Two Creativities

A recurring observation suggests that some creative outcomes stem from the creator's world model and individuality. This is expressed in statements such as:

While my argument aligns with these perspectives, I argue that the concept I present here is more precise and practically beneficial. I propose that we split creativity into two types: Explicit Creativity and Reflective Creativity. They are not degrees of the same kind, but completely different, yet people often lump them together under the label of 'creativity'.

Explicit Creativity is considered an 'ability'. For instance, when a creativity test asks you to write as many similarities between a chair and a banana as you can think of, it's measuring Explicit Creativity. It's versatile, applicable to general tasks, and can be enhanced through learning techniques or processes. Explicit Creativity applies to individual elements. Examples include problem-solving skills, adding new features to an existing product, or creating optical illusions in art.

On the other hand, Reflective Creativity is a byproduct of the creator's individuality and world model, and does not fall under 'ability'. Reflective Creativity is perceived as creative because what seems obvious to the creator appears innovative to others. It does not apply to individual elements but operates integrally. It's harder to verbalize and tends to carry subtle, rich meanings. Many innovative ideas seem to originate from Reflective Creativity. A favorite example of mine would be a passionate fan of anime girls and buses, who wrote a detailed account of if the anime girls were buses, and which buses the anime girls would be - this, I believe, falls under Reflective Creativity.

By distinguishing these two as separate entities, we can clearly identify their characteristics without confusion. Generally, the features we associate with creativity pertain to Explicit Creativity. Reflective Creativity has unique traits separate from Explicit Creativity. Outcomes from Reflective Creativity can be hard to understand when examined individually, but make sense when viewed as a whole. Until others fully understand the underlying world model or see the complete outcome, they might find it hard to grasp. If not sufficiently explained, individual components may appear bizarre to others.

When considering these characteristics, the virtues of each type also differ. For Explicit Creativity, the virtues align with common-sense rules for fostering creativity. For Reflective Creativity, one notable difference is that it's more associated with a closed mind than an open one. Although being open to new information is important, there are times when one must remain closed off because people will often try to correct what they perceive as strange ideas. To protect the idea, one might need to stay firm against criticisms or ignore them (this might explain why fierce nerds, who might think everyone else is stupid, often produce impressive results).

Let's think about how we can practically apply what we've discussed. Often, those with ideas rooted in Reflective Creativity face demands to conform. People will say things like "If you're creative, you should do this because this is what creative people do" - in discussions or receiving user feedback, for instance. If you're strongly inclined towards Reflective Creativity, this will always happen. You'll need to be very cunning and very communicative to protect your ideas. So, when faced with such remarks in the future, you can say "no" (at least to yourself).

More generally, consider this guideline: If you can't sufficiently explain an idea that sprung from Reflective Creativity, expect people to misunderstand it.

Methods for generating ideas from Reflective Creativity will also differ. Ideas from brainstorming sessions tend to be superficial or derivative, originating from Explicit Creativity, and unlikely to be profound or innovative. Direct approaches to ideate from Reflective Creativity will likely struggle. How to further enhance Reflective Creativity? One way I know is to strive to step out of the obsession of sounding plausible.

Reflecting on our discussion so far, you can devise strategies for working on Reflective Creativity-based ideas. To preserve the essence of Reflective Creativity-based ideas, one person should lead the project, ensuring team members understand the underlying world model before progressing. There are tasks unsuitable for Reflective Creativity. For instance, collaboration can be poison if communication skills are not very good because it's hard to get people to understand your idea before the outcome is complete. If you fail to do this, you might just sound crazy to them, constantly receive criticisms, and struggle to keep your idea alive. Also, compromising might ruin the outcome more severely than in other cases because Reflective Creativity-based ideas should be applied integrally. Even discussing or conversing with others could be harmful. You must gauge their understanding level before considering their opinions – whether they understand the underlying world model or are just viewing the idea in isolation.

x