I honestly don't think that the apparent decline in creativity throughout the US isn't something to be worried about. I'm sure our ape ancestors at one point worried about their spines straightening; my point being that the decline is related to the fact that creativity isn't especially needed as much in today's society. And the same amount of creative people still exist, just there is a larger population, and less of them are obviously creative. I don't think there are many brand new ideas to be created, only innovations of our existing technology. Every big advance in technology in the past century has been a combination of previous technology.
In the Newsweek article all it showed was proof that the general population was declining in creativity, but it seemed to ignore the obvious facts: not all of us are going to be successful. The creative ones will succeed, the rest will do less well, in general. We can't blame everything on our upbringing, we all can take steps to better ourselves.
In the Ted talks, Ken Robinson continually talked that schools destroyed our minds. I knew it.
But seriously, I think he's worrying too much. There are resources offered for all kinds of different learning skills in schools throughout our country. The creative ones are born that way, which leads to another question: Can you teach creativity?
But even if our entire country suddenly focused on this somewhat neglected topic, a total reform to refocus on creativity wouldn't happen. Obviously somehow it will raise taxes. Somehow.
But I also did find this article about creativity that was centered in German studies :http://www.unesco.de/fileadmin/medien/Dokumente/Bibliothek/culture_and_creative_industries.pdf.
Ha, I bet you didn't think I would pull the whole German thing together. Boom.
You make some good points here, Abhishek. Harsh but true, you're right, not everyone will be successful. What's your definition of success? I also love the fact that you said we can't blame everything on our upbringing, that we need to take steps to better ourselves. There is undoubtedly an inherent responsibility in success.
ReplyDeleteIn his book Outliers (which you will read next year if you continue in the program) Malcolm Gladwell argues that it's not enough to study the successful individual, it is necessary that we study those around them (family, community) and the special opportunities they had along the way. He points to Bill Gates and The Beatles as prime examples. He says that they didn't do it alone. What do you think? How much of one's success does he or she usually owe to others? Does it depend on the individual?
My definition of success is having a huge amount of money, among other things. I think having success requires excellent timing and enormous luck. I'm sure there is someone out there better suited to being the Chairman and former CEO of Microsoft than Bill Gates is, but Bill Gates had the luck and timing to get where he is. And the Beatles success was based on luck, coupled with skill and looks, like all things in the entertainment industry. They all owe a lot to other people, the most important of which in their path to success they probably don't know. You almost never build something yourself, there are always outside forces, some that you can't see.
ReplyDelete