From Medium:
Creativity has been on a downward spiral in many segments of society as a result of profound information overload. We can call up information on almost any topic with a few clicks of the keyboard. As a result, we’ve gained massive amounts of awareness into the way our world works and into things and people and places of which we would previously have never been exposed. And yet we’ve lost something, too: We’ve lost a sense of the powerful dangers of knowledge. We’ve lost the ability to create meaning and substance out of the power of not-knowing.
. . . .
Not long ago, there existed a phenomenon called “not knowing.” Pre-internet, there were times when “I don’t know” was not just an acceptable answer to a question—it was the only answer. Pre-internet, people would say, “I don’t know,” and move on with their lives, rather than immediately Googling the answer to whatever question was being asked. Sometimes you simply didn’t know and moved on with your life. Other times, you didn’t know, and so you created an answer by fashioning a story that explained things in a way that made sense to you. Mythology, world religion, and the earliest days of science, exploration, and discovery were all rooted in the attempt to craft a story that fit the reality mankind perceived to exist.
. . . .
With more access to more information than at any point in human history, society has become incurious and willfully ignorant about things that we should never have allowed to slip aside. Most damaging of all, an incurious culture is the fastest, most effective way to destroy creativity and genius.
. . . .
In a time when people didn’t immediately know everything, society fostered curiosity, exploration, and discovery. The thrill of the new was sparked by a dissatisfaction with a lack of knowledge or understanding. The creative process began, and still begins, from a place of curiosity and not-knowing.
Link to the rest at Medium
PG will suggest that “incurious cultures” have abounded throughout history. Indeed, incurious cultures may be the historical norm with few exceptions.
PG further suggests the curiosity of individuals has proven far more important than the curiosity or lack of curiosity of the cultures in which they lived although a wealthy culture could fund (or crush) the curiosity of creative individuals.
Wealthy cultures can attract creative individuals by supporting their efforts. Due to the business creativity of the Medici family, Florence became a prominent center of medieval trade and commerce. The Medici Bank was the largest bank in Europe during the 15th century due to innovations in financial accounting and bank management, with branches in Rome, Venice, Geneva, Bruges, London, Pisa, Avignon, Milan, and Lyon, some of which were formed as limited liability partnerships.
What we would today call the Trust Departments of the Medici banks managed large portions of the funds owned by the Roman Catholic Church and many wealthy European families.
Medici wealth attracted great artists, sculptors and architects to Florence, including Brunelleschi, Donatello, Ghiberti, the Della Robbias, Filippo Lippi and Angelico, Botticelli, Paolo Uccello, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo.
The bank’s network helped support the Medici patronage of the arts. For example, Cosimo de’ Medici forwarded money from Florence through the Pisa branch so Donatello could pay for marble.
I’ve noticed that conversation has gotten livelier since the advent of ubiquitous broadband. I live distant from most of my friends, so many of my conversations are over a phone or Skype. At places where the conversation would have lagged from lack of knowledge, we’re all googling in the background and we carry on so much more knowledgeably.
I’ve never been able to understand folks who have to disconnect to be productive. For me, it is just the opposite. I’m going at half-speed when I’m disconnected. The challenge is to get into Csíkszentmihályi flow with whatever I am working on. Knowledge helps, not hinders flow for me.
This sounds to me like another version of the elitist “screen fatigue,” “tsunami of crap,” etc, argument. Having access to a plethora of knowledge doesn’t make humanity less creative, for pity’s sake. The democratization of information and the unbelievable strides in technology have opened up entire universes of creativity. Gatekeepers, whether literary or financial, stifled more creativity than having too much access ever could. I studied 3d design for while 20 years ago, but gave it up as too expensive to learn how, knowing I could never buy the software for myself. Now you can get better software than that was for free and teach yourself, and a whole world of art is at my fingertips. Good grief. Don’t these people ever get tired of making the same false assumptions?
Given the large number of questions on online fora which could be answered quickly by online search, and the persistent refusal to do so….
(shakes head)
I admit that sometimes people don’t know the search terms to find what they want. But often, they just don’t care to look it up. They prefer not to check their facts, or they prefer to inquire from a human being.
The only thing that thrives amidst ignorance is more ignorance. And fear. And bias.
I don’t think the abundance of knowledge equates the diminishing of creativity. Just the opposite: it makes creating easier. I’m a fiction writer and I can tell: Google is a god-sent tool for a writer’s research. If I want to see how a Russian town Suzdal looks, all I have to do is Google it. I don’t have to say “I don’t know” to my readers. They would never accept that anyway. And I don’t have to travel there myself either. Ditto for a spaceship. Or an African savanna. The world is at my fingertips, literally, and at a moment’s notice. Very convenient.
Yes to this^! I love it that I rarely have to say, “I don’t know,” when I need to know for the story I am writing. Just today I looked up Irish cuisine from pre-medieval times and the Celtic calendar. Which meant I could find out what I needed to know in a few minutes and then simply keep on writing.
Pre-internet, people would say, “I don’t know,” and move on with their lives, rather than immediately Googling the answer to whatever question was being asked.
Hmm. Before the internet, libraries didn’t exist? There weren’t books in them? People did not consult those books to answer questions? Before the internet, people did not identify Humans Who Know Stuff about particular topics and ask them questions? Before the internet, there was no place, let’s say a university or a college, where people voluntarily went to learn things they did not already know, from Humans Who Know Stuff and libraries that had books?
Already on shaky ground. And he’s forgetting how much the role of necessity plays in inventions, along with other motivations. Pharaoh wants a tomb to mark his awesomeness? Hello, pyramids and engineering. Someone wants to figure out when is the best time to plant crops? You get astronomy if you notice that the Dog Star’s heliacal rise coincides with the flooding of the Nile. In school we spent days learning about architectural innovations that allowed Chartres Cathedral et al to remain standing rather than collapsing.
Not wanting to be forgotten, not wanting to starve, and not wanting to be crushed to death makes it very unlikely we will ever see the “end” of creativity. He’s not making a case for why “too much information” is a hindrance. This sounds like all those articles about how it’s bad that we have “too many” options for toothpaste.
I have a feeling the author of the OP was not a sentient being pre-internet, Jamie.
Creativity has been on a downward spiral in many segments of society as a result of profound information overload. We can call up information on almost any topic with a few clicks of the keyboard.
The creativity that brought us the technology allowing that dwarfs anything from those who call themselves creative.
And if you think that’s something, wait till you see what’s next. The next twenty years are bringing more change than the previous 50.
Just this week we found out macro-scale tractor beams are possible. 🙂
I saw the tractor beam article, too, Felix. I really want to see a commercial/artistic example.
Oh! Can you link to the article please!
Just Google it. Have you no curiosity? 🙂
-giggles- I /could/ but then I might never write again. 😉
Other times, you didn’t know, and so you created an answer by fashioning a story that explained things in a way that made sense to you.
But Jonathan just crafted a story of his own to explain what he’s observing in current social/artistic culture, without any more empirical proof than the ancients. So I’m still going to hold on to some of the mystery and sense of wonder I experience when considering reality and the workings of other people.
It seems to me that you cannot call us incurious when we instantly want to google something to figure it out, that seems rather curious to me.
I’ll take our easily ferreted out knowledge culture over creating myths and boogie men to explain things which probably have a simple explanation. I’d rather know about the pressure change due to lightning than just make up a god like Thor to explain thunder.
Ancient Egypt was an incurious culture. As a general rule, they had no interest in scientific discovery unless it had practical applicability. The Greeks found such an outlook very odd. But the Egyptians still managed to create an awful lot of stuff and have easily one of the most interesting mythology/religions.
They also created the prototype water empire and sustained it for millennia.
Given that humans are born curious and information sponges, the question that needs answering is what in tbe educational system beats it out of them.