Making Public Space Personal

Play is Serious Business

You’re More Creative When Bored at Work

Posted on 2013/01/092013/01/10 by Jason Hensel

I would never say I’m bored at work (hey, boss!), but I will say that there are times when my productivity voyage encounters the horse latitudes.

That’s not a bad thing, because according to a recent study, boredom at work can increase creativity since it gives us an opportunity to daydream.

Dr. Sandi Mann and Rebekah Cadman, both from the University of Central Lancashire, presented the study this week at the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society Division of Occupational Psychology at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Chester.

They conducted two studies. The first one asked 40 people to complete a boring task (transcribing numbers from a telephone book) for 15 minutes. They were then asked to complete another task (imagining various uses for a pair of Styrofoam cups). This second task evaluated their creativity.

The results showed that those who transcribed telephone numbers were more creative in their uses of the cups than a control group that just worked on the cups.

The second study investigated the role of daydreaming by adding a different boring job to a group. Thirty people transcribed telephone numbers; however, another group of 30 participants read the numbers rather than write them.

Mann and Cadman found that the reading group was more creative than those who had to write the numbers out. This raises the possibility that boring tasks, “like reading or perhaps attending meetings,” leads to more creativity.

“Boredom at work has always been seen as something to be eliminated, but perhaps we should be embracing it in order to enhance our creativity,” Mann said. “What we want to do next is to see what the practical implications of this finding are. Do people who are bored at work become more creative in other areas of their work–or do they go home and write novels?”

When I read all day at work, the last thing I want to do is go home and work with words more. That’s just that immediate day, though. During work lulls, I do come up with ideas that turn into writing projects at a later time, so maybe there is something to this study.

Are you more creative when you’re bored at work?

(Story materials from the British Psychological Society. Image via Flickr: eggmergency / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Why You Should Get Outside More Often

Posted on 2012/12/172012/12/18 by Jason Hensel

I’ve been in a bit of a creative rut lately. I’ve also been meaning to go camping for a while now. Could the two be related?

Yes, say psychologists in a new study. David Strayer (University of Utah), Ruth Ann Atchley (University of Kansas), and Paul Atchley (University of Kansas) found that backpackers scored 50 percent better on a creativity test after spending four days in nature disconnected from electronic devices.

“This is a way of showing that interacting with nature has real, measurable benefits to creative problem-solving that really hadn’t been formally demonstrated before,” Strayer said. “It provides a rationale for trying to understand what is a healthy way to interact in the world, and that burying yourself in front of a computer 24/7 may have costs that can be remediated by taking a hike in nature.”

The results aren’t surprising.

“Writers for centuries have talked about why interacting with nature is important, and lots of people go on vacations,” Strayer said. “But I don’t think we know very well what the benefits are from a scientific perspective.”

According to the study published December 12 in PLOS ONE, an online journal published by the Public Library of Science:

The study involved 56 people – 30 men and 26 women – with an average age of 28. They participated in four- to six-day wilderness hiking trips organized by the Outward Bound expedition school in Alaska, Colorado, Maine and Washington state. No electronic devices were allowed on the trips.

Of the 56 study subjects, 24 took a 10-item creativity test the morning before they began their backpacking trip, and 32 took the test on the morning of the trip’s fourth day.

The results: people who had been backpacking four days got an average of 6.08 of the 10 questions correct, compared with an average score of 4.14 for people who had not yet begun a backpacking trip.

“We show that four days of immersion in nature, and the corresponding disconnection from multimedia and technology, increases performance on a creativity, problem-solving task by a full 50 percent,” the researchers said.

The researchers caution that the study wasn’t conducted to “determine if the effects are due to an increased exposure to nature, a decreased exposure to technology or the combined influence of these two factors.”

“It’s equally plausible that it is not multitasking to wits’ end that is associated with the benefits,” Strayer said.

Yeah, maybe it’s about time I book that camping trip and recharge my creativity.

(Story materials from the University of Utah. Image via Flickr: Perfectance / Creative Commons.)

Send to Kindle

Micro-Management is My Kryptonite

Posted on 2012/11/202012/11/19 by Jason Hensel

Inc.com recently ran a story titled “10 Leadership Practices to Stop Today,” by Paul Spiegelman. It’s a great piece, and I agree with all 10 recommendations, especially No. 1: “Out: Micro-management, or the need to control every aspect of your company. In: Empowerment, the ability to give your people some rope–even rope to make mistakes without blame.”

Perhaps it’s because I’m a writer, someone who makes his scratch in the creative arts, but micro-management is the Kryptonite to my creativity and productivity. Whenever I’m being micro-managed, I feel less empowered, less trusted, and more like a slave.

In fact, researchers from Harvard Business School and Rice University did a study last year and found that “workers perform just fine when managers don’t keep close tabs on them, and that workers are more likely to be fearful of experimenting when their managers micromanage; as a result, the employees learn less and performance suffers,” as reported by Kimberly Weisul for CBS News.

The struggle for me is knowing how to handle micro-management. Sure, I play along and let managers know everything I’m doing down to the last detail. But I can only allow myself to do that for so long before I become either depressed or angry. Neither of those are good for my health or career.

What does one do? How have you handled micro-managing in your career? How can a lower-level employee convince leadership that a lack of autonomy is stifling creativity, productivity, and a healthy mental state?

(Image via Flickr: ZaCky / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Shakespeare and Lehrer

Posted on 2012/08/082012/08/08 by Jason Hensel

I’ll begin by declaring that I make no excuses for Jonah Lehrer’s actions nor justify his behavior. Frankly, I’m disappointed by what has happened. What I’m proposing here, though, is a clue to why things transpired as they did.

As a fan of his writing for many years, I’ve had the opportunity to interview him twice for the publication for which I work. It was me that prodded my organization to hire him to speak at our annual conference. After three years of pushing for him as a keynote speaker, he finally gave a well-received address to our association’s members in July. It was his last major speaking engagement before his fall from grace.

If you’re reading this and you have no idea who Jonah Lehrer is or what he did, then let me recap. He’s a neuroscientist and popular science writer with three books (two of them best sellers) under his belt, a heavy speaking engagement slate, and a New Yorker staff writer. Well, he was. He was all of these things until he admitted to misquoting Bob Dylan in his recent book, Imagine: How Creativity Works. He resigned from the New Yorker, and now all his books are being thoroughly fact-checked for any other misquotes or fabrications.

Fact-checkers will determine in the coming weeks how far Lehrer has to climb out of his hole. In the meantime, I’d like to address the last chapter in Imagine, and the clues it offers as to what may have been going on in Lehrer’s mind as he wrote the book. I’m not a psychologist or doctor or anything of the sort. This is pure speculation, but something to consider when talking about Lehrer’s proposed sins.

In “The Shakespeare Paradox,” Lehrer begins by telling how Shakespeare was a genius at using others’ works and knitting them together to create is own “original” plays.

But Shakespeare didn’t just read these texts and imitate their best parts. He made them his own, seamlessly blending them together in his plays. Sometimes, this literary approach got Shakespeare into trouble. His peers repeatedly accused him of plagiarism, and he was often guilty, at least by contemporary standards. What these allegations failed to take into account, however, was that Shakespeare was pioneering a new creative method in which every conceivable source informed his art. For Shakespeare, the act of creation was inseparable from the act of connection.

Could it be that Lehrer was purposely misquoting Dylan in order to connect his ideas and his ideas to his audience? Four hundred years from now, will we be declaring Lehrer a genius, as we declare Shakespeare is?

It’s argued that the biggest difference is Shakespeare dealt in fiction. Plagiarism, though, doesn’t differentiate. I’m sure some of those playwrights and authors would love a slither of Shakespeare’s fame attached to them.

Lehrer, later in the chapter, discusses how copyrights and their continuous extensions stifle creativity.

The problem with these extensions is that they discourage innovation, preventing people from remixing and remaking old forms…And that his why we should always think of young William Shakespeare stealing from Marlowe and Holinshed and Kyd. (If Shakespeare were writing today, his plays would be the subject of endless lawsuits.) It doesn’t matter if it’s a hip-hop album made up of remixes and music samples or an engineer tweaking a gadget in a San Jose garage: we have to make sure that people can be inspired by the work of others, that the commons remains a rich source of creativity.

Lehrer is a huge Dylan fan. Was Dylan’s creative process of using others’ tunes to craft his own music an inspiration to Lehrer? Is the role of remixing (accomplished with quotes, too) a way of making something more clear, a way of bringing forth a universal truth?

So many questions, I know. As mentioned, I’m a fan of Lehrer, and this situation has me questioning him, his research, and the role of the writer in today’s society. Perhaps Lehrer’s book title inspired him.

…although the imagination is inspired by the everyday world–by its flaws and beauties–we are able to see beyond our sources, to imagine things that exist only in the mind. We notice an incompleteness and we can complete it; the cracks in things become a source of light. (From the “Coda” section)

If Lehrer misquoted/remixed Dylan (or maybe other sources), if he added lines to complete a thought to help us understand our minds a little better, is that a bad thing? Do you care if it’s truth or fiction if it helps you become a better person?

What I’m ultimately asking is: What’s the big deal? I can hear a lot of you gasping and saying, “Oh my, what gall!” Does Michael Moynihan’s discovery of the Dylan misquotes change the overall message of the book? The answer is no. Does knowing Shakespeare stole from others diminish your appreciation of his plays? Once again, the answer is no. Should Lehrer had been more upfront about how he created his work? Personally, I say yes, but as we’ve seen over time, artists and writers rarely acknowledge who or from what they’re cribbing. Before we draw and quarter these creators, perhaps we should all stop for a moment and examine the stories we tell ourselves in order to live a little more fully day after day. By doing so, we’ll soon find that we’re not that much different from Shakespeare, or Jonah Lehrer.

Send to Kindle

The Rewind Button: Highway 61 Revisited

Posted on 2012/04/052012/04/12 by Jason Hensel

The Rewind Button is a group blogging project that I’m participating in. We’re taking on Rolling Stone‘s Top 40 albums of all time and writing our own reviews of them. There will be a new album and review each Thursday.

Jonah Lehrer shares a great story in his latest book, Imagine: How Creativity Works, about Bob Dylan. Lehrer tells us that after months of grueling touring, Dylan vows to give up making and playing music. He leaves for upstate New York to relax and write a book. However, once he’s away from all life’s pressures, a sense of urgency comes over him to write. He immediately dictates what comes to mind, later claiming it was like word vomiting. After writing for hours, he had “Like a Rolling Stone” completed. A few days later, he’s back in New York, recording the song quickly and cementing his status as America’s premier troubadour.

Listening to Highway 61 Revisited is like attending a fun party. I feel like I’ve stepped sober into a room full of people dancing, smoking, drinking and fondling. It’s how I image the late 1960s were for free-spirited individuals. The energy is attractive, and even if I don’t quite understand the party’s whys or whats, I’m willing to stay until the end.

Listening to this album is also like taking a road trip. Yes, maybe the title is playing a bit into that feeling, but it’s the rolling aspect of the music that lends itself to this feeling. Most of the songs are bluesy stomps touching on America’s current collective psych in 1965. It’s interesting that the top five albums on Rolling Stone‘s list were all released between 1965 and 1969. Does that mean the late 1960s were rock and pop music’s golden age? Highway 61 Revisited makes a compelling argument that yes it was.

You have Dylan releasing this album, followed later in the year by The Beatles’ Rubber Soul, then Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys in response to Rubber Soul, followed by Dylan’s Blonde on Blonde, then the one-two punch of Revolver and Sgt. Pepper’s. If the 1960s weren’t the golden age, it was at least a time of great conversation among artists, framed in musical responses. This is something sorely lacking in today’s musical landscape (well, actually, hip-hop is carrying on this tradition).

Dylan’s genius was instigating this one-upmanship, and he achieved this by not settling for the status quo. Sure, he could have carried on the folk path, playing sold-out shows night after night. But he realized that his art (and his physical and mental health) was suffering because of this. He had to break free, get away, and just chill out for a bit. And by doing so, he gifted so many other artists.

Maybe I’m giving Dylan too much credit. Perhaps he just wanted to relax and not try so hard. Maybe he just wanted to rock out for once. Either way, purposeful or by accident, Highway 61 Revisited started a musical movement we have yet to witness on the same depth and intellect again.

Please visit these other blogs participating in The Rewind Button project:

Betty Livin

Love As A Verb

Life Doesn’t Have to Suck

Grad Student By Day

Renée Sylvestre-Williams

1throne: King of the Internets

Send to Kindle

Fantasy Films Increase Child Creativity

Posted on 2012/03/282012/03/28 by Jason Hensel

Children who watch fantasy films, such as Harry Potter, have better imagination and creativity skills, according to research out of Lancaster University in the United Kingdom. The study is the first of its kind to link magical thinking and creativity in preschool children.

Researchers studied two groups of four- to six-year-old children, showing them two 15-minute clips from Harry Potter And The Philosopher’s Stone.

The findings show that, after watching the clips, the group who watched the magical scenes scored “significantly better” in creativity tests than children in the other group who watched scenes without magic in them. The creativity tests included the children being asked to pretend they were rabbits or driving a car and quizzed on different ways of putting plastic cups in a bin and alternative uses for the cups.

“Magical thinking [believing in supernatural events] enables children to create fantastic imaginary worlds, and in this way enhances children’s capacity to view the world and act upon it from multiple perspectives,” the researchers said. “The results suggested that books and videos about magic might serve to expand children’s imagination and help them to think more creatively.”

I’m curious if this research extends to adults. Do grown-ups who prefer to watch Game of Thrones or True Blood exhibit increased imagination more so than those who enjoy Mad Men or Breaking Bad? Also, how does magical thinking as a child shape your adult life when you have to live in the “real world”?

Send to Kindle

The Rewind Button: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band

Posted on 2012/03/152012/03/29 by Jason Hensel

Sgt. Pepper broke Brian Wilson’s heart. He had a nervous breakdown after hearing the seminal album in 1967. Because of this, he didn’t complete the Beach Boys’ album Smile until 2004.

The specific song that affected Wilson so much was “A Day in the Life,” the last song on Sgt. Pepper. Perhaps it was that song’s final E-major chord that suffocated his creativity. That chord is a heavy door shutting on one of the Beatles’ most lyrically depressing albums.

Below the uplifting music, lyrics address loneliness, leaving, emptiness, and holes (fixing and filling them). And it’s this music/lyric dichotomy that is Sgt. Pepper‘s greatest strength. The album has character. It has emotions. It has good and bad days.

My dad framed his first pressing of Sgt. Pepper and hung it on the wall in his study. It’s one of the many albums he played around the house when I was growing up. As a child who preferred the make-up and theatrics of KISS and the Village People, I never appreciated the Beatles as I should have. I liked them, but at that time they were dad’s music.

Then came my teenage years and my flirtation with country music (old school, please, none of that Nashville pop) and hair metal bands. I remember shopping at Wal-Mart with my grandmother. This was when The Beatles’ albums were first released on CDs. I browsed the selections and almost bought Sgt. Pepper. I chose Guns and Roses instead.

It wasn’t until I got to college that I started to fully appreciate them and just how much they influenced all the other types of music I had been listening to. And when I was finally clued in, I wasted no time in catching up.

I admit that Sgt. Pepper is not my favorite Beatles album (that would be Rubber Soul). Still, as someone who appreciates darker lyrics, I find listening to it a satisfying experience. But it’s rare that I listen to it completely and in song order. I most often start with “A Day in the Life.”

Unlike Wilson, the song doesn’t choke my creativity. When I hear that final E-major chord and its slow ringing out, I start to think of how I can add to the song, what music I can write that could contribute to the art.

The greatest works of art are ones that inspire others to create more art, either through reflection or impersonation. That is why Sgt. Pepper sits atop Rolling Stone‘s Top 100 albums list. Listeners have found, and will continue to find, new things with every play. And they’ll want to immediately add their own views about it. Conversation rolls into conversation. Music into more music.

Unless, of course, you’re Brian Wilson.

Please visit these other blogs participating in The Rewind Button project:

Betty Livin

Love As A Verb

Life Doesn’t Have to Suck

Grad Student By Day

Renée Sylvestre-Williams

Sara Bynoe

La Belle Vie

MusicQwest
Zachary Stevenson

1throne: King of the Internets

Send to Kindle

Review: Imagine

Posted on 2012/01/02 by Jason Hensel

There was much talk about innovation and creativity in 2011. In fact, I heard or saw the word innovation so much that its mention would bring on waves of hostility in me. Everyone talked about it, making it not, well, very innovative.

Most writers were telling you what to do to be innovative or creative. Rarely did you read why it happens. It’s as most people wanted to jump to instruction without knowing reason.

That’s where Imagine: How Creativity Works by Jonah Lehrer comes in. As with his previous book, How We Decide, Lehrer explores the basis of a brain function that everyone wants to know about. Yes, he does offer creativity advice, but he bases it in reason. You have to know the hows and whys before you can know the whats.

Lehrer leads readers through many examples of innovation and creativity, touching on everything from how Bob Dylan found his writing muse to how no-wrong-answers brainstorming doesn’t work in the long run to the benefits of living in a city. And he keeps your interest, because he’s a great storyteller who asserts authority. He doesn’t just report research; he guides with pristine narrative.

“The Power of Q” chapter is one of the more interesting sections. It’s about socialist Brian Uzzi and his study of Broadway musicals, about why some are successful and some are not. Uzzi found that successful productions needed a certain amount of people who have known each other for a long time and a certain amount who are new to the operation. In other words, a sweet spot of social intimacy is needed.

The reason I found this chapter interesting is because around the same time I was reading it, the Dallas Mavericks were restructuring their championship team, losing several players that helped them win it all last season. I’ve always been one that feels you don’t break up the house, you keep teams together for the long-term in order to ensure yearly success. After reading this chapter, though, I’m thinking differently about teams (sports or work). Perhaps it is best that the Mavericks shook things up, bringing in some new faces to play with a few of the old-timers. (However, maybe it’s not working; the Mavericks are 1-4 at the time of this review.)

What Lehrer suggests–and something he consistently suggests in his writings–is that you should know yourself best. Find what works for you, because for every piece of research saying one thing, there will be another saying the opposite. Maybe you work better getting away from a problem. Or maybe you work better with a group. However you work best, identify that and edge toward it. That is where you’ll find your creativity. For you see, science is primarily about paying attention, and until you pay attention to yourself first, nothing will change. Lehrer’s latest book is a great tool toward this needed self-consciousness in society.

(Houghton Mifflin Harcourt will publish Imagine: How Creativity Works by Jonah Lehrer in March 2012.)

Send to Kindle

Your Creative, Cheating Heart

Posted on 2011/12/07 by Jason Hensel

Think of the most creative person you know. Now tell me, do you think that person cheats more than others? I bet you’ll say no, because most people place creativity and those who possess gobs of it on an elevated plain. If you’re less creative, then of course you’re a cheater, as the theory goes.

Oh how wrong that is, because, it’s actually those who are more creative that cheat more.

“Greater creativity helps individuals solve difficult tasks across many domains, but creative sparks may lead individuals to take unethical routes when searching for solutions to problems and tasks,” said lead researcher Francesca Gino, Ph.D., of Harvard University.

In other words, creativity breeds more rationality for choices.

Gino and her co-author, Dan Ariely, Ph.D., of Duke University, conducted five experiments to test their thesis that more creative people cheat under circumstances where they could justify their behavior.

From the paper:

We test our main hypotheses in a series of studies. First, as a pilot study, we collect field data to examine whether people in jobs that require high levels of creativity are more morally flexible than others. Next, we conduct five laboratory studies in which participants have the opportunity to behave dishonestly by overstating their performance and, as a result, earn more money. In Experiment 1, we measure creativity as an individual difference and examine whether this personality trait is associated with increased dishonest behavior. In Experiment 2, we prime cognitions associated with creativity and examine whether they temporarily promote dishonesty. In Experiments 3 and 4, we explore the mechanism explaining the link between creativity and dishonesty by focusing on people’s ability to justify unethical behavior. Finally, in Experiment 5, we examine whether individual differences in creativity moderate the effect of priming a creative mindset on dishonesty.

The researchers found during every study that the greater one’s creativity the more likely that person would cheat.

“Dishonesty and innovation are two of the topics most widely written about in the popular press,” the authors wrote. “Yet, to date, the relationship between creativity and dishonest behavior has not been studied empirically. … The results from the current article indicate that, in fact, people who are creative or work in environments that promote creative thinking may be the most at risk when they face ethical dilemmas.”

Gino and Ariely say there are some limitations in their study–primarily that they created monetary temptation situations. They say “that future research should investigate whether creativity would lead people to satisfy selfish, short-term goals rather than their higher aspirations when faced with self-control dilemmas, such as eating a slice of cake when trying to lose weight.”

I’m not sure about you, but I can always find a way to rationalize eating cake, creativity be damned.

(Photo via Flickr: Roadsidepictures / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle