This article is a journalistic synopsis of a scientific paper but does not link to said paper. Nothing unusual there but it does limit the ability to discuss it intelligibly; the further you are from the empirical evidence the greater the potential distortion of the signal.
That being said; I would be interested to see if this was more directed specifically at creativity or merely at uncertainty. If it’s simply how to digest new information, well… not even the standard Bayesian theorem states you should be entirely without bias; new information that contradicts old needs to account for the old in the new assessment of probabilities. That’s biasing, definitionally.
Typically I handle the concept of uncertainty in a number of ways; one, by a learned apathy—I seem innately to be more comfortable with uncertainty than others. Two; when I knowingly introduce uncertainty I do so by estimating the ‘marginal value’ of the act and at what threshold a minimum allocation of time/resources to a thing would likely result in positive gain. I then compartmentalize off an amount relevant to that threshold but no further. (Risk mitigation.)
I don’t know that this is useful to others, however.
Awesome, thank you. In quickly perusing that, it really rather seems that by phrasing it as “creativity v. practicality” they were projecting their own a priori biases into the study. Am I mistaken?
This article is a journalistic synopsis of a scientific paper but does not link to said paper. Nothing unusual there but it does limit the ability to discuss it intelligibly; the further you are from the empirical evidence the greater the potential distortion of the signal.
That being said; I would be interested to see if this was more directed specifically at creativity or merely at uncertainty. If it’s simply how to digest new information, well… not even the standard Bayesian theorem states you should be entirely without bias; new information that contradicts old needs to account for the old in the new assessment of probabilities. That’s biasing, definitionally.
Typically I handle the concept of uncertainty in a number of ways; one, by a learned apathy—I seem innately to be more comfortable with uncertainty than others. Two; when I knowingly introduce uncertainty I do so by estimating the ‘marginal value’ of the act and at what threshold a minimum allocation of time/resources to a thing would likely result in positive gain. I then compartmentalize off an amount relevant to that threshold but no further. (Risk mitigation.)
I don’t know that this is useful to others, however.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/450/
Awesome, thank you. In quickly perusing that, it really rather seems that by phrasing it as “creativity v. practicality” they were projecting their own a priori biases into the study. Am I mistaken?