How many times a day do you think of something new, see a different way of doing something, choose an alternate path to your destination? That is a real question. Think of your own experience. Once every 7 days? Once a day? Twice a day? Every hour? All day long?
My colleagues and I observe that most people seem to be “thinking up” new ideas, new questions, new observations, new possibilities, new answers all day long. In actuality, everyone does all of the time. It is in our nature as human beings, whether we consciously see it or our unconscious mind automatically does it–we are constantly otherwise-attracted (what others call distracted) by a constant stream of new inputs, some of which we share, and some of which we work through. This is what we observe, as do our colleagues who focus on creativity.
Yet, it seems that most of the organizing forms prominent today assume the exact opposite. The recent studies on the vast majority of people who are disengaged at work suggest that people are generally not seen as fountains of creativity, rather as meat suits of employable capacities. From this perspective, it is very unlikely that you are creative, as only very few, very special people are. The rest are here to implement what the gifted see. “Do as I say.”
And, as I have shared throughout this blog, we have found thousands of groups that see that it is absolutely definite that you are creative, since everyone is, all of the time. We find that in these groups, nobody tries to motivate and nobody worries about engaging people, because people come hardwired for creativity, engagement, and motivation.
I was reminded recently of a very technical field of statistics with a very deep insight into human observation, initially developed by the Rev. Thomas Bayes in the 1700s. Essentially, he suggested that we should see what our individual, initial beliefs are about how probable something is (our priors) and then update those beliefs with the likelihoods of confirming or disconfirming evidence. As described by Cal Tech physicist Sean Carroll,
“When we are trying to understand what is true about the world, everyone enters the game with some initial feeling about what propositions are plausible, and what ones seem relatively unlikely. This isn’t an annoying mistake that we should work to correct; it’s an absolutely necessary part of researching in conditions of incomplete information. And when it comes to understanding the fundamental architecture of reality, none of us has complete information. Prior credences are a starting point for further analysis, and it’s hard to say that any particular priors are ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ (Carroll, 2016. The Big Picture, p.79).”
“To every proposition that may or may not be true about the world, we assign a prior credence. Each such proposition also comes with a collection of likelihoods: the chances that various other things would be true if that proposition were true. Every time we observe new information, we update our degrees of belief (Carroll, 2016. The Big Picture, p.78).”
Applying this Bayesian insight to whether you are creative or not, you can start with your prior beliefs. From one end of the spectrum, you can start with the belief that you are not creative, and most people are not–only a very few, special people are. Then look for the evidence. If you are not creative, what else would also likely be true. What evidence do you find, with which to update your belief? Do you find that, indeed, people around you do not have ideas and are not creative, updating your prior beliefs that people are not creative? Or do you find that people are having ideas all of the time, whether or not they share them, thus updating your beliefs more towards the belief that people are creative? How would you know? [Hint. You might have to ask.] From the other end of the spectrum, you can start with the prior belief that people are creative. You can then look for evidence of the likelihood that they are indeed creative, updating your beliefs.
What do you see, from your own prior beliefs, from your own experience?