZZT! Article Suspect!

[Deep Esophagus]

Jobs (and Apple generally) don't really do 'innovative', in the sense that nearly everything they produced had some sort of less-well-refined immediate antecedent elsewhere, or was purchased, or or the like.

When Woz drove the product development, that wasn't the case. The Apple of early Woz era years was wildly innovative. If TFA had said "Steve Wozniak" instead of "Steve Jobs" he could have made his point a lot better -- Despite the fact that his technical brilliance gave Jobs something to sell and grow the business, he didn't really fit in to corporate culture once Apple became the very thing they loathed.

Re:Pressure to conform?

[Culture20]

The best is when the non-conformists non-conform in strongly defined ways and view "conformists" with disdain.