I saw a post on LinkedIn yesterday that brought back memories of information I’ve read in the past, but I can’t find the exact source. The OP from LinkedIn claimed that creativity was a choice and that the correlation with creativity, which went up in 20’s, then declined to get back up in the 50’s, following a U shape if we assume the person lives that long. While I agree there are things you can do to increase creativity, there are also natural forces in play affecting it through the structure and chemistry of the brain. So my position is similar to testosterone in men: While it’s true that certain activities and abstinence’s will increase it, you can’t deny that overall there is a decline after your 20’s.
Concerning creativity: If memory serves, the idea was that spontaneous creativity where true original thoughts arises were common in your 20’s, creativity then takes a dive in 30’s and 40’s and then goes back up again in 50’s. During your fifties it’s not original thoughts per say that is causing creativity, but the individual has a vast amour of crystallized knowledge, essentially long-term memory, and is able to combine these in new ways. So it’s somewhat different forms of creativity. These changes were cause by structural and chemical changes in the brain, and are a natural cycle of our lives and an evolutionary advantage.
The argument goes that when we reach our med twenties or 30’s, we are evolutionary expected to enter into leadership roles. Our ancestors would have most likely been parents by now at this age for example, and most likely carrying out leadership positions for the community as a whole. Once the individual reaches 50 or so, these leadership positions will be handed down to the younger generation. The argument went that brain plasticity and creativity declining at mid twenties is an evolutionary advantage, since the individual is now done learning (given more time than any other animal in the planet) and is now expected to execute what he knows. at 50 or so, he’s no longer in a leadership position, so the brain structure changes again, and creativity kicks start again, as the elderly serve as an council position and leveraging their lives experiences.
Intuitively this makes sense. I’ve also heard phrases that old folks become “children again” in the sense that their world outlook is more childlike, they’ve become more interested in play, etc (which may make sense if they were staying with the children at old age also). Unfortunately I can’t remember the sources for this. I want to say Dave Snowden has mentioned it, but I can’t seem to find it on his blogs and I no longer have access to his paid content. But I want to say it’s something I read elsewhere.
Now, this is not to say that creativity and completely gone. Just as most people would agree that the best time to learn a new language is when you’re a child, since the brain just absorbs everything, you’ll agree that there’s a period in an individuals life when learning is easier. At the same time, you wouldn’t say it’s not possible to learn a new language if you’re not a child. Just because the data shows you’re at a peak at one period of time, it doesn’t mean you’re not able to perform in another.
Some factors that affect creativity are IQ and working memory. Working memory is the ability to hold multiple pieces of information at the same time and combine them or use them while working on something. There are whole books on how you can improve working memory (The Working Memory Advantage is one book I own). The game Dual-N-Back is supposedly one of the best games for developing working memory. One technique I use is playing a game called Flash Anzan with a Japanese abacus called Soroban. Numbers are flashed on a screen for a fraction of a second while you need to resolve arithmetic with them using the Soroban.
As for the IQ, if I remember correctly there’s a cut line of 120 or so where performance that can truly be called creative arises. As far as I’m concerned there’s not much you can do about this, but it’s not entirely deterministic. Genes definitely play a role (you can’t deny the new genetic research coming out despite wishing it otherwise). But there are dietary changes you can perform to increase cognition. This may include eating cholesterol, which the brain uses (whole eggs and organic beacon!), avoiding simple carbs (sugars, pasta) in favor or complex carbs (legumes, sweet potatoes). Along with some nootropics and cardio (heavy weights don’t seem to affect intelligence directly, but may alter the androgen and dopamine receptors of the brain, which affects motivation, which would be necessary in carrying out any prolonged plan or research). Along with vegetables, getting the right nutrients with organ meats, etc. A plan focused on providing non-digestible fiber that improves the gut flora (or bone broth), since these also have been shown to have a link with intelligence and brain development.
Another factor with creativity is being exposed to novelty, this can be either books or real world interactions with new people or experiences.
One idea that I think is crucial is that of the Adjacent Possible. It’s mentioned in the book Where Good Ideas Come From, which it essentially states that there is a certain number of possibilities based on where you are.While this seems intuitive, most people with the “anything you dream is possible” mantra completely fail to acknowledge it. For example: Going to the moon might have been possible, but there had to be millions of changes happening in technology, politics, culture and the economy to be able to carry this out. The same way going to Mars is technically possible, but there are many steps yet to be accomplished in order to actually achieve it.
This same concept of the adjacent possible is applied to creativity. In order to have that innovative idea, the individual needs to have a basic set of knowledge and understanding of the situation, and have previous ideas that lead to the ultimate innovation. This concept is also applicable to groups, new individuals with different knowledge, experience and perspectives can enhance the adjacent possible. But this notion of new people shouldn’t be seen as an absolute positive. As the book The Mythical Man-Moth argues, adding more people to a project will have a point of diminishing return as the complexity of the social group increases and there’s more time spent communicating back and forth than actually getting work done, and neither having a different set of knowledge, experience or perspective mean that its beneficial to the project, it might just be wasting peoples time at best, being disruptive at worse. Ex: Getting a singer into a room of medical professors attempting to figure out what’s wrong with patient X isn’t going to benefit them as he talks about his knowledge and experience of the music industry.
But one great talk on how groups enhance creativity overall comes from Ann Pendleton-Jullian. She has some great anecdotes on the Ted Talk I’ll link below, and explains how the interaction between people and objects can help develop great architecture and games, while the games built in isolation aren’t very fun. Her point reminds me of a story of Alexander the Great and the creation of Alexandria. An architect tells Alexander he has a grand plan to build the city of Alexandria up in a mountain, since this would be a symbol of Alexanders greatness. Alexander laughs and says this isn’t practical for the people living there, and to make his great city by the ocean where they can grow crops and trade instead.The great city was planned out by understanding the relationship between objects and people, and the conversations between the leader and architect.