This is not the first time a video game has taught us something. Clive argues that playing video games made the learning curve extremely shallow for learning the skill of how to use a mouse (a physical device)  to navigate our computer system (a virtual system).  It did so to such an extent that regular computer users feel as if such a skill is inherently intuitive.  It isn’t.  Anybody who has watched a 2 year old play with video game controls without realizing that those controls are making things happen on the screen has seen this non-intuitiveness in action.  The same is true of anyone who has had the pleasure (?) of leading a complete computer novice through their first interaction with a computer OS.

Recently there has been a growing realization that playing video games can potentially  be both fun and a valuable learning experience.  One instance that quickly comes to mind is the team building and management skills acquired running guilds and leading teams of adventurers conducting large-scale raids in World of Warcraft. In fact, acquiring and managing resources (key components in most MMORPGs) are familiarizing a generation of gamers with database management.  Many of these games also have some form of marketplace where loot picked up while adverturing can be bought and sold.  These marketplaces are economies in microcosm governed by the laws of supply and demand.  Players quickly learn to hold on to their more vauable loot until there are more people wanting to buy the loot then there are people selling it.  They also learn that the best time to buy is when there is a glut in the market. Trying to teach these concepts and skills to preteens and young adults in the classroom is a painful process for both sides.  However, in the context of a videogame, learning is a side effect of playing a game.  The lessons learned aren’t any less valuable or valid for having been acquired in such a fashion.

Why the growing realization now when video games have been around for over 20 years? I believe it is because of the growing complexity of those games.  Early video games taught little more than hand-eye-machine skills. However, as gaming technology progressed with each generation of games building upon the code of previous generations, the games became not only more complex but also more realistic.  History simulators actually teach history. Flight simulators actually teach the dynamics of flight. And, with MMORPGs being provided with complexity via the social interactions of thousands of actually humans, players are able to learn and explore social and cultural dynamics in microcosm.

Spore promises to up the ante in this regard.  Spore simulates everything from creatures to cities to civilizations.  In doing so, it promises to provide it’s players with more than 3-D design familiarity.  It also has the ability to increase their understanding of the principles of evolution, increase their creativity (more on this in another post), and their appreciation of biology.

Shh!  Don’t tell the kids

It does not assume any knowledge of psychology on the part of the reader.

The author takes a cognitive approach to creativity but also discusses other approaches to the study of creativity.

I agree with a lot the author has to say but also disagree with some of his beliefs and assumptions. I am hoping this disagreement will result in some good discussion fodder in the class.

One of the first topics addressed in his book is the definition of creativity.

The standard definition of creativity is that the product/process/idea needs to be both novel AND useful/appropriate. There is some debate of what it means for something to be novel. However, most concede that for something to be novel it has to be novel for either the individual generating the idea (“mundane” or “psychological” creativity) or it has to be novel with respect to all human history (“historical” creativity).

There is more debate about the second component; that the novel idea be useful or appropriate to the domain in which the creativity is occurring.

What this means is that a creative poem must be a poem. It must satisfy poetic constraints of meter, rhythm and metaphor.

A creative product must satisfy a need.

Those taking a problem solving approach to creativity might say that a creative solution to a problem must be both novel and solve the problem. “Solving the problem” is what determines whether a novel solution is useful or appropriate.

Weisberg, in defining creativity, only focuses on one definition. He focuses on Csikszentmihalyi‘s definition that a creative product is both novel and has value.

How is value determined? By the gatekeepers of the discipline. A scientific theory or finding has value when it is published in a peer reviewed journal. A piece of music has value when it is performed publicly and people pay to hear the music. A painting has value when it is sold or displayed in a gallery.

At least this is Weisberg’s presentation of Csikszentmihalyi’s definition.

Weisberg has a problem with this view and I agree with him. Many novel works that were considered valuable at inception do not endure the test of time. Does that mean they were creative but became less creative with time? Other novel works were considered valueless at inception but became highly valued over time. Does this mean they also became more creative over time?

I doubt it and so does Weisberg. Though value is an important component of creativity, it shouldn’t define creativity. Perhaps value is what distinguishes creativity from innovation.

As much as I have problems with this definition of creativity, I have even more difficulty with Weisberg’s definition of creativity. He says that novelty alone makes something creative as long as that novelty was intentional (it can’t have occurred by accident). It doesn’t have to solve a problem, or be appropriate to the domain or be useful. It just has to be intentionally novel.

This suggests that failed attempts to solve a problem are just as creative as the novel solution to a problem. A grocery list could be a creative poem as long as someone says it is a poem.

Where Csikszentmihalyi’s definition might be too dependent on context, Weisberg’s definition is too inclusive. I feel that, at the very least, a creative product needs to be both novel and a member of the domain in question (it has to be a poem, a theory of evolution, a painting…).

Having said that, Weisberg brings up some good points in defense of his definition. He points out that Watson and Crick generated several incorrect solutions to the problem of the structure of DNA. For example, for a while they considered a triple-helix model of DNA. Weisberg’s definition states that this incorrect solution is just as creative as the correct solution (the double helix). He argues that the same creative cognitive processes produced the double helix solution as produced the triple helix solution. The fact that one solution was correct and the other incorrect does not alter the fact that the act of generating the solutions was a creative act.

I had to concede that point (even though I didn’t want to).

So how do I reconcile this point with the intuition that Weisberg’s definition is too inclusive?

Perhaps Weisberg intends to define creativity in terms of the processes that result in the creative product. The creative processes that generate incorrect solutions and failed attempts are the same creative processes that generate successes. Hence, if a novel idea is the result of a creative process then it must be creative.

However, the cognitive approach to creativity assumes that creativity results from normal cognitive processes operating on normal knowledge structures. Sometimes the result of the processes is something ordinary. At other times, the result is novel and creative.

Weisberg subscribes to the cognitive approach. Consequently, he must not be making the claim I think he is – that it is the use of special creative cognitive processes that determine whether or not the novel product is creative.

Frankly, I’m not sure how he would reconcile this issue.

I would reconcile this issue by suggesting that part of the creative process is rejecting unfit solutions or alternatives and persisting in working towards the “appropriate” or “useful” solution to a problem. Consequently, a novel but incorrect solution is not creative. Creativity is achieved by continued work towards a goal until the product is both novel and appropriate or useful.

The degree of creativity of the product is related to the degree to which the creator tweaks the creation until it satisfies both criteria of creativity: novelty and usefulness.