[pg]

"Yet, there is no enduring formula for creativity and rebellion."

This is a fine sounding statement, but it's false. We've been accumulating and refining techniques for having new ideas for centuries, at least. Leonardo da Vinci mentioned several in his writings.

[ibdknox]

The word "formula" is very important in his statement - yes we have techniques for coming up with new ideas, but we do not have a formula for it. A formula produces a consistent and reproducible result. If we actually had such a thing it'd be the real-life equivalent of a magic lamp; make a wish for a new idea about x and out it comes.

The reality of the situation is far too messy for such a clean solution to exist. There are an infinite number of variables, biases, and contexts that foster or hinder "creativity" and the very notion of "rebellion" is defined entirely by context. So while we may have techniques that increase our chances of coming up with new ideas, we're no where near a factory for real creativity.

EDIT: I define real creativity as "reasoned new ideas" - it's trivial to write a formula for combining things randomly, but I don't think anyone here would argue that as actual creativity.

[pg]

If he means formula in that narrow a sense, then his larger point is mistaken. Most of being a good doctor is not reducible to formulas either, but that doesn't prevent medical schools from working.

Only a small fraction of what humans learn consists of formulas in the narrow sense. And an even smaller fraction of the most valuable things they learn.

[sillysaurus]

make a wish for a new idea about x and out it comes.

Isn't that a description of a YC RFS? It's still too early to tell whether RFS works or not, but it's almost precisely what you've described.

[ibdknox]

I guess you could make the million monkeys argument, but that's just playing with the law of large numbers. The original statement was intended to apply to a single person or at most a small number of individuals.

Even beyond that though, I'm not sure that "ask for ideas" (which is all the RFS is) could really be construed as a formula for creativity. It's a mechanism for surfacing creativity that springs from elsewhere.

You'd have to ask PG whether or not the RFS stuff has really been that helpful. From my experience in YC, the most "successful" companies had nothing to do with the RFSs.

[throwaway1979]

Isn't the YC RFS a few years old at this point? If one was being written today, I wonder what it would list?

[sillysaurus]

We've been accumulating and refining techniques for having new ideas for centuries, at least. Leonardo da Vinci mentioned several in his writings.

Several? The only one I remember from reading DaVinci's journal was along the lines of "have the students work alongside each other," referring to his apprentices. The idea was that seeing each other's work would motivate each apprentice to excel and one-up one another. The YC dinners would be the modern incarnation of that.

It's a good idea. I thought that it was the only remark DaVinci wrote down about fostering creative process, though. Most of his journal is dedicated to observations from his research projects.

[trustfundbaby]

I dunno Paul, I think I agree with Alex on this. I see where you are coming from, because I think there are things you can do to encourage this kind of creativity, but there aren't guaranteed ways to ensure that it happens.

I get the feeling that you might be thinking about creativity in a more general sense than Alex might be though, but thats total speculation on my part.

[TheBiv]

If it is false, what is the true enduring formula for creativity and rebellion?

[stiff]

The attempts to develop those techniques mostly showed how big is the extent to which creativity is unconscious (almost completely) and how little control we have over it. I can't think of a single case where a person we admire for their creativity admitted to using mind maps, bisociation, metaheuristics etc.

The enduring formula is the Feynman algorithm: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3. Write down the solution.

[duaneb]

Well if you're reducing formulas for creativity down to stuff like mind maps, then of course you're scornful. These are pretty well known and accepted solutions to creativity. Almost certainly very far from the optimal one (if that exists), but still:

1. Crowdsourcing, especially incentivised via capitalism.

2. Drugs.

3. Education. Yes, this can also stifle creativity, hence why we don't want everyone learning the same curriculum. But there is no surer way to stop creativity than to allow redundant knowledge to develop twice (which is not to say that we shouldn't do this as part of education, just with direction).

4. Motivation, desperation, i.e. lack of comfort/pain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs#Beginning_...

5. Randomly/"brute force" derived novel solutions are undeniably novel (http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2009/04/computer-derives-nat...)

6. Logic is pretty damn good for solving problems.

So, no, there's no general algorithm to produce 'creative' thoughts, much less against a given solution, but we have learned an immense amount in the past 10k years on how to actively stimulate creativity. Just because many creative ideas were not encountered methodically means nothing but that creativity is not restricted to intent, and the fact that some ideas that we are actively pursuing that will require creative thought (by definition) can't be obviously solved just means we haven't done so yet, not that we cannot methodically find the solution.

Going even further, I think the rate at which humans create is far more proof that there exists some general algorithm for creativity than for its non-existence; in fact, the only proof I'm aware of that attempts to do so is the incompleteness theorems/the halting problem proof. And even those put no bounds on how much knowledge is off limits to us, assuming that we are deterministic and thus bound by those proofs. The human race has more issues with the deluge of research outpacing our ability to comprehend it—perhaps we should work more on understanding existing knowledge rather than creating new knowledge.

[Maven911]

Saving comment

[yarou]

True, we have been refining techniques for incremental improvement. But what of disruptive technology? Can something that is chaotic and non-deterministic have a deterministic set of steps to achieve? Is it reproducible, ceteris paribus? That's how I parse "creativity and rebellion".

[softbuilder]

There's a distinction to be made between synthetic creativity (brainstorming, workshops, etc.) and that natural creativity that doesn't come on demand and goes in more rebellious directions.

[galactus]

A formula for creativity would basically be the equivalent of a formula for "success". They belong in the motivational literature shelf.

[jongraehl]

If you broaden the original statement, it's wrong, but "no enduring [single] formula" is a near-tautology. Alex must mean that if you're not creative and sharp, you won't prevail in the marketplace, which of course is likely. But clever folks can benefit from formulas, checklists, and exercises.

One could manufacture prompts all day - imagine yourself displacing incumbents by doing something new (or just doing it in a new way) - how is that happening? How are they fighting back? Why can't they stop you?

It's intrinsically motivating to win, and though you can enjoy winning in ways that aren't proved by economic measure, everyone understands market success.

[porker]

Is there a list of these techniques anywhere?

[loumf]

I like this one: http://www2.wlv.ac.uk/sad-subjects/cgd/DM2109/technique_for_...

[io]

Well, sure. There are formulas and techniques for creativity and rebellion in the same way there are formulas and techniques for winning a 100 meter sprint. But formulas and techniques don't turn an overweight, middle-aged guy into a world class sprinter.