Jordan Peterson on creativity

[tom g]

[Learnwell]

Post by tom g
http://youtu.be/ocDli45faiw

I have come to call this phenomenon 'getting it just right enough to get it wrong'

He has a profound misunderstanding about how these things are learned and builds a false narrative from there. I'm sure it resonates with a lot of people who don't think very deeply about this stuff. And why would they?

His is describing symptoms, and this is where he gets it right, and not identifying the causes which is a fatal error.

Easy answers. People love that.

[tom g]

Post by Learnwell

Post by tom g
http://youtu.be/ocDli45faiw

I have come to call this phenomenon 'getting it just right enough to get it wrong'
He has a profound misunderstanding about how these things are learned and builds a false narrative from there. I'm sure it resonates with a lot of people who don't think very deeply about this stuff. And why would they?
His is describing symptoms, and this is where he gets it right, and not identifying the causes which is a fatal error.
Easy answers. People love that.

True. First he defines creativity in a very limited way, then he adduces an argument to suit his definition. There is very little that is truly new: the new always builds upon the old and, when we judge something to be new and original, it is to a great extent a subjective judgment. Jordan does not seem to take his own subjectivity into account.
We are all individuals and how we express ourselves through creativity is also individual, that is to say that there is always something new. Whether it is good or bad, is another matter.
Psychology has its function in understanding the human mind but when it tries to define something as fundamental and complex as human creativity, it is out of its depth.
Jordan has a remarkable breadth of mind but a fault in some of his discourses is a tendency to over-reach his own field. (See this very objective evaluation:

Not one of his best, but some of his advice is good.
(Thank you to Martin for helping me with this translation!)

[JPD]

Post by tom g
True. First he defines creativity in a very limited way

I don't think he defined creativity in that clip.

[tom g]

Post by JPD

Post by tom g
True. First he defines creativity in a very limited way

I don't think he defined creativity in that clip.

Yes, that's true but only partly. I think it is explicit that he doesn't step outside a reductive dictionary definition of creativity. Instead, he defines it by inference by describing creative people. They are a) "smart" b) have 'divergent thinking capaibilities' c) are "really different from non-creative people" d) want to "experience novelty , e) "want to chase down aesthetic experiences" f) want to "attend movies and read fiction and to go to museums, to enjoy poetry and to enjoy music that is not conventional music".
It seems that he is expressing an educational ideal of the cultured individual rather than defining a creative person which is almost impossible. Well, sometimes creative people are not cultured in these ways and some are also sometimes tunnel-visioned and mostly only interested in what they are doing.
If you are not "smart" you will just "get to where other people have already got" which is "not creative by definition". Well, let's define "smart" and now let's define "intelligence" and so on. Such definitions by necessity are reductive.
Jordan Peterson is a psychologist: his intention is that people don't lead unhappy lives because they wrongly imagine that they are creative or believe that their creativity is necessarily a good thing. OK, good, but saying what constitutes a creative individual is too far outside his field, and, in the end, who you believe to be truly creative is really quite subjective.
I should say that I'm a big fan of Jordan Peterson but I think that sometimes, by excess of intellectual energy, he is too expansive.