Two is the magic number: a new science of creativity | Hacker News Reader

Two is the magic number: a new science of creativity

slate.com

20 pointsda5e8 comments

I'm starting to really get tired of the pattern "make an assertion, offer one anecdotal point to support it, plow on forward".

It reminds me of how they taught me to write English papers (high school and non-major college). You can make whatever claims you want, as long as you "back it up". You didn't have to actually think you were right, and you didn't have to (although you could) address any counter-arguments. As long as you could offer some kind of support, however small and contrived, you were justified and advocating whatever you wanted.

I feel like you can "support" any position you want if you've got the entirety of human history to pull anecdotes from.

I'm not trying to reject the premise of the article, I find it interesting, I just can't stand this style.

I'm guessing people just don't appreciate the long-form "magazine journalism" type articles anymore. They just want hard-won, Scientific-method backed double-blind studies with tl;dr abstracts rather than meandering, possibly inaccurate at points, theories of the human condition.

"I feel like you can 'support' any position you want if you've got the entirety of human history to pull anecdotes from."

Well, that's the whole point of unscientific creativity: the license behind the posit. Stripping it of it's theory, it's just "Lennon and McCartney may or may not be equally culturally significant apart than the two together", but how do you measure that in the modern day? How do you measure creativity even if it supposedly is so unquantifiable on an objective basis as to almost appear to be magic or, to some, just pure luck? In fact, is there even a measure to what we consider "creativity"? Is Stallman + Steele creating emacs in the 70s "creativity"? Is it duplicatable in a lab? Could Stallman have done it alone and vice-versa? Tough questions that, unfortunately, will require academic resources to conduct.

I liked the idea of mirror neurons. "The sensation of "mirror neurons" helped further dissolve the distinction. About 10 years ago, a team of Italian researchers showed that certain neurons that fire during actions by macaque monkeys—when they pick up a peanut, for example—also fire when they watch someone else pick up the peanut."

There have also been theories that link that to the enjoyment we get from books, films, and other types of media. Sort of a "science of identification." Interesting stuff.

In the Lennon/McCartny section the author talks a lot about an emotional connection and even throws the word magic around, but I think he is neglecting the fact that Lennon and McCartny recognized each other's outstanding expertise and value to the band and to each other on a rational practical level. They impressed each other on a skill level.

Dense; meanders; does it have a succinct point? I missed it.

It might offer insight into the advantages of having a cofounder.

And a collaborator in general.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com