Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonsarris | Hacker News Reader

John Cleese (of Monty Python fame) gave a lecture on this topic, which I think is pertinent if you want to consider some solutions to this problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU5x1Ea7NjQ

(I posted it to HN almost a year ago, but it got no upvotes then, though I think it is excellent and merits its own discussion so we don't derail this article's comments too much, so here's a repost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6862219)

He gives several pointers on how work environments could foster creativity if they wanted to, but also weighs the merits of both "open" and "closed" thinking. I thought it fascinating, and a good breakdown of "being creative" versus "getting things done", and the environment needed for each.

I definitely prefer written articles to videos, but I do think the video has a lot of merit for anyone interested in this topic. It has a lot more actionable advice than this Slate article.

View on HN

"It has a lot more actionable advice than this Slate article."

I enjoyed the talk, but I don't really see how actionable the advice is. Or, rather, I think it's either wrong or what he says is incomplete. As he sets things up creativity is unleashed in sessions where you have "open" mind and you do the more mundane work in sessions with "closed" mind.

This bifurcation, at least as he sets it up with (e.g., "set aside at least 1 1/2 hours for your open mind session"), doesn't really fit with how creativity gets expressed. In many endeavors -- e.g., music, acting, sports -- the opportunity for creativity comes about only because of huge amounts of practice, in which the endeavor is developed to a point where it becomes second nature. Then, when placed in a situation where you have to perform, creativity comes out. I can't see how this fits with the process of switching from open mind to closed mind, as Cleese describes it.

I also have problems when I think of how creativity comes out in process of writing, whether it's writing fiction, non-fiction, or software. This process of getting work done is much more fluid than Cleese describes. People don't brainstorm for ideas for an hour or two, then sit down to do the mundane work. The work gets done in sessions that are better described by the concept of "flow", where if you still want to use Cleese's concepts of "open mind" and "closed mind" then it is best said that you drift frequently perhaps imperceptibly between the two.

Cleese's characterization in the talk is much more like brainstorming, where you just ponder, daydream, think things up, for an hour or two to find a right "answer", then go to work with "closed mind" implementing your answer. That doesn't seem to me to be how creativity happens, at least not for wide variety of different "creative" endeavors. Creativity comes out when you're in the flow, getting work done in single long session that is not characterizable as an "open mind session" or "closed mind session".

Where you are missing the point is that in those endeavors you mention—music, acting, sports—the activity IS play. Playing is what you are expected to be doing, and you actually practice at it. (Source: I majored in acting and music.)

Certainly Cleese is more interested in the creativity of ideas, especially writing, but his requirements for creativity (space, time, time, confidence, humor) apply to anything.

Math, science, and programming, are also play. ;-)

> I can't see how this fits with the process of switching from open mind to closed mind, as Cleese describes it.

Granted, you will need to be proficient enough in the act before you can be creative with it. However, I would think that musicians have their open time, where they explore themes and ideas, just fiddling with chords and seeing where it goes, i.e. improv, versus their closed time, when they find an interesting theme and want to flesh it out even more, i.e. composing.

> The work gets done in sessions that are better described by the concept of "flow", where if you still want to use Cleese's concepts of "open mind" and "closed mind" then it is best said that you drift frequently perhaps imperceptibly between the two.

My personal experience with drifting frequently between the two is that you hardly get things done. An example I can think of is of programming a particular algorithm. With the "open mind" you'd explore how to express it in interesting ways, but with the "closed mind" you'd have to implement it and move on. If you were to drift between the two frequently, it occurs to me that I would possibly be:

1. spending time exploring (while the deadline is looming)

2. implementing a bad solution (if I did not explore enough)

3. doing no.2 halfway, getting a flash of brilliance, do no.1 to see if it works, then rinse and repeat

By setting aside time to play with the ideas, and then get down to actually fleshing the concepts out, I know how much time I have before making a decision, and once that time is up, I make the best decision I can within that time-frame and stick with it. Second-guessing after this point would be counter-productive, as Cleese mentions.

Cleese says to switch back and forth and specifically drills into the aspect of getting into open mode. I didn't take that to mean you should not switch back and forth within a state of single flow if you can.

Also, I think the characterization of "open" as "brainstorming" is a bit more limited than Cleese intended. I understood "open" to mean in consideration of observed feedback. One example he gave of this was "playing" with other people, and thats brainstorming, but thats just one case where the feedback is from other people.

I do think there is something incomplete in the talk, which is the notion of deliberate practice - I'm not sure the distinction between general experience and deliberate practice was as well understood a the time of this presentation. Yea, the more you practice, the faster you can work, and compress the "open"/"closed" cycle - in this sense mastery of work and play increases potential creativity.

I think your definition of "creativity" is quite different to mine. I'd argue that the most creative musical process occurred long before any public performance, and that the creative part of acting occurs during the rehearsals while you flesh out the character and try varying how things are expressed. Obviously it's an overlapping area - there's plenty of improvised music which is created at the point of performance and lots of dramatic improvisation happening - however to consider just the moment of performance to be the "creative" part misses the bulk of the process.

It's also important not to forget that creativity isn't in any way limited to the arts. The Cleese talk resonated strongly with my experiences in both engineering design and theatre. The size of the windows for creativity and closed-mind work vary, but the underlying concept is the same.

>the opportunity for creativity comes >about only because of huge amounts of >practice, in which the endeavor is >developed to a point where it becomes >second nature

Not always. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18i08hEO_xw#t=1m30s

In my experience (and this is going to sound weird), creativity comes from having constraints to work in. "I need an X, and it has to do Y" leads to much more creative solutions than "Let's think up a thing to do!"

This is a very good talk. For people who prefer transcripts: http://poetry.rapgenius.com/John-cleese-lecture-on-creativit...

I've seen several management videos by John Cleese over the years. I always assumed that whoever paid for them somehow being subversive, but he's actually got quite a lot of useful stuff for companies.

Thank you for sharing, it is indeed a great talk.

I love this! Thank you for linking it up. This also how to do a talk proper.

Fantastic lecture indeed, and very well delivered!

Absolutely amazing talk!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com