Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
Lighting and Creativity
I’m feeling creative.
In yesterday’s article about daydreaming and creativity, I noted that daydreaming is negatively correlated with parts of the brain that process visual stimuli. I suggested that this might relate to inattentional blindness. If you’re daydreaming, your mind wanders and you don’t consciously see things even if they’re directly in front of you. Some part of your subconscious may see the object (and direct you around it) but the object never registers in your consciousness.
Now there’s evidence that not seeing may enhance your creativity. An article in The Journal of Environmental Psychology (“Freedom from constraints: Darkness and dim illumination promote creativity“) reports on six different experiments on the relationship between physical environment and creativity. The research found “…that darkness elicits a feeling of being free from constraints and triggers a risky, explorative processing style.” (See additional commentary here and here)
The study focused on 114 German undergraduate students who were asked to solve several creative insight problems under different lighting conditions. The upshot: students in dimly lit rooms solved more problems than those in brightly lit rooms. They also reported that they felt fewer constraints on their thinking. The research also suggested that mental priming could effectively imitate a dim environment. In other words, you don’t have to be in a dark room; you just have to think about being in a dark room.
The researchers also note that creativity involves at least two processes: 1) creating or generating ideas; 2) analyzing and implementing those ideas. A dimly lit room seems to facilitate the first process but not the second. In the authors’ words: “Creativity may begin in the dark but it shouldn’t end there”.
Daydreaming, Default Networks, and Creativity
Is your mind ever really at rest? Does it ever switch completely off? Apparently not. Something is always going on. You may be focused or unfocused, thinking or dreaming, but something is always happening.
When we’re engaged in an attention-absorbing activity (AAA) – and especially a pleasurable AAA – the task-positive network kicks in. It helps us stay focused, pay attention, and accomplish specific tasks. It generally keeps us conscious of what we’re doing.
When we’re not engaged in an AAA, the default network kicks in, allowing our mind to wander. We can daydream, think about the future, “correct” mistakes we made in the past, and generally “zone out”. It’s what happens when your mind wanders away while reading or driving. It’s “negatively correlated” with parts of the brain that process visual stimuli, which may very well be related to inattentional blindness.
On average, some 30% of our waking time is devoted to daydreaming. The default network switches on and the task-positive network switches off. (They can’t both be on at the same time). Often, we are not aware that we are daydreaming, unless someone asks, a penny for your thoughts. Then we realize that we were somewhere else. Researchers on daydreaming essentially offer a penny for your thoughts at random intervals.
Why would we spend so much time daydreaming? It’s not completely clear. But people who have suffered long-term stress (like PTSD or child abuse) or who have some forms of autism seem to have difficulty activating their default network and daydreaming. As Josie Glausiusz writes in Scientific American, “The default network appears to be essential to generating our sense of self, suggesting that daydreaming plays a crucial role in who we are and how we integrate the outside word into our inner lives.”
Daydreaming may also be related to creativity. Researchers at UC Santa Barbara used the Unusual Uses Task (UUT) to measure creativity under different conditions. (The UUT present you with a common object – like a brick – and asks you to come up with as many unusual uses as possible). The researchers found that “higher levels of mind wandering” were associated with improved performance on the UUT. On the other hand, thinking specifically about the UUT did not improve performance.
To promote creativity through daydreaming, however, it appears that we need to be conscious of our daydreaming. That’s not as easy as it sounds. When I’m daydreaming, I am indeed zoned out and the bright ideas I get while in that zone may never pop into my consciousness. The trick seems to be to ask the penny for your thoughts question of yourself. As you return from your daydream, think about what you were thinking about and capture it consciously. You may find a good solution to a problem … or a good topic for your blog.
Creativity and Caffeine
Gosh, I’m feeling so creative.
Last December I wrote a brief article asking, Are You More Creative When You’re Sleepy? The general idea is that you’re less likely to stick to nonproductive routines when you’re tired. Let’s assume that you know the “right” way to do something. When you’re fresh and energetic, you may repeat the process multiple times, even if it doesn’t work well. You’re more likely to assume that the process is correct but you’re making a mistake. Thus, you repeat the process, expecting to correct the mistake and achieve success. When you’re tired, you’re more likely to give up, and try something different — perhaps something more creative.
This week The New Yorker has an article looking at the same phenomenon from a different perspective. The question: does caffeine inhibit creativity? Caffeine tends to stimulate and focus the mind. If you’re more creative when you’re tired — because your mind wanders — then caffeine should reduce your creativity.
Maria Konnikova — who wrote Mastermind: How To Think Like Sherlock Holmes — wrote The New Yorker article and it’s well worth a read. Even if you’re not interested in creativity, you’ll be fascinated with the way Honoré de Balzac inhaled ground coffee dust because the brewed stuff just wasn’t strong enough.
Jobs We Won’t Need
Sorry. Your skills are no longer required.
Last week, I asked, Should We Work? and discussed the issues of job elimination over the next 50 years. Here’s a terrific article from Technology Review about how the process works. And, here are my fearless predictions of just some of the jobs that will disappear over the next 50 years. I’ve also included my predictions for the types of jobs that we will still need. It’s not a long list.
Drivers – autonomous vehicles will replace cab drivers, truck drivers, and bus drivers. Tell the vehicle where you want it go and it will take you there.
Surgeons – if a robot can make micro-welds in the factory, it can also replace your heart valve. A robot’s hands don’t shake.
Computer programmers – computers can program computers faster than people can.
Doctors – computers can diagnose what’s wrong with you better than humans can. Humans might have a better bedside manner, but avatars accompanied by a cute puppy are close… and they’re always on call.
Pilots – drones can do a better job, especially in fighter jets. The weak link in military aircraft is the human. Without a human, we can build faster, more maneuverable, and much, much cheaper warplanes.
College professors – MOOCs will rule.
Room service staff – why order in when you can order out?
Accountants – accountants interpret rules and enter data. Computers can do that.
Stockbrokers – computers already account for the bulk of stock trading. In the future, you won’t invest in stocks; you’ll invest in the algorithms that you think can pick the best stocks.
Engineers – most engineers solve structured problems. So do computers.
Politicians – computers can find optimal solutions to problems better than perpetually outraged people.
Many of our white-collar jobs today require people to manipulate symbols and process information. For instance a doctor who is trying to diagnose what ails you needs to interpret lab results, recall symptoms of many possible diseases, fight off fatigue, and evade logic traps. Well-trained computers can do this better.
So what kinds of jobs will be left? I can think of two general categories:
Persuasion – I’m not sure that we can train computers to be persuasive. Being persuasive requires an emotional connection and a degree of trust. Can you trust a computer? Perhaps. Still, I think people will be more persuasive, though maybe only marginally so.
Imagination – Can we teach computers how to imagine? Perhaps. After all, innovation typically results from mashing up existing ideas. A computer could mash up ideas. But it would be fairly random; I don’t think a computer would really understand the possibilities. So, humans should retain a competitive edge in tasks that require imagination.
I’m guessing that the ability to manipulate symbols and process information won’t be enough to get you a job in 2063. You’ll need to be imaginative and persuasive. Is that what we’re teaching in schools today?
Proving Praise Is Not Productive
This will improve your performance.
Here’s a little experiment for your next staff meeting. All you need is an open space about ten feet long and maybe three feet wide, two coins, and a flip chart.
Once you’ve cleared the space, set a target on the floor at one end of the ten-foot length. The target can be a trashcan, a book, a purse … anything to mark a fixed location on the floor.
On the flip chart, write down four categories:
- P+ — praise works; performance improves
- P- — praise doesn’t work; performance degrades.
- C+ — criticism works; performance improves
- C- — criticism doesn’t work; performance degrades
Now have one of your colleagues stand at the end of the ten-foot space farthest away from the target and facing away from it. Give her the two coins. Ask her to take one coin and throw it over her shoulder, trying to get it as close as possible to the target.
Observe where the coin lands. If it’s close to the target, praise your colleague lavishly: “That’s great. You’re obviously a natural at this. Keep up the good work.” If the coin falls far from the target, criticize her equally lavishly: “That was awful. You’re just lame at this. You better buck up.”
Now have your colleague throw the second coin and observe whether it’s closer or farther away from the target than the first coin. Now you have four conditions:
- You praised after the first coin and performance improved. The second coin was closer. Place a tick in the P+ category.
- You praised after the first coin and performance degraded. The second coin was farther away. Place a tick in the P- category.
- You criticized after the first coin and performance improved. The second coin was closer. Place a tick in the C+ category.
- You criticized after the first coin and performance degraded. The second coin was farther away. Place a tick in the P- category.
Now repeat the process with many colleagues and watch how the tick marks grow. If you’re like most groups, Category 3 (C+) will have the most marks. Conversely, Category 1 (P+) will have the fewest marks.
So, we’ve just proven that criticism is more effective than praise in improving performance, correct? Well, not really.
You may have noticed that throwing a coin over your shoulder is a fairly random act. If the first coin is close, it’s because of chance, not talent. You praise the talent but it’s really just luck. It’s quite likely – again because of chance – that the second coin will be farther away. It’s called regression toward the mean.
Conversely, if the first coin is far away, it’s because of chance. You criticize the poor effort but it’s really just luck. It’s quite likely that the second coin will be closer. Did performance improve? No – we just regressed toward the mean.
What does all this prove? What you tell your colleagues is not the only variable. A lot of other factors – including pure random chance – can influence their behavior. Don’t assume that your coaching is the most important influence.
However, when we do studies that control for other variables, praise is always shown to be more effective at improving performance than criticism. I’ll write more about this soon. Until then, don’t do anything random.
(Note: I adapted this example from Daniel Kahneman’s book, Thinking Fast and Slow. I think Kahneman may have adapted it from Edwards Deming’s experiment involving a fork and different colored balls.)
My Social Media
