FORWARD - WHY CREATIVITY

John E. Arnold
Stanford University

It takes but a cursory survey of the indices of book and periodical literature to
note the rapid increase in the number of titles relating to creativity, imagination, ingenuity,
etc. For one reason or another growing segments of our population are becoming con
cerned over the ever enlarging demand for new and better solutions to both new and old prob
lems.

This growing concern is most readily observed in the fields of engineering, science
and business, but it is by no means restricted to these areas of activity. Educators,
ministers, human relation councilors, politicians, labor leaders, government leaders,
parents and housewives are also seeking diligently for better answers to the problems facing
them. Some are being momentarily waylaid and diverted by different answers rather than
better answers, but most are sincerely searching for definite improvements.
f^ In business and its close ally Research and Development, there is a continuous
v
pressure for increased sales, greater profits, larger wages and increased benefits. This
Is to be accomplished in part through better machines, products and processes, having an
increased function, higher performance level, lower cost, and greater saleability.
Considerable study is also being carried out in an attempt to discover why people buy
the things that they do so as to direct the advertising messages to appeal to these motives.
Many groups throughout the country are now offering their services to the marketing and
advertising people in an effort to increase sales through a greater understanding of indi
vidual and group motives. This service is called Motivation Research, and Is the newest
adjunct of statistical market surveying and consumer analysis.
But why this restless quest? Aren't the old answers good enough? My parents, arid
their parents before them, got along quite happily and satisfactorily on much less than I have.
Why isn't what was good enough for them also good enough for me? Isn't it true, that once
you have started on this search for better solutions there can be no end; that you must go on
and on at a task that becomes increasingly more difficult? Isn't it also true that innovation
is born out of dissatisfaction with the old and that dissatisfaction is the antithesis of happi
ness? Why then are people urged to be creative?
<ljm
Let's take a little different approach. Look at history for a moment. Man
started out a true animal and only very gradually did he acquire the characteristics we
call man-like. The greatest invention, that of language, the taming of fire, the in
vention of the wheel, were these deliberate, organized, logical acts of creativity? Or
were they accidents or divine revelations? History draws a graph of steady, upward
progress, with only an occasional and temporary regression. Hasn't all this been
accomplished without a clear understanding of the creative process and the factors that
influence it?

Haven't you heard people say, or perhaps you've said it yourself, when faced
with the problem of giving up something old and cherished for something new and
questionable, "well, progress is inevitable11. If this is true, why must we stress crea
tivity at this time? Don't we really mean that change is inevitable and we hope that it
is a change for the better? We know this to be a wholly dynamic world and that every
thing is subject to constant variation. Heraclitus recognized this thousands of years
ago when he said that one cannot step into the same river twice. Both you and the river
undergo continuous change. But this continuous change is apt to be a cut and try affair
with many many failures for every success. Nature seems to be in no hurry and is very
wanton in her experiments.
We could go on and on, investigating all the areas of human thought and behavior
and in each case, I'm sure, we would come up with the question, why worry about crea
tivity? One last example from studies in human drives and motivations. It has been quite
clearly shown that one of man's basic motivating instincts is that of transcendency. He
strives not only to transcend his environment but also himself. Unfortunately this in
stinct can be satisfied by destruction almost as easily as by creation, and it can be
mitigated by strong opposing instincts associated with having roots, belonging and being
associated with something bigger than yourself that emphasizes stability and the main
tenance of the status quo. But again, won't chance alone, if nothing else, insure that
there will be some people who wish to improve mankind's lot and that they will be effective
and the necessary progress achieved? Is it necessary to stress creativity in all? Do we
all have to be subjected to the apparent frustration that is associated with the creative
^k process?
v
 3..
5p.
tfi

Let us look at our main question again and some of the° related questions that
arose out of our initial search for an answer to "Why Creativity?" Weren't some of
our greatest inventions achieved by ignorant, untrained savages? Doesn't chance, in
a dynamic world, insure that progress as well as change is inevitable? Doesn't the
dissatisfaction that triggers off creative activity lead to frustration and unhappiness?
Can't we leave the creative work to just a few and the rest of us relax and do only what
we are told to do? Can't we have a moratorium on invention for awhile and learn to be
satisfied with what we have?

tlie answer to all these questions is probably yes and no, yes with lots of qualifi
cations and exceptions. So many qualifications that it might be easier to say no and let
it go at that. However, the chances are very good, that the answer we are actually
searching for lies in some of these exceptions so we shall look at them one by one in brief
detail.

"Weren't some of our greatest inventions achieved by ignorant, untrained savages?"

Yes - - butl They were certainly untrained in the scientific process, the process of crea
tivity, and they were certainly ignorant, based on modern standards. The amount of past
experience that they could draw upon was extremely limited and at first confined to that
which they themselves had lived through. But somehow a few, even without language, asked
themselves questions. Perhaps not the kind we are used to with question marks at the end;
but emotionally they became aware of problem areas, they were sensitive to themselves and
the limited world around them, and these in effect were questions for them to solve. They
made keen observations in search of the answers to these questions. They related these
answers together and combined them with past observations so that finally they could make
a prediction, a prediction that was valid, that answered the question first asked, These
answers were probably resisted then as our new answers are resisted today. Many died
in their attempts to verify and sell their answers. They were ridiculed and tormented,
but the truth prevailed and progress was achieved.
It is very likely true that while these few were sensitive to problems and persistent
enough to solve them they were not necessarily sensitive to the process that they used to
C^ arrive at a solution. Some were able to retrace, using hindsight, the observations, the
 4,

\ relationships, the steps that culminated in the invention, but this unfortunately was
not done often enough.

Actually it is not a rare thing today to see early history repeat itself. Men,
who in light of the total knowledge of the arts and facts of a field of endeavor, are,
in effect, "untrained and ignorant savages" are making predictions of great value.
These men are the amateurs, the tyros who not knowing what can't be done, go
ahead and do it. So frequently does this happen that I have heard some men say that
they are convinced that it is only the amateur who can really invent. I'm afraid that I
don't agree with this. I am certain that innovation is not limited to amateurs, but it may
be limited to only those who think like amateurs; who are as fearless, as uninhibited,
as sensitive and observant as a newcomer to a field of activity.
So it did happen and will happen many times more that formally untrained yet
highly sensitive men brought about changes of vast importance to the rest of the human
race. These are some of die genii, known and unknown, that we revere today. But
while it was true that in certain periods of our species' history we could leave it to the
i^ chance few to lead the way, I am sure that it is no longer true. From our vantage point
in America the progress seems tremendous but it doesn't take much observation to
quickly note that the progress has been severely limited to a small fraction of the world's
total population and to relatively few areas of man's thought and activity. With a world
population of over two and one half billion persons, we in the United States represent but
a fraction over six percent. While most of us have all we care to eat each day, two
thirds of the world's population goes hungry. Over one billion, six-hundred million people
have insufficient and inadequate food. As a species we still have a long way to go; we
cannot leave it to chance. The survival of the fittest is too high a price to pay for con
tinued trial-and-error activity.
We can easily see that the total population of the world is increasing rapidly. Each
morning we have to feed, in our country alone, seven thousand more people than we did
the day before. If the numbers increase and we assume (perhaps properly so) that the
ratio of genius to mediocre to dullard remains the same, won't we also have an increase
in those having inherent potential of. great'worth so that we can still sit back and let
^ those fortunate or unfortunate few solve all our problems for us? Unfortunately while
 our population may increase geometrically, our problems, in number and complexity,
increase at a considerably higher exponential rate . An increase in quantity, moreover,
does not guarantee an increase in quality, although this sometimes seems to follow.
Man has always found it difficult to get along with other men. This is one of the
areas that only recently has come under the influence of the scientific method. Tre
mendous creative effort must be expended if the problems associated with getting along
with a relative few are to be solved so that we can be prepared, in part, for the problems
that come with increased numbers and interrelationships and interdependencies.
Chance alone, a laissez-faire attitude will not insure progress from inevitable
change. Total destruction could easily be the result. The increased understanding of
the creative process, the enlargement of the number of areas where it is practiced and
the encouragement of all to exercise their creative abilities to the limits of that inherent
potential are the only ways in which progress can be assured.
Organized research is a relatively new tool as far as man is concerned. It is
r only during the last ten or fifteen years that we have observed its rapid expansion in numbers
of men participating and dollars spent to support it financially. The engineer and the
scientist now command a premium at the market place and there is nowhere near enough
to go around if the plans for new research and development are to be carried out; that is,
if we rely on quantity alone. In face of this shortage of technically trained personnel, a
shortage which is growing more acute rather than lessening, private and government
laboratories must find other means of supplying the additional needed man-power. One
obvious way is to increase the efficiency and productivity of those engaged in research
and development. If the demonstrated creative ability of individuals can be increased by
understanding and exercise, this, then, is one more good reason for studying creativity.
Actually in this same area of activity there is a still better reason for investigating
as thoroughly as possible the creative process. It seems, at the present time, that a great
deal of so-called creative effort is being expended on gadgets or on being different for
differenced sake. As Thomas V/ood Krutch put it in his book, "The Measure of Man",
"Psychologists have taught the merchant that he can make more money by selling fat-free
milk than he can when he calls it skimmed; but what have they done to help us write a
 6.

better Hamlet?" A good share of our creative effort results in making things larger,
faster, more powerful and more efficient. It is granted that these efforts can and do
result in better products, machines and processes, but it seems to me that if even a
small fraction of the above time were devoted to basically rethinking the needs that
various products are supposed to satisfy, that entirely new, from a functional stand
point, means could be evolved that would better solve the needs of all men.
For one reason or another (probably because of lack of confidence in ourselves •-
as effective and novel problem solvers) most of us prefer to work in established
fields of endeavor rather than strike out into the unknown. Like the drunk who searched

for his lost ring under the lamp post rather than by the dark park bench where he lost
it because there was more light by the lamp, many of us search vainly for important
answers in the well lighted areas, knowing full well that they aren't there; they are
in the dark fringe areas. Perhaps another important reason for this hesitancy is our
fear of failure or ridicule. Therefore, we must not only study the creative process, but
we must also study ourselves as the only creative instrument our species has. This
(^ is "why creativity".
But one objection has not been covered as yet. Much as I hate to admit it, this
objection has been made by mature men as well as students. It is, "Why should I
try to be more imaginative and creative? Won't this lead to discontent, frustration and
unhappiness?" Again the answer is yes and no. An attitude of healthy skepticism in
place of complacent acceptance is essential to the creative personality. The highly
imaginative person is one who is motivated by a deep spirit of inquiry , of questioning.
He is constantly asking himself how he can improve the things he sees. He is concerned
with how the basic needs of man can be better satisfied. If this is discontent, then part
of the question must be answered in the affirmative. I feel, however, that the word dis
content connotes a rather definite negative quality and, therefore, should not be used.
The spirit of the innovator is wholly positive.
Frustration cannot be avoided in problem solving situations and if recognized and
handled as a necessary and important part of the creative process, it, too, can have posi
tive qualities rather than negative. Frustration is frequently the immediate forerunner of
 7.

c
solution. Those practiced problem solvers who can, when they arrive at the frus
tration stage, turn the problem over to their sub-conscious mind, to incubate as Wallas
put it, are more apt to arrive at an insightful solution than those who fret and fuss,
those who, in effect, react negatively.
In order to answer the last part of the objection, it is necessary to define
happiness. The definition that I like best is that happiness is the first derivative of
your achievement curve. When you are progressing, making positive contributions
and using your talents, to the full, the slope of the achievement curve is positive and
you are happy. The opposite situation results in a negative slope and unhappiness. Since
the curve is most likely a continuous one, there are apt to be times when the curve
flattens out and the slope is zero. The zero derivative can be indicative of one of two
situations. It can represent a period of contentment, a resting period before another up
ward climb, or it can be a period of frustration which, as I have already mentioned, if
A handled properly, will lead to a further advancement and resultant happiness, or if
handled improperly, will lead to a descending achievement curve, a negative slope and un
happiness. Zero slopes are periods of indifferent or unstable equilibrium and should not
be continued for too long a period. They require too delicate a balance to be maintained
and should be avoided as much as possible. One way to avoid the zero slope resulting from
frustration is to have so many things to do, so many interests, so many problems to solve
that while you are incubating one or more you are going ahead positively with others.
Now if you accept this definition of happiness, it seems to me that the only conclusion
that can be drawn is that to be happy one must be creative. One must make positive contri
butions to society, must maintain an achievement curve with an over-all positive slope if
one is to be truly happy. This is one more good reason for why we should try to be creative.
There are, of course, many more reasons why we all should try to understand the
creative process and make ourselves more expert in its use. It is hoped that as you read
further in these notes you can provide these answers for yourselves.