It’s not nessisarily one approach or the other, you can be methodically creative, although this may require a discipline that creatives often lack.

In terms of stress and well-being, I’m inclined to think creatives are worse off. Recall the stereotypical tortured artist like Van Gogh.

Entrepreneurship requires creativity, yes?

What kind of business do you run, just out of curiosity?

It's not really a dichotomy really, in my opinion. I'm an engineer (major) and what I do requires the application of lots of math and theory, but also just good intuition. Intuition comes after practice, so I don't necessarily always have to do a calculation or a model before I know what I generally need to do.

If you can get something to work without going through all the effort of calculations or whatever, then great, but it's implausible that anyone can actually do anything substantial without the same old fashioned plug and chug. But the value people, companies, etc place on people like engineers or scientists or whatever is their creativity, not just their ability to crunch numbers (we have computers, machines, robots, etc that can do a lot of the math for us, if it's already figured out). So you need to be able to apply what you know to things that it hasn't been applied to before, or suggest alternative methods to getting something done. In that respect, engineering is really fun but it's also sort of weird once you realize how many things just barely actually work.

So yeah basically I'd say creativity/intuition without methodology can be impractical but methodology without creativity/intuition is boring/blind/stagnant.

One of the reasons for having teamwork is to combine creative engineers or designers with "plug and chug" types.

Sometimes you get both in one person, but that's something of a rarity.

Sometimes you get both in one person, but that's something of a rarity. — Bitter Crank

I agree.

While it is true that artists tend to be creative, and engineers tend to be methodical, the best engineers are often forced to be creative when faced with a difficult problem.

According to Newell & Simon (Human Problem Solving, 1972):
Problem difficulty depends on knowledge domain expertise, and varies along a continuum between easy and challenging.
1) An easy problem contains familiar aspects and activates relevant knowledge domains.
2) A challenging problem is complex, or new, and activates analysis or heuristics depending on whether an optimal or satisfactory solution is required.

As intuition is immediate problem-solving, decision-making, and planning using tacit knowledge; and heuristics are problem-solving and decision-making strategies which use available (i.e., incomplete) information, I wouldn't use either one for solving engineering problems (unless you want to end up in court).

However, periods of careful analysis (and other types of methodical thinking), interspersed with periods of mind wandering, can produce creative problem-solving.

Entrepreneurship requires creativity, yes? — praxis

Depends, sometimes I guess. Though not all entrepreneurs are Silicon Valley type of entrepreneurs, and I think nowadays we often get the idea that an entrepreneur is like the Silicon Valley guys. Most entrepreneurs that I know (and worked for) are far from the most creative people.

What kind of business do you run, just out of curiosity? — praxis

Web development and marketing.

I'm an engineer (major) — darthbarracuda

Yeah, I'm an engineer by degree too ;)

lots of math and theory, but also just good intuition — darthbarracuda

Right, but now you're making a distinction that I never made. When I contrast the art v. engineering approach, I am not contrasting the technician (who can apply math and theory) but the engineer who frames the issue that the technician can then solve.

Rather I am talking about something more basic. An approach to problem-solving and intuition if you want. The engineer's approach is characterised by a conscious decision to think things through from the most basic level systematically upwards. The artist's approach is characterised by a leap to the correct answer, that lacks methodical step-by-step procedures.

I gave the example in the post of Steve Jobs compared to Elon Musk. Steve Jobs was someone who intuited what customers wanted and valued, and then got it built. Elon Musk is someone who thinks things through from first principles. It's kind of like the Zen student's beginner's mind insight into the problem vs the step-by-step scientific approach.

like engineers or scientists or whatever is their creativity, not just their ability to crunch numbers (we have computers, machines, robots, etc that can do a lot of the math for us, if it's already figured out — darthbarracuda

No, actually the value people place on engineers is simply in their ability to get the job done. People can care less how. Of course that getting the job done doesn't only involve crunching numbers. You need to know what numbers to crunch, and what the numbers mean, which reflects the underlying assumptions that you make in your calculations. Questioning assumptions that are underlying the calculations is perhaps the most fundamental thing I've been taught in engineering school.

So you need to be able to apply what you know to things that it hasn't been applied to before — darthbarracuda

Yes.

In that respect, engineering is really fun but it's also sort of weird once you realize how many things just barely actually work. — darthbarracuda

>:O Yeah, engineering does leave you with a sense of how terribly uncertain everything actually is.

One of the reasons for having teamwork is to combine creative engineers or designers with "plug and chug" types. — Bitter Crank

The difference between an engineer and a "plug and chug" type technician is just that one is willing to think, and the other one isn't.

I am not contrasting the technician (who can apply math and theory) but the engineer who frames the issue that the technician can then solve...

The difference between an engineer and a "plug and chug" type technician is just that one is willing to think, and the other one isn't. — Agustino

During the course of a 35 year long career in consulting engineering in four different countries, I've never met an engineer, technologist, or technician who didn't apply scientific theory, perform calculations, and think.

In other words, do you know what you're talking about?

During the course of a 35 year long career in consulting engineering in four different countries, I've never met an engineer, technologist, or technician who didn't apply scientific theory, perform calculations, and think. — Galuchat

Yeah, so what's your point? Applying scientific theory and performing calculations isn't the same as thinking. Engineers do think (or at least they are supposed to, but I think many of them don't either) - technicians don't.

I'll take that as a "no".

I'll take that as a "no". — Galuchat

You can take it as whatever you want if it makes you feel better :-!

I think the creative approach to business is popular in Western culture thanks to the cult of Steve Jobs and his ilk; there's a whole informal movement of millenials who call themselves "creatives" (hate that word, but I guess I need to accept the constant evolution of language), who follow in his footsteps; trying to use creativity for business, and often capitalistic ends. It's actually ironic, in my view. It's essentially a bastardization of the creative impulse; it tethers that impulse to a worldly goal rather than allowing that impulse to go it's natural course. But then, the art world, music industry, etc., are all run by big money, and increasingly so. So the creative urge seems always to be "imprisoned".

Anyway, when it comes to practical business, I think a methodical approach works better. The shop I work in is run by people who are new to the wine business, and they're full of creative ideas, most of which are just bad business ideas. I've seen it before. The general sense I get is that someone like Jobs really was a unique, genius-level businessman, but now that cult of personality has made his approach mainstream in the world of young entrepreneurs. It's the same principle of a great artist like Miles Davis coming unto the scene, fearlessly changing the face of jazz (several times), and then basically leaving the art form lifeless in his wake; jazz became mainstream and died. So when it comes to making money, the creative approach to business will probably fizzle out relatively soon.

it tethers that impulse to a worldly goal rather than allowing that impulse to go it's natural course. — Noble Dust

Yeah, but I seek to do the same too 8-)

But then, the art world, music industry, etc., are all run by big money, and increasingly so. So the creative urge seems always to be "imprisoned". — Noble Dust

Right, but this is precisely the fun, the challenge in business and in life. I keep thinking that if I was born a rich kid, with everything at my fingertips, what fun would life be? There would be no challenge, no iron-fisted demand upon my creativity and my intellect, nothing to apply myself to, nothing to challenge me. But having to start from literarily nothing - what an adventure. To have all forces opposed to you, and overcome them using your determination, intelligence, creativity and faith... that is truly a great life, and you discover who you really are in the process. You discover tremendous inner strength that you never knew you had before. You learn to trust in a force greater than yourself.

So when it comes to making money, the creative approach to business will probably fizzle out relatively soon. — Noble Dust

I agree, but even us super-methodical people need creativity. I am extremely pragmatic and down-to-earth when it comes to business, but solving problems does require a degree of creativity. And yet, I do see some people, some for whom I worked, who use less energy and methodical step-by-step thinking in running their businesses, and some of them have done quite well. Most people in business are FAR FAR less methodical and pensive than I am - I am a control freak and perfectionist with everything, and I literarily want to know and understand everything. Both a gift and a curse.

Right, but this is precisely the fun, the challenge in business and in life. I keep thinking that if I was born a rich kid, with everything at my fingertips, what fun would life be? There would be no challenge, no iron-fisted demand upon my creativity and my intellect, nothing to apply myself to, nothing to challenge me. But having to start from literarily nothing - what an adventure. To have all forces opposed to you, and overcome them using your determination, intelligence, creativity and faith... that is truly a great life, and you discover who you really are in the process. You discover tremendous inner strength that you never knew you had before. You learn to trust in a force greater than yourself. — Agustino

I don't think fighting against all odds to be a successful businessman is analogous to the fight to free the creative impulse from worldly constraints; The one moves horizontally on the worldly plane, and the other attempts to move vertically out of it.

I agree, but even us super-methodical people need creativity. — Agustino

Yeah, a balance is probably best. I was just saying the fad of being a "creative" in the business world won't last. But creative problem-solving will always be needed, sure. As to people getting by without a methodical approach, they must just be more intuitive; they can envision the outcome and intuit the easiest way to get there. But that also probably takes experience; I doubt that ability is innate.

Different personality types/archetypes/enneagrams etc. I'm a tech writer by profession, and an arts grad; bad with mathematics, don't know how to program, but interact constantly with programmers and engineers. I've noticed that engineers actually think in code, when it comes to products. It's my job to explain how the products work to non-engineers, i.e. end users and the rest of us. I know there are definite limits to what I can understand - there are concepts in electronic engineering and programming that I'll never be able to comprehend - but usually I am able to describe how to interact with the device or software that I'm describing. If it can't be described in English, then it's either got fatal usability problems, or it's too specialist for a general audience. So, it's a matter of teamwork - it takes different but complementary skill-sets to make a technical product; can't be made without the engineers, but isn't usable without the GUI and documentation teams. (We can all thank Apple for a lot of that, by the way. If Bill Gates had had it all his own way, everything would be that much harder to use.)

My experience with engineers is that most of them have been OK, although like any occupational class, you do encounter the occasional difficult customer. But overall I recognise the fundamental role of science and engineering in the kind of world we live in and am generally highly respectful of it. TCP/IP is one of the greatest inventions in history, in my view, and today's computers and smart devices work astonishingly well. (Imagine if it had been up to some government department.....actually, no, don't.....)

Jobs created an incredibly successful brand. The brand may eventually fizzle out, but creative business development and branding isn't a fad.

engineers — Wayfarer

I have found out that most engineers out there aren't really capable to express themselves very well in writing. So technical writers are definitely needed to translate the specifications of engineers in a language that can be well-understood by the general public. However, the really great engineers typically are also quite articulate, though very pragmatic, and do not bother about explaining themselves.

Jobs created an incredibly successful brand. The brand may eventually fizzle out, but creative business development and branding isn't a fad. — praxis

Jobs was, more than anything else, a marketing genius. The importance of marketing in business is often misunderstood by those who are not involved in it.



Marketing is actually the most critical element in most businesses - it's what separates the winners from the losers. For example, the whole process of starting a business is centred around how you can add value to whatever aspect. That requires a marketing perspective - understanding what people want and how their want can be fulfilled. So this is true for most businesses - unless you're doing something like Elon Musk with SpaceX. Then it's not as relevant.

That requires a marketing perspective - understanding what people want and how their want can be fulfilled. So this is true for most businesses - unless you're doing something like Elon Musk with SpaceX. Then it's not as relevant. — Agustino

If SpaceX had a lot of competition it would be very relevant.

Applying scientific theory and performing calculations isn't the same as thinking. Engineers do think (or at least they are supposed to, but I think many of them don't either) - technicians don't. — Agustino

I'll take that as a "no". — Galuchat

Agustino, it's absurd to say that "apply[ing] scientific theory... isn't the same as thinking". It's not even wrong.

I could say "Agustino wasn't thinking when he described the differences between engineers and technicians." but that would also be absurd. You were thinking, even though the results were--to use the vernacular--cheesy. Cheesy means you wished there was an obvious distinction between people who operate on your superlative level and everybody else, but there isn't.

I'm limiting application of these disparaging remarks to your posts in this thread.

Agustino, it's absurd to say that "apply[ing] scientific theory... isn't the same as thinking". It's not even wrong. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure if you understand the distinction that I'm making there. To think isn't that easy. Most people don't think. And that's true both amongst the university students and among the engineering companies I've seen.

Applying scientific theory is not thinking, even though you can't see how that isn't even wrong. To think does not mean to go into your memory bank, find a similar situation, and apply that (scientific) theory to this present situation. That is precisely not to think, and to act out of habit. To think is to do what Newton did when he invented calculus. That is really to think - to go back to the basics and work your way up by yourself, without relying on the thinking of others or how things were done in the past. It is to truly understand.

And I'm not sure why Galuchat finds this paradoxical (and by the way, his 35 years of experience doesn't impress me) - I remember even to this day when at university one professor gave us a problem we haven't been trained to solve, and then said solve it. And he told us how most of us will not solve it, since most of us, despite training to be engineers, will actually end up being technicians, because we are not capable enough to be engineers. And he explained that there's nothing wrong with that, but in this PC world, we are trained to think that if we attend university we are smart guys and girls. But most of us do not think, and do not trust our own judgement, and waste our time partying, socialising, etc. And he was right. This is precisely what I've seen in engineering companies.

If SpaceX had a lot of competition it would be very relevant. — praxis

Not really but it's a bit difficult to explain why. SpaceX is a very strange business. To start with, the technology they have which allows them to put rockets into space is most certainly extremely valuable. And I'm not talking just financially valuable. So far only 4 organizations have put rockets into space - the USA, China, Russia and SpaceX. Do you realise what this means?

SpaceX is extremely valuable to the US Government. Therefore that means that the company must be, to one extent or another, controlled by the government. They cannot do whatever they want with their rocket technology. They cannot sell it to Iran for example, even if Iran were to offer them $50 billion for it. And let's not forget that the US Government has saved SpaceX from bankruptcy with loans or contracts several times already. SpaceX brings big benefits to the US Government, as it allows them to enhance space technology with - in part - private money.

The other reason why SpaceX is strange is because it doesn't actually fulfill a need or a want. Nobody really is super keen to go to Mars for example, nor is that amazingly useful - what will we do on Mars? Colonize it, build a few human settlements, and what? :s Elon seems to like it, and to make all his life's work to get man on Mars, but to what end really? It seems like one of those goals we set up just because we see a big mountain and say it would be fun to climb that.

In other words, in many regards, SpaceX is not a business. It's not like Apple. And quite frankly if it wasn't for government help, I think SpaceX would have been bankrupt.

So far only 4 organizations have put rockets into space - the USA, China, Russia and SpaceX. Do you realise what this means? — Agustino

It means you are overlooking the European Space Agency, France, UK, Israel, Iran, India, and North Korea. See here

It means you are overlooking the European Space Agency, France, UK, Israel, Iran, India, and North Korea. See here — Bitter Crank

I see. I misremembered, my bad. SpaceX, Russia, US and China are the only ones who have successfully launched a spacecraft into orbit and returned it to Earth. That was what I had read. Hopefully, that is right now, but if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means prove me wrong! >:)

SpaceX is extremely valuable to the US Government. Therefore that means that the company must be, to one extent or another, controlled by the government. They cannot do whatever they want with their rocket technology. — Agustino

Contracts are mutual agreements and many industries are regulated. None of this excludes competition.

The other reason why SpaceX is strange is because it doesn't actually fulfill a need or a want. — Agustino

Google "orbital satellite."

Contracts are mutual agreements and many industries are regulated. None of this excludes competition. — praxis

Sure, but business with the government is always different than business with a private.

Google "orbital satellite." — praxis

I'm not sure why you want me to Google that, but I suppose you may be referring to the refuelling missions they do for NASA. Nevertheless, that's not the purpose or aim of SpaceX, just what they do to be able to finance space exploration.

Sure, but business with the government is always different than business with a private. — Agustino

You're claiming that SpaceX is prohibited by the government to have any other contracts?

NASA, the military, and other industries will pay billions for the delivery of satellites into orbit. You claimed SpaceX doesn't fulfill a need or want.

You're claiming that SpaceX is prohibited by the government to have any other contracts? — praxis

That depends on the kind of contract they would have. Not in all regards, definitely not. But I would expect the US Government to be heavily involved if they were to get a contract from Iran for example.

NASA, the military, and other industries will pay billions for the delivery of satellites into orbit. You claimed SpaceX doesn't fulfill a need or want. — praxis

I referred with regards to its main purpose/mission which is space exploration or creating a human colony on Mars. That doesn't fulfil a need or want. It's kind of like "there's this mountain here, wouldn't it be fun if we could climb it?"

Yeah, I'm an engineer by degree too ;) — Agustino

What kind?

Rather I am talking about something more basic. An approach to problem-solving and intuition if you want. The engineer's approach is characterised by a conscious decision to think things through from the most basic level systematically upwards. The artist's approach is characterised by a leap to the correct answer, that lacks methodical step-by-step procedures.

I gave the example in the post of Steve Jobs compared to Elon Musk. Steve Jobs was someone who intuited what customers wanted and valued, and then got it built. Elon Musk is someone who thinks things through from first principles. It's kind of like the Zen student's beginner's mind insight into the problem vs the step-by-step scientific approach. — Agustino

But I think this can still apply to engineers. I mean, a company an engineer works for isn't just doing to accept an employee's "intuition" - but the engineer might just have this intuitive leap, and then go back and check their work, show their "reasoning", to make sure their intuition was founded and isn't going to get someone killed, etc.

Yeah, engineering does leave you with a sense of how terribly uncertain everything actually is. — Agustino

Yeah, definitely, I often find myself wondering how the hell anything actually works. The packaging and appearance of a product often hides the catastrophe underneath. It's completely bonkers, just random shit tossed here and there, wires and plugs and whatnot all over the place.

What kind? — darthbarracuda

Civil of course :D

I mean, a company an engineer works for isn't just doing to accept an employee's "intuition" - but the engineer might just have this intuitive leap, and then go back and check their work, show their "reasoning", to make sure their intuition was founded and isn't going to get someone killed, etc. — darthbarracuda

A company doesn't accept either intuitions nor scientific calculations, at least in term of civil engineering. They accept bureaucratic paperwork (which does include some calculations performed in the way indicated by the bureaucracy, including stuff like factors of safety, etc. etc.) which shows you've followed certain standards :P

Civil of course :D — Agustino

ECE here 8-)