<p>Creativity in math tends to be at the higher levels, not so much at the practical, everyday level that was referenced above.</p>
<p>And I love how you’ve just ignored every rebuttal I’ve had. I’m still waiting to hear why designers exist.</p>
<p>You keep jumping back and forth between “There are other forms of creativity” and “Creativity isn’t useful.”</p>
<p>Sure, they use some lower level math. Then again, so does the cashier at the grocery store.</p>
<p>Lol. my argument is that you need to explain why the way you defined creativity is useful at all. i never implied that creativity is useless. If you’re gonna exclude “math creativity” by saying it’s not a form of creativity, what is the purpose/motive/reason for doing so? poor math skills? or just plain ignorance of the way that the brain works?</p>
<p>this argument is grounded in 1)semantics 2)aesthetics</p>
<p>perhaps you’ve mistaken math for computation. the two are very different.
nvm. come back when you’re about 3 years older and then read through this thread again. i’m outta here.</p>
<p>Right back at ya.</p>
<p><3</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s the definition problem – everyone defines creativity in their own way. Let’s just agree that there is general creativity (loading something in your head and looking for a solution using your instincts, experience, acquired knowledge, etc.) and people use it in different ways. I think that pandem is trying to emphasize is that since Asian (and post-Soviet, for that matter) cultures often emphasize deep academic involvement, people who are subject to these cultures have hard time being ‘everyday-creative’ because they simply do not have any time to refocus on entirely different issues.</p>
<p>Many applications of math are procedural and do not require original thought (creativity is thinking of something original). It takes creativity to advance science, but hardly anyone of any race is doing that. An accountant is not being creative (insert Enron joke).</p>
<p>So do you think that if bob created an original word “wubblebucker”, he is “better” or more creative than a person who solves an IMO problem?</p>
<p>If you are given a quadratic polynomial and are asked to factor it, then you still need creativity (albeit very very minimum) to spot the formula and recall it from your mind, understanding that ‘that’s the correct formula.’ When you are solving an IMO/Putnam problem, it requires much more creativity because before you come to ‘recalling the formula’ you need to simplify the problem in your mind step-by-step until you reach the level when you need that very minimum of creativity where you need to recognize that very formula.</p>
<p>That’s “school” math. Highschool math, to be exact. That’s hardly “math”. It’s just some boring %&*! you have to do for credits.</p>
<p>Real math is much more abstract and fun.</p>
<p>
Why do people have to randomly associate unrelated adjectives becuase they both have positive or negative connotations (eg. “I’m smart becuase I’m hardworking”)? I never said that creativity makes someone better. And doing an IMO problem requires creativity, but the average Asian is not doing IMO problems. That isn’t to say that Asians are less creative, but their culture puts less emphasis on individuality, which is related.</p>
<p>
If you are asking me, then no, I don’t think he is better. I don’t even think that words better/worse/etc. even apply to such a subjective comparison. Useful for different purposes – maybe. As for more/less creative, one will need to arrange a creativity scale to compare two different types of creativity. I would say that creating “wubblebucker” (putting two words by each other) is as creative as recognizing that a^2+2ab+b^2 is a factored out version of (a+b)^2, or even less. But it’s subjective, and so would be any ‘creativity scale,’ so I don’t think there will be any point of doing that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because all this argument on creativity is basically trying to say Asians won’t suceed because they’re not creative. Better is a very vague term, I said “better”, or more creative, meaning better in the since of being more creative.</p>
<p>and Alone, would creating a completely different word like “woeifhals” be like deriving a new theorem then?</p>
<p>No, because it’s random syllables with no meaning. Some music and art isn’t creative either.</p>
<p>I never said that Asians won’t succeed. The title of the topic (and your subsequent replies) implies that Asians are going to be dominating industry.</p>
<p>
I doubt it, because to compose a new word you don’t need much creativity – a skill of randomly arranging letters would be sufficient. Deriving a theorem (I assume you mean a valid theorem) requires much more ‘seeing’ unless it is a very very trivial theorem (which would still probably require more creativity than randomly arranging letters). I don’t think that you should take this dialogue as an offense – forget about Asian/post-Soviet/any other generalization. Let’s just say that when one is being pushed into one field because of some reason (by some social standards/expectations, etc.) he will find it hard to be able to focus on something entirely different, and the sad part is that he will have no choice (just as I didn’t while I stayed in my country). I support freedom of choice – you can choose what to be creative in, and parents/relatives/EVERYONE doesn’t keep telling you what to do, how to do, and so on.</p>
<p>
That my friend, I agree with strongly. You can’t even imagine how strongly I agree with it.</p>
<p>they aren’t dominating the best colleges… look again</p>
<p>No one said that did they? </p>
<p>(although I wouldn’t be so sure if AA was removed)</p>