Chaos Program

Can an article – written by a professional journalist for a national news magazine – credibly claim that there’s a creativity crisis in America? Isn’t the act of writing the article itself creative? Doesn’t that mean something?

Well, no.

By way of Slashdot (here) I found a Newsweek article (here) that made the highly controversial claim that American children (6th grade and under) are less creative than previous generations and advocated project-based learning in the classroom as the “scientific” solution.

I really wish that people who write about science would try learning a little first.Really I do.

Let’s start with the setup: A longitudinal study by E. Paul Torrance (Wikipedia bio; obit; Books by Torrance on amazon) in which young children were tested for creativity, then followed for decades and their creative achievements recorded. The conclusion was that it was a good test, that people who scored high in creativity while very young, often went on to be highly creative adults. Longitudinal studies (Wikipedia definition here), by the way, are hard to do well but can lead to very rich data sets that can be useful for far more than originally intended.

So far we’re in “duh!” territory. The big take-away is that psychologists were thrilled and amazed to find out they could measure creativity. They may also have been wrong but we’ll get to that. Psychologists were also interested to find out that creativity and intelligence did not necessarily go together. Again, “Duh.” Anyone who’s ever seen an interview with Ozzy Osbourne (or any of a hundred others I could name – sorry Ozzy. You’re still great!) could have told you that. Of course, they are not mutually exclusive either. Frank Zappa proved that!
read more »

Continuing the subject of bad science (previous installment posted as Who writes this stuff anyway?), we have a study (described here) that explains that people with jobs requiring a lot of creativity often feel overworked and may find themselves sucked in outside work hours.

Sounds like an ordinary IT job to me!

Anyway, Like most science these days (or maybe it’s just science reporting, though I suspect it’s both) they seem to be unaware that correlation is not causation. What that means in this case is that it may NOT be that it’s the creativity required by the job that causes the result. It may be that people who demonstrate the capacity for creativity may get loaded up with work because, well, because that’s what it takes to get it done. Anyone who has ever supervised others knows that for a tough problem, you need someone who works hard, thinks sideways (I was going to say “outside the box” but that would be the opposite of creative, wouldn’t it?) and doesn’t let go of a problem just because the work day is over.  You want someone who will solve it for the pleasure of solving it, not just for the money or because someone who told them to.

When you find those (few) people, you treasure them. You also work them just as hard as you can get away with because there are more problems to be solved than good creative problem solvers to throw at them.

Again: Sounds like a basic (good) IT worker and an average IT job. I suppose other jobs may have similar characteristics. I just haven’t had one of those.

read more »

My boss and I have an ongoing disagreement that sometimes flares up (loudly), about who was the better detective: Hercule Poirot, or Sherlock Holmes? The boss takes the point of view that Holmes relied on “parlor tricks” while Poirot used pure intelligence to reason out the solutions.

I contend (very reasonably and with only enough shrillness in my voice to convince people to listen) that this shows a lack of understanding of Holmes’s true skills as a detective. The famous parlor tricks – where he figured out people’s life stories by observing tiny clues he noticed in a glance at them – are NOT how he solved cases at all. Unlike the indolent Poirot who seemed to get most of his information by eavesdropping, Holmes investigated cases. He used disguises to infiltrate locations and spy on suspects. He had a network of informants (The Baker Street Irregulars). He studied shipping and train schedules and knew the map of London intimately, in order to understand the movements of people and things related to his cases. He did experiments in order to improve his understanding of potential evidence. He worked at the business of investigating.

To be honest, it’s been decades since I absorbed the complete Sherlock Holmes novels and stories and I never did get into the Poirot stuff because I find Agatha Christie’s writing style to be dull. Really really really dull. Maybe it’s a British thing. Odd, really, since my mother has everything Christie ever wrote. Most of what I know about the brilliant Belgian detective I got from watching the series with David Suchet on TV. I enjoyed them and often found the solutions to be quite clever. But to compare Poirot’s skill at thinking to the monomaniacal investigative prowess of the great Sherlock Holmes is silly.
read more »

So someone thought it would be a good idea to remake Patrick McGoohan’s 1960s classic The Prisoner. Why? My current favorite candidate for a reason is that Hollywood hates creativity. They also remade V, after all and that was a show that was crying out to be forgotten (while the remake – which I’ve stopped watching – performed the amazing and unforgivable feat of making Morena Baccarin boring).

I could criticize the casting of The Prisoner but what would be the point? Jim Caviezel seems to be a competent enough actor but no where near Patrick McGoohan’s caliber. But then, who is there alive today who is of that caliber? But my problem with the show isn’t with the acting. It’s with the entire show.

Did I mention they’ve also canceled Dollhouse? (See here and here) This was a somewhat creative show that had all the interesting stuff leached out of most of the first season and all of the second season that had aired before its cancellation. The rumor is that the creator of the show, the brilliant and always interesting Joss Whedon, was not allowed by the network to do the show the way he wanted except for a few (brilliant) episodes in the first season. Whether this is true of not, the resulting show was dull. It’s a shame to lose a show with such an interesting premise (programmable people) but the execution was so poor, I guess it’s no great loss.

The Prisoner didn’t have the advantages of a brilliantly creative creator or an interesting new premise. It’s had a lot of hype, though, and of course Ian McKellen. And it has lots of feelings.
read more »

One of my simple yardsticks for whether or not I like a TV show is the question, “Do I like the main character(s)?” This is not a hard and fast rule. I hated most of the characters in Battlestar Galactica – and most of the stories, especially that ridiculous lame ending! – yet kept watching the show. It’s an important factor, though. If I’m rooting for the characters to get killed or maimed, I’m probably not enjoying the action, either. Especially when they win.

This at least partially explains why Torchwood has never been one of my favorite shows. I just don’t much like the main character, Captain Jack Harkness. He’s too full of himself, too smarmy, and the way every story has to relate to his personal narrative strikes me as hackneyed and unnecessarily limiting.

How many shows have you seen where a mysterious female (not a given in Torchwood but never mind that) appears who turns out to be the hero’s long lost love and she has a child who may or may not be the hero’s? This sort of fake character development is a TV staple that gets exercised far too much in shows that take themselves too seriously (like Torchwood, or the execrable Sanctuary). Rather than revealing anything about the character it just provides contrived and manipulative melodrama that got old back when Gunsmoke still had smoking guns and Little Joe was still alive (I know he was on a different show. That’s how staples work. They bind multiple things).

Still, it’s science fiction and I’ll usually give science fiction a try, even after all the times I’ve been disappointed (such as EVERY Star Trek series made after the original). Besides. It’s summer and there’s even less on worth watching than usual.
read more »

A few years ago when I took a course in web development, I had an assignment to survey a number of different websites all from the same industry. Since I worked for a newspaper at the time, I chose the newspaper industry. After spending many hours on this assignment, my conclusion was that the newspaper industry was completely devoid of creativity or any thought, whatsoever, about the needs of the consumer. I found the web pages for all the different papers to be essentially the same, offering the same news in the same format, with the same crappy navigation system using the same old web 1.0 (or maybe 0.8) technology.

Since then, we have had a few years for web technology to develop and for companies to learn the ropes of the new system. For the most part, though, newspaper web sites haven’t improved beyond adding some video and maybe a search function. Circulations are down, advertising is way down but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of creativity going toward finding solutions.

Or does there?

read more »

I work for someone who often talks about “disruptive technology” and how hard it is to keep it alive. He believes that not only is the project we are building disruptive in the context of the technology world but also in the company itself. One definition of disruptive technology is found at the old standby, Wikipedia “A disruptive technology or disruptive innovation is a technological innovation that improves a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically by being lower priced or designed for a different set of consumers.”

The term came to my mind in a completely different context, though, when I was reading an article [at DefenseTech] about the U.S. Army and the developing – and struggling – doctrine of hybrid war. I was already familiar with the somewhat different concept of asymmetric warfare, in which a very weak opponent (such as Al Qaeda in Iraq) uses guerrilla or terrorist tactics to go after a much more powerful foe (such as the United States) [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asynchronous_warfare for more on asymmetric warfare]. But the term hybrid war was new to me.

According to the article, hybrid war is fought against (surprise!) hybrid enemies who “come equipped with high-end, precision guided weapons, yet fight in distributed networks of small units and cells more akin to guerrillas.” This put me in mind of the Afghani Mujahideen of the 1980s, who used U.S. supplied stinger missiles against the invading Soviets. This kind of warfare is not fought with the traditional tank columns and carrier groups but can still do terrible damage. It is made possible both by modern weaponry and by the cleverness and determination of small group leaders. read more »

A friend of mine and I have developed something of a tradition of drinking a shot in honor of famous people when they pass on. Not just any famous person will do. It has to be someone we, personally, consider interesting or significant. We did a shot for George Burns and one (or was it 2?) for Ronald Reagan.

On the other hand, we did not have a shot for Heath Ledger, despite his fantastic turn as the Joker because, a) We had not yet seen Dark Knight when he died and b) neither of us was very familiar with his previous work and so had no very strong reaction to his death. I’m not claiming it’s fair. There has to be some kind of system since the idea is just to show a token of esteem for someone, not to get massively drunk. If you want to get drunk, you can come up with much more frequent excuses to drink shots!

Anyway, after some consideration I think it’s unlikely we’ll do a shot for John Updike, despite his status as one of the most highly regarded American writers of all time. Or possibly, because of that status. read more »

On Twitter I follow a feed called THEMEDIAISDYING (http://twitter.com/themediaisdying). It posts numerous updates throughout the day about changes in newspapers, television and magazines. Not surprisingly, given the name, most of those changes are negative. There have been a lot of layoffs lately. Since I used to work for a newspaper and still have friends who do, I take a morbid interest in what is happening to the industry.

The picture ain’t pretty and I don’t believe the current recession is the whole reason. It’s just the last straw on the camel’s poor old back. When I was still at the paper, the signs of decrepitude were rampant. It was obvious for years that upper management regarded the internet with suspicion, at best. At less than the best, they showed outright hostility, even while they publicly claimed to be pleased at having new opportunities to serve the community and blah blah blah. In the editorial area blogs are still regarded with  suspicion, if not contempt, even when papers start their own sites that they call blogs.

That’s always funny. Seen the Wall Street Journal’s new tech blog? It’s at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/. I have no idea why they refer to this slick, overstaffed exercise as a blog. read more »