Inside the Box 創(chuàng)造力真的受歡迎嗎

Jessica+Olien

In the United States we are raised to appreciate the accomplishments of inventors and thinkers—creative people whose ideas have transformed our world. We celebrate the famously imaginative， the greatest artists and innovators from Van Gogh to Steve Jobs. Viewing the world creatively is supposed to be an asset， even a virtue. Online job boards burst with ads recruiting “idea people” and “out of the box” thinkers. We are taught that our own creativity will be celebrated as well， and that if we have good ideas， we will succeed.

Its all a lie. This is the thing about creativity that is rarely acknowledged： most people dont actually like it. Studies confirm what many creative people have suspected all along： people are biased against creative thinking， despite all of their insistence otherwise.

“We think of creative people in a heroic manner， and we celebrate them， but the thing we celebrate is the after-effect1），” says Barry Staw， a researcher at the University of California–Berkeley business school who specializes in creativity.

Staw says most people are risk-averse2）. He refers to them as satisfiers. “As much as we celebrate independence in Western cultures， there is an awful lot of pressure to conform，” he says. Satisfiers avoid stirring things up， even if it means forsaking the truth or rejecting a good idea.

Even people who say they are looking for creativity react negatively to creative ideas， as demonstrated in a 2011 study from the University of Pennsylvania. Uncertainty is an inherent part of new ideas， and its also something that most people would do almost anything to avoid. Peoples partiality3） toward certainty biases them against creative ideas and can interfere with their ability to even recognize creative ideas.

A close friend of mine works for a tech startup. She is an intensely creative and intelligent person who falls on the risk-taker side of the spectrum. Though her company initially hired her for her problem-solving skills， she is regularly unable to fix actual problems because nobody will listen to her ideas. “I even say， ‘Ill do the work. Just give me the go-ahead and Ill do it myself，” she says. “But they wont， and so the system stays less efficient.”

In the documentary The September Issue4）， Anna Wintour5） systematically rejects the ideas of her creative director Grace Coddington6）， seemingly with no reason aside from asserting her power.

This is a common and often infuriating7） experience for a creative person. Even in supposedly creative environments， in the creative departments of advertising agencies and editorial meetings at magazines， Ive watched people with the most interesting—the most “out of the box”—ideas be ignored or ridiculed in favor of those who repeat an established solution.

“Everybody hates it when somethings really great，” says essayist and art critic Dave Hickey. He is famous for his scathing critiques against the art world， particularly against art education， which he believes institutionalizes mediocrity8） through its systematic rejection of good ideas. Art is going through what Hickey calls a “stupid phase.”

In fact， everyone I spoke with agreed on one thing—unexceptional ideas are far more likely to be accepted than wonderful ones.

Staw was asked to contribute to a 1995 book about creativity in the corporate world. Fed up with the hypocrisy he saw， he called his chapter “Why No One Really Wants Creativity.” The piece was an indictment of the way our culture deals with new ideas and creative people.

“In terms of decision style， most people fall short of9） the creative ideal … unless they are held accountable for their decision-making strategies； they tend to find the easy way out—either by not engaging in very careful thinking or by modeling the choices on the preferences of those who will be evaluating them.”

Unfortunately， the place where our first creative ideas go to die is the place that should be most open to them—school. Studies show that teachers overwhelmingly discriminate against creative students， favoring their satisfier classmates who more readily follow directions and do what theyre told.

Even if children are lucky enough to have a teacher receptive to their ideas， standardized testing and other programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top （a program whose very designation is opposed to nonlinear creative thinking） make sure childrens minds are not on the “wrong” path. Its ironic that even as children are taught the accomplishments of the worlds most innovative minds， their own creativity is being squelched10）.

All of this negativity isnt easy to digest， and social rejection can be painful in some of the same ways physical pain hurts. But there is a glimmer of hope in all of this rejection. A Cornell study makes the case that social rejection is not actually bad for the creative process—and can even facilitate it. The study shows that if you have the sneaking11） suspicion you might not belong， the act of being rejected confirms your interpretation. The effect can liberate creative people from the need to fit in and allow them to pursue their interests.

Perhaps for some people， the pain of rejection is like the pain of training for a marathon—training the mind for endurance. Research shows youll need it. Truly creative ideas take a very long time to be accepted. The better the idea， the longer it might take. Even the work of Nobel Prize winners was commonly rejected by their peers for an extended period of time.

Most people agree that what distinguishes those who become famously creative is their resilience. While creativity at times is very rewarding， it is not about happiness. Staw says a successful creative person is someone “who can survive conformity pressures and be impervious12） to social pressure.”

To live creatively is a choice. You must make a commitment to your own mind and the possibility that you will not be accepted. You have to let go of satisfying people， often even yourself.

在美國，我們從小就被教導要贊賞發(fā)明家和思想家們的成就——這些具有創(chuàng)造力的人物的想法改變了我們的世界。從梵高到史蒂夫·喬布斯，我們贊頌這些以想象力著稱的最偉大的藝術(shù)家和創(chuàng)新者們。以創(chuàng)新的眼光來審視世界通常被視為一個優(yōu)點，甚至是一種美德。網(wǎng)上的招聘版塊到處是招募“有創(chuàng)意的人”和“具有創(chuàng)造力的”思想者的廣告。我們所受的教育認為，我們自己的創(chuàng)造力也會得到贊賞，而且如果我們有好主意，我們就會取得成功。

這全是謊言。關(guān)于創(chuàng)造力，很少有人承認這一點：大多數(shù)人其實并不喜歡創(chuàng)造力。研究證實了很多具有創(chuàng)造力的人物一直都認為的一點：人們對創(chuàng)新思維持有偏見，盡管他們堅持相反的說法。

“我們將具有創(chuàng)造力的人物視為英雄并贊美他們，但我們贊美的其實是創(chuàng)造的結(jié)果?！奔又荽髮W伯克利分校商學院專門研究創(chuàng)造力的研究員巴里·斯托說。

斯托稱大多數(shù)人都會規(guī)避風險，他把這些人稱為滿足他人者?！熬拖裨谖鞣轿幕形覀儤O力贊美獨立那樣，人們也要承受極大的從眾壓力?！彼f。滿足他人者會避免惹麻煩，即便這意味著放棄真理或拒絕一個好主意。

賓夕法尼亞大學2011年的一項研究表明，即便是那些自稱在尋找創(chuàng)造力的人對創(chuàng)意的反應(yīng)也是消極的。不確定性是新想法所固有的一部分，也是大多數(shù)人幾乎竭盡全力去避免的東西。人們對確定性的偏好使他們對創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)生偏見，甚至會影響他們辨識創(chuàng)意的能力。

我的一位摯友在一家新創(chuàng)辦的小公司上班。她是一個極富創(chuàng)造力和聰明才智的人，屬于人群中喜歡冒險的那一類。雖然當初公司是由于她具備解決問題的能力而聘用她的，但她卻常常無法解決實際問題，因為沒人愿意聽她的意見?！拔疑踔習f：‘我來做這項工作。只要批準我做，我會獨立完成，”她說，“但他們不批準，所以這個系統(tǒng)依然效率不高?！?/p>

在紀錄片《九月刊》中，安娜·溫特全然拒絕其創(chuàng)意總監(jiān)格蕾斯·柯丁頓的主意。她這么做除了體現(xiàn)自己的權(quán)力外似乎沒什么別的理由。

對一個有創(chuàng)造力的人而言，這是一種司空見慣又常常令人惱怒的經(jīng)歷。即便是在人們認為具有創(chuàng)造性的環(huán)境里——在廣告公司的創(chuàng)意部門和雜志的編輯會議上——我都看到過那些有著最有趣的想法、最具創(chuàng)造性思維的人受到忽視或嘲笑，而得到欣賞的是那些重復(fù)既定解決方案的人。

“如果某樣東西真的很棒，那就沒人喜歡它。”散文家兼藝術(shù)批評家戴夫·?；f。?；詫λ囆g(shù)界——尤其是對藝術(shù)教育——的尖刻批評而著稱。他認為藝術(shù)教育對好的想法有著系統(tǒng)化的排斥，這使得平庸變得制度化。藝術(shù)正在經(jīng)歷?；Q的一個“愚蠢的階段”。

實際上，和我交談過的每個人都同意一種觀點：相對于絕妙的主意，循規(guī)蹈矩的主意被人們接受的可能性要大得多。

斯托曾應(yīng)邀為1995年出版的一本關(guān)于企業(yè)界創(chuàng)造力的書撰稿。由于受夠了他所見到的那些虛偽假象，他將自己寫的那一章命名為“為什么沒人真的想要創(chuàng)造力”。該章節(jié)內(nèi)容控訴了我們的文化對待新想法和具有創(chuàng)造力的人物的方式。

“在決策風格方面，大多數(shù)人達不到具備創(chuàng)造力的理想狀態(tài)……除非他們要對自己的決策策略負責。他們傾向于找到簡單的解決方式：要么不進行十分審慎的思考，要么根據(jù)將要評估他們的人的喜好來模式化地做出選擇?！?/p>

不幸的是，我們最初的創(chuàng)意被埋葬的地方正是本該對創(chuàng)意敞開懷抱的地方——學校。研究表明，老師嚴重歧視具有創(chuàng)造力的學生，卻喜歡那些屬于滿足他人者的同學——他們更愿意聽從指示并遵照執(zhí)行。

即便孩子們有幸遇到了一位樂于接受其想法的老師，但像標準化測試、“不讓一個孩子落后”以及“力爭上游”（該計劃的名字本身就體現(xiàn)了對非線性創(chuàng)造性思維的反對）這樣的計劃也會確保他們的思維不偏離“正”軌。具有諷刺意味的是，即便學校教給了孩子們世界上最具創(chuàng)新性的頭腦所取得的成就，孩子們自己的創(chuàng)造力卻正在被扼殺。

承受這種消極性并不容易，而且就像身上的傷口會帶來痛楚，社會排斥也會讓人痛苦。但在這所有的排斥中仍存在一縷希望?？的螤柎髮W的一項研究認為，對創(chuàng)新過程而言，社會排斥其實并不是件壞事，甚至還能促進這個過程。該研究表明，如果你私下懷疑自己可能不合群，那你遭到排斥的情況則證實了你的解釋。這種效果可以讓具有創(chuàng)造力的人物從融入他人的需求中解脫出來，并讓他們能追求自己的愛好。

或許對某些人來說，遭到排斥的痛苦就像馬拉松訓練所帶來的痛苦——訓練思想的耐力。研究表明，你將需要這種耐力。真正的創(chuàng)意需要很長時間才能被人們接受。想法越好，所需的時間就越長。就算是諾貝爾獎得主的工作往往也在很長一段時期內(nèi)遭到同行的排斥。

大多數(shù)人認為，那些以具有創(chuàng)造力著稱的人的過人之處是其韌性。雖然創(chuàng)造力有時會帶來豐厚的回報，但其卻與幸福無關(guān)。斯托說一個成功的、具有創(chuàng)造力的人是“能夠承受從眾壓力并無視社會壓力的人”。

富有創(chuàng)意地活著是一種選擇。你必須致力于打造自己的思想，為可能會得不到認可做出犧牲。你必須放棄取悅他人，甚至往往要放棄取悅自己。

1. after-effect [?ɑ?ft?（r）??fekt] n. 事后影響

2. risk-averse：規(guī)避風險的

3. partiality [?pɑ?（r）?i??l?ti] n. 偏愛

4. The September Issue：《九月刊》，一部記錄《時尚》（Vogue）雜志2007年9月刊出版全過程的紀錄片

5. Anna Wintour：安娜·溫特（1949～），《時尚》（Vogue）雜志美國版的主編

6. Grace Coddington：格蕾絲·柯丁頓（1941～），《時尚》（Vogue）雜志美國版的創(chuàng)意總監(jiān)

7. infuriating [?n?fj??ri?e?t??] adj. 使人十分生氣的；令人大怒的

8. mediocrity [?mi?di??kr?ti] n. 平庸

9. fall short of：達不到；不符合

10. squelch [skwelt?] vt. 壓制；遏制

11. sneaking [?sni?k??] adj. 潛在縈繞的；暗自的

12. impervious [?m?p??（r）vi?s] adj. 不受影響的