Huff Post: 18 Things Highly Creative People Do Differently

Posted: 03/04/2014 8:48 am EST Updated: 03/04/2014 4:59 pm EST

Andy Ryan via Getty Images

Creativity works in mysterious and often paradoxical ways. Creative thinking is a stable, defining characteristic in some personalities, but it may also change based on situation and context. Inspiration and ideas often arise seemingly out of nowhere and then fail to show up when we most need them, and creative thinking requires complex cognition yet is completely distinct from the thinking process.

Neuroscience paints a complicated picture of creativity. As scientists now understand it, creativity is far more complex than the right-left brain distinction would have us think (the theory being that left brain = rational and analytical, right brain = creative and emotional). In fact, creativity is thought to involve a number of cognitive processes, neural pathways and emotions, and we still don't have the full picture of how the imaginative mind works.

And psychologically speaking, creative personality types are difficult to pin down, largely because they're complex, paradoxical and tend to avoid habit or routine. And it's not just a stereotype of the "tortured artist" -- artists really may be more complicated people. Research has suggested that creativity involves the coming together of a multitude of traits, behaviors and social influences in a single person.

"It's actually hard for creative people to know themselves because the creative self is more complex than the non-creative self," Scott Barry Kaufman, a psychologist at New York University who has spent years researching creativity, told The Huffington Post. "The things that stand out the most are the paradoxes of the creative self ... Imaginative people have messier minds."

While there's no "typical" creative type, there are some tell-tale characteristics and behaviors of highly creative people. Here are 18 things they do differently.

They daydream.

Creative types know, despite what their third-grade teachers may have said, that daydreaming is anything but a waste of time.

According to Kaufman and psychologist Rebecca L. McMillan, who co-authored a paper titled "Ode To Positive Constructive Daydreaming," mind-wandering can aid in the process of "creative incubation." And of course, many of us know from experience that our best ideas come seemingly out of the blue when our minds are elsewhere.

Although daydreaming may seem mindless, a 2012 study suggested it could actually involve a highly engaged brain state -- daydreaming can lead to sudden connections and insights because it's related to our ability to recall information in the face of distractions. Neuroscientists have also found that daydreaming involves the same brain processes associated with imagination and creativity.

They observe everything.

The world is a creative person's oyster -- they see possibilities everywhere and are constantly taking in information that becomes fodder for creative expression. As Henry James is widely quoted, a writer is someone on whom "nothing is lost."

The writer Joan Didion kept a notebook with her at all times, and said that she wrote down observations about people and events as, ultimately, a way to better understand the complexities and contradictions of her own mind:

"However dutifully we record what we see around us, the common denominator of all we see is always, transparently, shamelessly, the implacable 'I,'" Didion wrote in her essay On Keeping A Notebook. "We are talking about something private, about bits of the mind’s string too short to use, an indiscriminate and erratic assemblage with meaning only for its marker."

They work the hours that work for them.

Many great artists have said that they do their best work either very early in the morning or late at night. Vladimir Nabokov started writing immediately after he woke up at 6 or 7 a.m., and Frank Lloyd Wright made a practice of waking up at 3 or 4 a.m. and working for several hours before heading back to bed. No matter when it is, individuals with high creative output will often figure out what time it is that their minds start firing up, and structure their days accordingly.

They take time for solitude.

"In order to be open to creativity, one must have the capacity for constructive use of solitude. One must overcome the fear of being alone," wrote the American existential psychologist Rollo May.

Artists and creatives are often stereotyped as being loners, and while this may not actually be the case, solitude can be the key to producing their best work. For Kaufman, this links back to daydreaming -- we need to give ourselves the time alone to simply allow our minds to wander.

"You need to get in touch with that inner monologue to be able to express it," he says. "It's hard to find that inner creative voice if you're ... not getting in touch with yourself and reflecting on yourself."

They turn life's obstacles around.

Many of the most iconic stories and songs of all time have been inspired by gut-wrenching pain and heartbreak -- and the silver lining of these challenges is that they may have been the catalyst to create great art. An emerging field of psychology called post-traumatic growth is suggesting that many people are able to use their hardships and early-life trauma for substantial creative growth. Specifically, researchers have found that trauma can help people to grow in the areas of interpersonal relationships, spirituality, appreciation of life, personal strength, and -- most importantly for creativity -- seeing new possibilities in life.

"A lot of people are able to use that as the fuel they need to come up with a different perspective on reality," says Kaufman. "What's happened is that their view of the world as a safe place, or as a certain type of place, has been shattered at some point in their life, causing them to go on the periphery and see things in a new, fresh light, and that's very conducive to creativity."

They seek out new experiences.

Creative people love to expose themselves to new experiences, sensations and states of mind -- and this openness is a significant predictor of creative output.

"Openness to experience is consistently the strongest predictor of creative achievement," says Kaufman. "This consists of lots of different facets, but they're all related to each other: Intellectual curiosity, thrill seeking, openness to your emotions, openness to fantasy. The thing that brings them all together is a drive for cognitive and behavioral exploration of the world, your inner world and your outer world."

They "fail up."

Resilience is practically a prerequisite for creative success, says Kaufman. Doing creative work is often described as a process of failing repeatedly until you find something that sticks, and creatives -- at least the successful ones -- learn not to take failure so personally.

"Creatives fail and the really good ones fail often," Forbes contributor Steven Kotler wrote in a piece on Einstein's creative genius.

They ask the big questions.

Creative people are insatiably curious -- they generally opt to live the examined life, and even as they get older, maintain a sense of curiosity about life. Whether through intense conversation or solitary mind-wandering, creatives look at the world around them and want to know why, and how, it is the way it is.

They people-watch.

Observant by nature and curious about the lives of others, creative types often love to people-watch -- and they may generate some of their best ideas from it.

"[Marcel] Proust spent almost his whole life people-watching, and he wrote down his observations, and it eventually came out in his books," says Kaufman. "For a lot of writers, people-watching is very important ... They're keen observers of human nature."

They take risks.

Part of doing creative work is taking risks, and many creative types thrive off of taking risks in various aspects of their lives.

"There is a deep and meaningful connection between risk taking and creativity and it's one that's often overlooked," contributor Steven Kotler wrote in Forbes. "Creativity is the act of making something from nothing. It requires making public those bets first placed by imagination. This is not a job for the timid. Time wasted, reputation tarnished, money not well spent -- these are all by-products of creativity gone awry."

They view all of life as an opportunity for self-expression.

Nietzsche believed that one's life and the world should be viewed as a work of art. Creative types may be more likely to see the world this way, and to constantly seek opportunities for self-expression in everyday life.

"Creative expression is self-expression," says Kaufman. "Creativity is nothing more than an individual expression of your needs, desires and uniqueness."

They follow their true passions.

Creative people tend to be intrinsically motivated -- meaning that they're motivated to act from some internal desire, rather than a desire for external reward or recognition. Psychologists have shown that creative people are energized by challenging activities, a sign of intrinsic motivation, and the research suggests that simply thinking of intrinsic reasons to perform an activity may be enough to boost creativity.

"Eminent creators choose and become passionately involved in challenging, risky problems that provide a powerful sense of power from the ability to use their talents," write M.A. Collins and T.M. Amabile in The Handbook of Creativity.

They get out of their own heads.

Kaufman argues that another purpose of daydreaming is to help us to get out of our own limited perspective and explore other ways of thinking, which can be an important asset to creative work.

"Daydreaming has evolved to allow us to let go of the present," says Kaufman. "The same brain network associated with daydreaming is the brain network associated with theory of mind -- I like calling it the 'imagination brain network' -- it allows you to imagine your future self, but it also allows you to imagine what someone else is thinking."

Research has also suggested that inducing "psychological distance" -- that is, taking another person's perspective or thinking about a question as if it was unreal or unfamiliar -- can boost creative thinking.

They lose track of the time.

Creative types may find that when they're writing, dancing, painting or expressing themselves in another way, they get "in the zone," or what's known as a flow state, which can help them to create at their highest level. Flow is a mental state when an individual transcends conscious thought to reach a heightened state of effortless concentration and calmness. When someone is in this state, they're practically immune to any internal or external pressures and distractions that could hinder their performance.

You get into the flow state when you're performing an activity you enjoy that you're good at, but that also challenges you -- as any good creative project does.

"[Creative people] have found the thing they love, but they've also built up the skill in it to be able to get into the flow state," says Kaufman. "The flow state requires a match between your skill set and the task or activity you're engaging in."

They surround themselves with beauty.

Creatives tend to have excellent taste, and as a result, they enjoy being surrounded by beauty.

A study recently published in the journal Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts showed that musicians -- including orchestra musicians, music teachers, and soloists -- exhibit a high sensitivity and responsiveness to artistic beauty.

They connect the dots.

If there's one thing that distinguishes highly creative people from others, it's the ability to see possibilities where other don't -- or, in other words, vision. Many great artists and writers have said that creativity is simply the ability to connect the dots that others might never think to connect.

In the words of Steve Jobs:

"Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn't really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That's because they were able to connect experiences they've had and synthesize new things."

They constantly shake things up.

Diversity of experience, more than anything else, is critical to creativity, says Kaufman. Creatives like to shake things up, experience new things, and avoid anything that makes life more monotonous or mundane.

"Creative people have more diversity of experiences, and habit is the killer of diversity of experience," says Kaufman.

They make time for mindfulness.

Creative types understand the value of a clear and focused mind -- because their work depends on it. Many artists, entrepreneurs, writers and other creative workers, such as David Lynch, have turned to meditation as a tool for tapping into their most creative state of mind.

And science backs up the idea that mindfulness really can boost your brain power in a number of ways. A 2012 Dutch study suggested that certain meditation techniques can promote creative thinking. And mindfulness practices have been linked with improved memory and focus, better emotional well-being, reduced stress and anxiety, and improved mental clarity -- all of which can lead to better creative thought. 

Part 2. Further Observations on "The Need for a Creative Theology"

 

 

 

Some time ago I posted an article by the theologian Thomas Oord on "The Need for a Creative Theology." I thought then that I understood what he was saying as I was in the process of revisiting as many themes and subjects of Evangelical Christianity as I could from mine own relatively new Emergent Christian experience. I was doing this because mine own background was one that was expanding from my past involvement in Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christianity over many decades commencing in childhood (an altogether positive experience, I might add). I thoroughly enjoyed my time spent within a half-dozen or so churches from Michigan to Florida's Gold Coast and never doubted God's power and ministry during that time.

 

However, when becoming later involved within an emergent church setting these past thirteen years all things fundamentally changed in relationship to previous ideas and ideologies that I held.... More probably because by this time in life I had become older and found myself to be in a more youthful congregational setting more characteristic of the X/Y/Z Generation. As well as in fellowship with those congregants either previously overlooked by the church, or personally turned-off to the church. Regardless, I was in a highly-charged Emergent atmosphere currying all the foibles and volatility of a new Christian movement not unlike that of a case of nitroglycerin being roughly handed about by relatively youthful, and untrained, hands. I found it intoxicating and perplexing. Annoying and disturbing. Inspiring and meaningful. It had all the trappings of a new-age cultic movement but without any of the cultic heresies and apostasies (which made it all the more unusual in a historical and positive sense!).

 

My fellow Emergents blundered from one theological issue to the next, treating each one no better than the last, while allowing no internal disagreement except banishment and isolation from the "in-group of adherents." Though all were invited to participate not many were admitted... if like myself, because of my many doubts and need to discern the multitudinous rapid-fire assertions being boldly proclaimed to the refusal of any further review or retractions. Consequently, issues which were non-issues with me in my previous lifetimes became new issues that required review, prayer, and discussion (mostly patience with fellow Christians misunderstanding doctrine and imprecisely speaking it). Old line teachings long settled for me were fresh and raw (and largely, very poorly apprehended) within this newer group of muscular, energetic Emergent Christians longing for the Spirit's revival and healing both in their lives and within ministry itself. And in the midst of this spiritual revolution came (i) detractors (both within and without this very young gathering of believers); (ii) the presence of an unclear, eclectic Emergent theology (largely because it was being formed on-the-fly in the present tense, and would require a more careful re-evaluation many years later when the fires of conflict and heated debate died down... as we are now doing here in this blog); and, (iii) mandated the need for seminal re-evaluation of personal beliefs and admissions by this new movement - some of which needed resurrection, while others simply needed a deeper grave.

Through this journey I felt then that I should someday write, post, quote, or re-frame, as many topics and discussions as could be reflected upon from my own journey of spiritual conflict, development and re-creation. More so because many of my friends and family were more than willing to disagree with my Emergent observations and experience; deny my personal resolution to fundamentally revisit creedal reformulation; and quietly tried to banish me by pronouncing mortal epithets and alarmist proclamations (mostly judgmental), however kindly or unkindly they may have tried to put it (which, according to the last article I've included here in this post, may not have necessarily been the wisest thing to do in my case). Consequently, I often walked alone having no homeland to be affiliated with, nor present fellowship to enjoin with (because of ageism, as I have mentioned above, and my then current doubts about Emergent doctrinaire). I was caught "out-of-time" and "out-of-place," but in this journey felt the moment-by-moment presence and guidance of the Spirit of God in a way quite unlike any previous encounter.

 

God was my mainstay and my helper. My protector and friend. I was under a spiritual oppression that weighed me down and could not get rid of... it threatened me in every form and fashion - from despair and hopelessness, to frustration and religious passion - but God was there even when I felt He was not. And ultimately, it was God's illumination and inspiration that drove me many years later to obsessively put to "(electronic) paper" my thoughts and burdens. And from that overly long journey has resulted this webblog as a form of help and guidance to those on similar journeys of doubts and questions about the Church. About Christianity. About God Himself. But thanks be to God that through His Son Jesus my spirit was resurrected into a new place I hitherto had naught come. A foreign land unmade by human hands breathing the new airs and elixirs of spiritual poverty and health. A land where once I had been and had known, but somehow had lost, to re-discover again, by the Spirit's help and direction, long years later.

 

Hence, I had posted Oord's thoughts last year on the need to do creative theology because it appealed to what I was trying to presently then do (however successfully or unsuccessfully my attempts may have been). And to this effort came a recent reader who submitted the following observation -

 

"On the topic of evil, what are the ways to have creative thinking? What does creative theology even mean? Also, I agree with your statement about theology being tied to our views of the world. The obstacles I face in life either second guess my own theology or make it stronger. Was that what you were meaning? How could creative theology evangelize to those who do not know Jesus?" - jh

 

In reply, I wrote my following observations found below. And after having written it thought to repost my comments into today's present article. At the last, please forgive any neglected centralizing tenants of Emergent Christianity that I may have forgotten through oversight. And remember that those Emergent themes that I've listed below are but some of the many Emergent topics that can be found here within Relevancy22.

Thank you.

 

R.E. Slater

September 1, 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Part 2. Further Observations on

"The Need for a Creative Theology"

 

My Reply

 

R.E. Slater

September 1, 2012

 

 

While I don't presume to answer for Thomas Oord himself, I would give this webblog here as example of creative theology... especially as pertaining to re-opening the Scriptures afresh in new light-and-meaning to today's questions-and-turmoils. While Christian tradition is understood and appreciated, it should never be allowed to hold contemporary theology hostage. And while God has been taught as the unchangeable One, we do now observe that He is also the changeable One through Open Theology and Process Thought we are calling Relational Theism.

Not only has science and religious pluralism been discussed here, but so too has been added other discussions on - what postmodernism brings to the area of opportunity for the message of the Gospel and for ensuing local and global ministries; the necessary expansion of evangelical Christianity into the many forms of emergent Christianity now occurring; the meaning of Scriptural authority and its relevance for us today; the importance of narrative theology (the story-form of biblical theology) in place of systematic theology; the importance of the church and cruciform ministry to believer and nonbeliever alike - both within-and-without church fellowships and organizations; the errors and fallacies of Evangelical folk religion and biblioatry; the affects of the 19th century's Enlightenment as well as that of the 20th century's Modernity in relationship to postmodernity's progress towards the Age of Authentication; of the inter-relationship between theology and philosophy; of the centrality of Jesus and the Kingdom of God; how Jesus' Gospel message is displacing evangelicalism's message of Pauline justification through the "New Perspective of Paul" that is occurring in a re-examination of the Gospel teachings of Jesus to the religious Jewish bodies of His day; of the relevancy of God's love over the more restrictive semantic barriers of truth (or, what we imagine "truth" to be in our cultural subcontexts); and so forth.

These discussions, and many more, have been written about (as evidenced in the sidebars along the right-hand column of this webblog) and will give to the reader a multitude of examples by what is meant by writing out a "creative theology" as versus a static and dead theology which lives and breathes the dust of the past. A creative theology is not static, but living, reforming, recreative, relevant. It re-fuses (or joins together) past Christian theology (though not necessarily past Christian traditions, be they Protestant, Jewish or otherwise intended, unless it is Messianic first and foremost). So that God's Word is a living revelation, and not a restrictive, codified, legalistic religion; that authoritatively speaks about Jesus to today's postmodern societies and cultures in terms that can be grasped and felt. And when the time comes when a new philosophical era should arise, then the re-approbation of Scripture must be made once again into those societies and culture's global contexts. For God (and His revelation) continually expands and grows with the worlds of men. If not, we have but made God a dead idol by the works of our hands and lips through dead traditions, and disconnected, meaningless confessional teachings.

Creative Theology but points down the road and says "Think about this" and does not say "We have thought all the thoughts we can think about God and can no longer think of God in any further future context". We don't necessarily seek answers so much as seek better questions. We attempt to not limit ourselves by limiting God. And this is done by not limiting God's Word and His current activity among us amid real-time life events. We allow God to be bigger than our concepts of Him. And use past church history as but a guide to enhance God's message to mankind of love, salvation, hope and faith. In this way theology stays fresh. Relevant. Creative. I hope this helps.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

 

"Rejection confirms for independent people what they already feel about themselves,

that they’re not like others," says Johns Hopkins Professor Sharon Kim.

"For such people, that distinction is a positive one leading them to greater creativity."

(Credit: iStockphoto)

 

 

Creativity may be a nerd’s best revenge

http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/creativity-may-be-a-nerd%E2%80%99s-best-revenge/

JOHNS HOPKINS / CORNELL (US) — Social rejection can enhance creativity—if the person has a strong sense of personal independence.

“For people who already feel separate from the crowd, social rejection can be a form of validation,” says the study’s lead co-author Sharon Kim, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University’s Carey Business School

“Rejection,” she says, “confirms for independent people what they already feel about themselves, that they’re not like others. For such people, that distinction is a positive one leading them to greater creativity.”

Numerous psychological studies have found that social rejection inhibits cognitive ability in people who value belonging to a group. Kim and her co-authors, Lynne Vincent and Jack Goncalo of Cornell University, decided to consider instead the impact of rejection on people who take pride in being different from the norm.

Such individuals, in a term from the study, are described as possessing an “independent self-concept.” They are, the paper says, “motivated to remain distinctly separate from others.”

“We’re seeing in society a growing concern about the negative consequences of social rejection, thanks largely to media reports about bullying that occurs at school, in the workplace, and online,” Kim says.

“Obviously, bullying is reprehensible and produces nothing good,” she says. “What we tried to show in our paper is that exclusion from a group can sometimes lead to a positive outcome when independently minded people are the ones being excluded.”

The researchers conducted a series of three experiments with university students, measuring their creativity in completing standardized tasks after being told they had not been selected as part of a group.

The team’s conclusion that the more independent, “nerdy” subjects were the most creative after rejection has practical implications for employers, Kim says. They want imaginative employees who are creative in their approach to business problems, she says.

A company might, therefore, want to take a second look at a job candidate whose unconventional personality might make him an easy target for rejection, but whose inventiveness would be a valuable asset to the organization.

In the long term, Kim adds, the creative person with an independent self-concept might even be said to thrive on rejection. While repeated rebuffs would discourage someone who longs for inclusion, such slights could continually recharge the creativity of an independent person. The latter type, says Kim, “could see a successful career trajectory, in contrast with the person who is inhibited by social rejection.”

The team’s paper was recently accepted for publication by the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. It also received a best paper award at the Academy of Management conference held in Boston in August.

Source: Johns Hopkins University



 

Re-thinking & Innovating Evangelical Christianity through the Example of Postmodern Indian Medical Practices

Strictly speaking, the post today will not be pertinent to issues of Emergent Christianity or biblical revisionism caused by cultural disruptions and the requisite societal needs that follow. However, we have spoken to creativity in the past (How the Genius Thinks) and about Christianity's need to recreate itself from its antiquated past (Thinking About a New Christianity, Parts 1-3; What Wikipedia Has to Say About the Emerging/Emergent Church. Parts 1-2). And so, today's article about Indian medical practices seems relevant to me. Especially because it reveals how our mindset must change away from societal expectations and assumptions in order to fundamentally recreate newer Gospel practices and missional objectives with far-flung affect and distillation.

If Christianity continues to refuse fundamental change, adaptation, and re-orientation, by clinging to antiquated subcultural mores and beliefs (most recently re-expressed from the 1970-1990s) then it should only expect a growing irrelevancy and subcontextualization of itself without any further impact to society-at-large - except to itself in growing isolation and systemic blow back repercussions - much like assorted Fundamentalist and Amish groups have experienced over the past century. I think a good illustration of this is the Muslim religion which has tenaciously clung to its outdated beliefs and practices in an "us" versus "them" cultural affirmation. By this mindset we have seen extreme examples of cultural/religious aggravation and frustration expressed through cruel insurgencies and governmental suppressions, unabated militarism and heart-rending terrorism, and an adamant refusal to recognise or accept religious and cultural pluralism into strict Muslim society. The saner, more wiser elements of Muslimism is doing what it can, but its voice has been far out-distance by the rhetoric of their militaristic mullahs and clerics.

However, the same could be said of Evangelical Christianity (per earlier Fundamental Christian groups self-isolating experiences) as it hunkers down from society (i) by creating subcultural contexts of itself; (ii) by becoming unnecessarily hostile to cultural and postmodernistic incursions into its belief systems and practices (as witnessed in the backlash to a small, innocuous book by the title "Love Wins"); and, (iii) by adamantly not accepting anything that even smells "unbiblical" or "non-Christian" to its way of life and living. In the end, evangelical Christianity is harming itself in spite of its sincerity of devotion to God, the Scriptures, purity of life, outspoken goals of ethical behavior, and its gospel message of salvation. More rather, (i) Jesus' radical message of love in the Gospels becomes threatening and unintelligible; (ii) Jesus' criticism of the Scribes and Pharisees of His day becomes a ghostly representation of themselves in refusing admittance to Jesus heavenly kingdom on earth; and, (iii) Jesus' universal message of salvation to all men and women everywhere is refused when bounded by church rules and creedal confessions wrenched out of historical context and biblical assignment. And this list could go on-and-on. Not that each one of these subjects haven't been reviewed and re-capsulated adnauseum here on this blogsite during this past year but that just the merest expression of each of these bullet points is enough to send an Evangelical Christian reeling to his or her nearest flock of like-minded affiliates to crucify again the Son of God in unnecessary fears, religious frockery, and pulpiteered rhetorical perturbations.

And so, when reading of the article of Indian medical practices below, I see again the need for both Church and Society to fundamentally look at themselves as objectively as possible. To take out again that metaphorical "white sheet of plain paper" and work out practices and practicalities that would best serve or reflect the objectives and ministries of the Gospel of Jesus. To welcome the disruption and evolution we see taking place in this world of sin and woe as signposts to the brokenness of our present efforts. To recognize that vast multitudes of the world's poor and destitute are being underserved and overlooked in our haste to accumulate and preserve wealth and security. To recommit our lives and livelihoods to the dedication of a more benevolent and selfless humanity. To understand that civil wars and economic dishevel are mirrors to our misdirected efforts and energies. To remove all our past knowledge and beliefs, and sit there, at our mental table, with a piece of plain white paper in our heads and our hearts, thinking through what must be removed from our lives before we can properly draw out a design for the future. A design open enough, expansive enough, unbounded enough, to force us to never again be so set in our ways and our beliefs. That will allow God to recreate our hearts and spiritual beings into the image He wants, and not our own images of fears and insecurity.

And finally, to remember that if one is to construct, one must first deconstruct; and if deconstruct, then one must remember to reconstruct. For many of us are good at one task or the other. But make sure to listen to those rare bridge builders amongst us discontent in living in either of these worlds. And learn to work together. To listen. To dispute irenically. To argue with listening ears, hands, hearts, and tongues. This Earth demands it. This Cosmos was built for this. And by our efforts, however meager, our Redeemer/Creator will sanctify each passion and desire given to the blessing humanity by the works of our hands and hearts. Be a blessing then and this day commit to an innovated thinking that matters. However small. However peripheral. We each are responsible to begin somewhere within our lives as spiritual forces. As battered vessels of servitude and blessing.

R.E. Slater

August 20, 2012

Health care in India

Lessons from a frugal innovator

http://www.economist.com/node/13496367

The rich world’s bloated health-care systems can learn from India’s entrepreneurs

Apr 16th 2009 | Bangalore | from the print edition

Photo by Tom Pietrasik

ENTER the main cardiac operating-room at Bangalore's Wockhardt hospital on a typical morning, and you will find a patient on the operating table with a screen hanging between his head and chest. On a recent visit the table was occupied by a middle-aged Indian man whose serene look suggested that he was ready for the operation to come. Asked how he was, he smiled and answered in Kannada that he felt fine. Only when you stand on a stool to look over the screen do you realise that his chest cavity has already been cut open.

As the patient was chatting away, Vivek Jawali and his team had nearly completed his complex heart bypass. Because such “beating heart” surgery causes little pain and does not require general anaesthesia or blood thinners, patients are back on their feet much faster than usual. This approach, pioneered by Wockhardt, an Indian hospital chain, has proved so safe and successful that medical tourists come to Bangalore from all over the world.

This is just one of many innovations in health care that have been devised in India. Its entrepreneurs are channelling the country's rich technological and medical talent towards frugal approaches that have much to teach the rich world's bloated health-care systems. Dr Jawali is feted today as a pioneer, but he remembers how Western colleagues ridiculed him for years for advocating his inventive “awake surgery”. He thinks that snub reflects an innate cultural advantage enjoyed by India.

Unlike the hidebound health systems of the rich world, he says, “in our country's patient-centric health system you must innovate.” This does not mean adopting every fancy new piece of equipment. Over the years he has rejected surgical robots and “keyhole surgery” kit because the costs did not justify the benefits. Instead, he has looked for tools and techniques that spare resources and improve outcomes.

Shivinder Singh, head of Fortis, a rival hospital chain based in New Delhi, says that most of the new, expensive imaging machines are only a little better than older models. Meanwhile, vast markets for poorer patients go unserved. “We got out of this arms race a few years ago,” he says. Fortis now promises only that its scanners are “world class”, not the newest.

Mr Singh is not alone in thinking that many firms in the rich world are looking at innovation the wrong way. Paul Yock, head of the bio-design laboratory at Stanford University, which develops medical devices, argues that medical-technology giants have “looked at need, but have been blind to cost.” Amid growing concern about runaway health spending, he thinks the industry can find inspiration in India.

Poverty, geography and poor infrastructure mean that India faces perhaps the world's heaviest disease burden, ranging from infectious diseases, the traditional scourge of the poor, to diseases of affluence such as diabetes and hypertension. The public sector has been overwhelmed, which is not surprising considering how little India's government spends on health as a share of national income (see chart). Accordingly, nearly four-fifths of all health services are supplied by private firms and charities—a higher share than in any other big country.

  

In the past that was more a reflection of the state's failure than the dynamism of entrepreneurs, but this is changing fast. Technopak Healthcare, a consulting firm, expects spending on health care in India to grow from $40 billion in 2008 to $323 billion in 2023. In part, that is the result of the growing affluence of India's emerging middle classes. Another cause is the nascent boom in health insurance, now offered both by private firms and, in some cases, by the state. In addition, the government has recently liberalised the industry, easing restrictions on lending and foreign investment in health care, encouraging public-private partnerships and offering tax breaks for health investments in smaller cities and rural areas.

Cheaper and smarter

This has attracted a wave of investment from some of India's biggest corporate groups, including Ranbaxy (the generic-drugs pioneer behind Fortis) and Reliance (one of India's biggest conglomerates). The happy collision of need and greed has produced a cauldron of innovation, as Indian entrepreneurs have devised new business models. Some just set out to do things cheaply, but others are more radical, and have helped India leapfrog the rich world.

For years India's private-health providers, such as Apollo Hospitals, focused on the affluent upper classes, but they are now racing down the pyramid. Vishal Bali, Wockhardt's boss, plans to take advantage of tax breaks to build hospitals in small and medium-sized cities (which, in India, means those with up to 3m inhabitants). Prathap Reddy, Apollo's founder, plans to do the same. He thinks he can cut costs in half for patients: a quarter saved through lower overheads, and another quarter by eliminating travel to bigger cities.

Columbia Asia, a privately held American firm with over a dozen hospitals across Asia, is also making a big push into India. Rick Evans, its boss, says his investors left America to escape over-regulation and the political power of the medical lobby. His model involves building no-frills hospitals using standardised designs, connected like spokes to a hub that can handle more complex ailments. His firm offers modestly priced services to those earning $10,000-20,000 a year within wealthy cities, thereby going after customers overlooked by fancier chains. Its small hospital on the fringes of Bangalore lacks a marble foyer and expensive imaging machines—but it does have fully integrated health information-technology (HIT) systems, including electronic health records (EHRs).

New competitors are also emerging. A recent report from Monitor, a consultancy, points to LifeSpring Hospitals, a chain of small maternity hospitals around Hyderabad. This for-profit outfit offers normal deliveries attended by private doctors for just $40 in its general ward, and Caesarean sections for about $140—as little as one-fifth of the price at the big private hospitals. It has cut costs with a basic approach: it has no canteens and outsources laboratory tests and pharmacy services.

It also achieves economies of scale by attracting large numbers of patients using marketing. Monitor estimates that its operating theatres accommodate 22-27 procedures a week, compared with four to six in other private clinics. LifeSpring's doctors perform four times as many operations a month as their counterparts do elsewhere—and, crucially, get better results as a result of high volumes and specialisation. Cheap and cheerful really can mean better.

But there is more to India's approach than cutting costs. Its health-care providers also make better use of HIT. According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, fewer than 20% of doctors' surgeries in America use HIT. In contrast, according to Technopak, nearly 60% of Indian hospitals do so. And instead of grafting technology onto existing, inefficient processes, as often happens in America, Indian providers build their model around it. Apollo's integrated approach to HIT has enabled the chain to increase efficiency while cutting medical errors and labour. EHRs and drug records zip between hospitals, clinics and pharmacies, and its systems also handle patient registration and billing. Apollo is already selling its expertise to American hospitals.

Eye on the prize

A casual visitor to Madurai, a vibrant medieval-temple town in southern India, would not think it was a hotbed of innovation. And yet that is exactly what you will find at Aravind, the world's biggest eye-hospital chain, based in the town. There are perhaps 12m blind people in India, with most cases arising from treatable or preventable causes such as cataracts. Rather than rely on government handouts or charity, Aravind's founders use a tiered pricing structure that charges wealthier patients more (for example, for fancy meals or air-conditioned rooms), letting the firm cross-subsidise free care for the poorest.

The 25 Most Influential Business Management Books,
Time Magazine, August 2009

Aravind also benefits from its scale. Its staff screen over 2.7m patients a year via clinics in remote areas, referring 285,000 of them for surgery at its hospitals. International experts vouch that the care is good, not least because Aravind's doctors perform so many more operations than they would in the West that they become expert. Furthermore, the staff are rotated to deal with both paying and non-paying patients so there is no difference in quality. Monitor's new report argues that Aravind's model does not just depend on pricing, scale, technology or process, but on a clever combination of all of them.

C.K. Prahalad and other management gurus trumpet examples like Aravind, but do the rich countries accept that they could learn from India? Unsurprisingly, some reject the notion that America's model is broken. William Tauzin, head of America's pharmaceutical lobby, warns that regulatory efforts to cut costs could stifle life-saving innovation. Sandra Peterson of Bayer, a German drugs and devices giant, stoutly defends the industry's record. She argues that overall cost increases mask how medical devices, “like cars or personal computers, give better value for the money over time.” Diabetes monitors and pacemakers have improved dramatically in the past 20 years and have fallen in price—but costs have gone up because they are now being used by more patients.

But those examples are exceptions. Many studies show that America's spending on health care is soaring, yet its medical outcomes remain mediocre. Mark McClellen of the Brookings Institution, an American think-tank, says that a big problem is the overuse of technology. Whether or not a scan is needed, the system usually pays if a doctor orders it—and the scan might help defend the doctor against a malpractice claim. “The root cause is not greed, but tremendous technological progress imposed upon a fractured health system,” says Thomas Lee of Partners Community HealthCare, a health provider in Boston.

Dr McClellen, a former head of America's Food and Drug Administration, points out that other innovative industries often sell new products at a loss, and recoup their investments later. In genuinely competitive industries, innovators are rarely rewarded with the “cost plus” reimbursements demanded by medical-device makers for their gold-plated gizmos.

That is why Stanford's Dr Yock wants to turn innovation upside down. He has extended his bio-design programme to India, in part to instil an understanding of the benefits of frugality in his students. He believes that India's combination of poverty and outstanding medical and engineering talents will produce a world-class medical-devices industry. Tim Brown, the head of Ideo, a design consultancy, agrees. In the past, he notes, health bosses thought all devices had to be Rolls-Royces or Ferraris. But cost matters, too. Pointing to another recent example of India's frugal engineering, he says: “In health care, as in life, there is need for both Ferraris and Tata Nanos.”

How the Genius Thinks

I thought this article important because it encourages me and many others who seek creative solutions to their area of interest and passion. I have many areas of interest but whether I'm creative or not I don't know. But what I do know is that I look at things very differently from what most people do whom I listen to or read. And according to Michalko a person doesn't have to be smart or a genius to be effective in his or her field of contribution. Why? Because apparently being smart or a genius doesn't necessary mean that your creative. A creative person has skills others do not. However, what creative people do have to do is to share their ideas and opinions with others so that they might understand what you are trying to say and recognize its value as being helpful within that area of your concern and insight. The value of community lies in its give-and-take in the sharing of information and ideas. Some of which may be helpful. Some of which may not be... or may be too far ahead to be readily understood or grasped by those around you.

So to anyone who might need a little encouragement and may feel that they are not "smart enough" my prayer for you is to keep at what you are doing and don't give up. Stay with it and continue applying your talent for creative thinking in those areas that you think you have answers. And learn to listen and to present you ideas to those who might appreciate them. (By the way, Richard Feynman was a quantum physicist who came up with all kinds of unique solutions and ways to think about particle physics. He was also a very effective communicator.)

R.E. Slater

May 31, 2012



How the Genius Thinks
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/31/how-the-genius-thinks/#more-27919

by Scot McKnight

May 31, 2012

Comments

From Michael Michalko:

How do geniuses come up with ideas? What is common to the thinking style that produced “Mona Lisa,” as well as the one that spawned the theory of relativity? What characterizes the thinking strategies of the Einsteins, Edisons, daVincis, Darwins, Picassos, Michelangelos, Galileos, Freuds, and Mozarts of history? What can we learn from them?

For years, scholars and researchers have tried to study genius by giving its vital statistics, as if piles of data somehow illuminated genius. In his 1904 study of genius, Havelock Ellis noted that most geniuses are fathered by men older than 30; had mothers younger than 25 and were usually sickly as children. Other scholars reported that many were celibate (Descartes), others were fatherless (Dickens) or motherless (Darwin). In the end, the piles of data illuminated nothing.

Academics also tried to measure the links between intelligence and genius. But intelligence is not enough. Marilyn vos Savant, whose IQ of 228 is the highest ever recorded, has not exactly contributed much to science or art. She is, instead, a question-and-answer columnist for Parade magazine. Run-of-the-mill physicists have IQs much higher than Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman, who many acknowledge to be the last great American genius (his IQ was a merely respectable 122).

Genius is not about scoring 1600 on the SATs, mastering fourteen languages at the age of seven, finishing Mensa exercises in record time, having an extraordinarily high I.Q., or even about being smart. After considerable debate initiated by J. P. Guilford, a leading psychologist who called for a scientific focus on creativity in the sixties, psychologists reached the conclusion that creativity is not the same as intelligence. An individual can be far more creative than he or she is intelligent, or far more intelligent than creative….

1. They look at problems in many different ways.

2. They make their thoughts visible.

3. Geniuses produce.

4. They make novel combinations.

5. They force relationships of things.

6. They think in opposites.

7. They think metaphorically.

8. They prepare themselves for chance.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 http://www.ssireview.org/

"Without creativity we are not just condemned to a life of repetition,

but to a life that slips backwards."

The following is an excerpt from the book...

By Tina Seelig

inGenius: A Crash Course on Creativity

Tina Seelig

216 pages, HarperOne, 2012

Buy the book »

Provocative. Just one word . . . provocative.

Until recently, prospective students at All Soul’s College, at Oxford University, took a “one-word exam.” The Essay, as it was called, was both anticipated and feared by applicants. They each flipped over a piece of paper at the same time to reveal a single word. The word might have been “innocence” or “miracles” or “water” or “provocative.” Their challenge was to craft an essay in three hours inspired by that single word.

There were no right answers to this exam. However, each applicant’s response provided insights into the student’s wealth of knowledge and ability to generate creative connections. The New York Times quotes one Oxford professor as saying, “The unveiling of the word was once an event of such excitement that even nonapplicants reportedly gathered outside the college each year, waiting for news to waft out.” This challenge reinforces the fact that everything—every single word—provides an opportunity to leverage what you know to stretch your imagination.

For so many of us, this type of creativity hasn’t been fostered. We don’t look at everything in our environment as an opportunity for ingenuity. In fact, creativity should be an imperative. Creativity allows you to thrive in an ever changing world and unlocks a universe of possibilities. With enhanced creativity, instead of problems you see potential, instead of obstacles you see opportunities, and instead of challenges you see a chance to create breakthrough solutions. Look around and it becomes clear that the innovators among us are the ones succeeding in every arena, from science and technology to education and the arts. Nevertheless, creative problem solving is rarely taught in school, or even considered a skill you can learn.

Sadly, there is also a common and often-repeated saying, “Ideas are cheap.” This statement discounts the value of creativity and is utterly wrong. Ideas aren’t cheap at all—they’re free. And they’re amazingly valuable. Ideas lead to innovations that fuel the economies of the world, and they prevent our lives from becoming repetitive and stagnant. They are the cranes that pull us out of well-worn ruts and put us on a path toward progress. Without creativity we are not just condemned to a life of repetition, but to a life that slips backward. In fact, the biggest failures of our lives are not those of execution, but failures of imagination. As the renowned American inventor Alan Kay famously said, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.” We are all inventors of our own future. And creativity is at the heart of invention.

As demonstrated so beautifully by the “one-word exam,” every utterance, every object, every decision, and every action is an opportunity for creativity. This challenge, one of many tests given over several days at All Soul’s College, has been called the hardest exam in the world. It required both a breadth of knowledge and a healthy dose of imagination. Matthew Edward Harris, who took the exam in 2007, was assigned the word “harmony.” He wrote in the Daily Telegraph that he felt “like a chef rummaging through the recesses of his refrigerator for unlikely soup ingredients.” This homey simile is a wonderful reminder that these are skills that we have an opportunity to call upon every day as we face challenges as simple as making soup and as monumental as solving the massive problems that face the world.

I teach a course on creativity and innovation at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, affectionately called the “d.school,” at Stanford University. This complements my full-time job as Executive Director of the Stanford Technology Ventures Program (STVP), in the Stanford School of Engineering. At STVP our mission is to provide students in all fields with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to seize opportunities and creatively solve major world problems.

On the first day of class, we start with a very simple challenge: redesigning a name tag. I tell the students that I don’t like name tags at all. The text is too small to read. They don’t include the information I want to know. And they’re often hanging around the wearer’s belt buckle, which is really awkward. The students laugh when they realize that they too have been frustrated by the same problems.

Within fifteen minutes the class has replaced the name tags hanging around their necks with beautifully decorated pieces of paper with their names in large text. And the new name tags are pinned neatly to their shirts. They’re pleased they have successfully solved the problem and are ready to go on to the next one. But I have something else in mind. . . . I collect all of the new name tags and put them in the shredder. The students look at me as though I’ve gone nuts!

I then ask, “Why do we use name tags at all?” At first, the students think that this is a preposterous question. Isn’t the answer obvious? Of course, we use name tags so that others can see our name. They quickly realize, however, that they’ve never thought about this question. After a short discussion, the students acknowledge that name tags serve a sophisticated set of functions, including stimulating conversations between people who don’t know each other, helping to avoid the embarrassment of forgetting someone’s name, and allowing you to quickly learn about the person with whom you are talking.

With this expanded appreciation for the role of a name tag, students interview one another to learn how they want to engage with new people and how they want others to engage with them. These interviews provide fresh insights that lead them to create inventive new solutions that push beyond the limitations of a traditional name tag.

One team broke free from the size constraints of a tiny name tag and designed custom T-shirts with a mix of information about the wearer in both words and pictures. Featured were the places they had lived, the sports they played, their favorite music, and members of their families. They vastly expanded the concept of a “name tag.” Instead of wearing a tiny tag on their shirts, each shirt literally became a name tag, offering lots of topics to explore.

Another team realized that when you meet someone new, it would be helpful to have relevant information about that person fed to you on an as-needed basis to help keep the conversation going and to avoid embarrassing silences. They mocked up an earpiece that whispers information about the person with whom you are talking. It discreetly reveals helpful facts, such as how to pronounce the person’s name, his or her place of employment, and the names of mutual friends.

Yet another team realized that in order to facilitate meaningful connections between people, it is often more important to know how the other person is feeling than it is to know a collection of facts about them. They designed a set of colored bracelets, each of which denotes a different mood. For example, a green ribbon means that you feel cheerful, a blue ribbon that you are melancholy, a red ribbon that you’re stressed, and a purple ribbon that you feel fortunate. By combining the different colored ribbons, a wide range of emotions can be quickly communicated to others, facilitating a more meaningful first connection.

This assignment is designed to demonstrate an important point: there are opportunities for creative problem solving everywhere. Anything in the world can inspire ingenious ideas—even a simple name tag. Take a look around your office, your classroom, your bedroom, or your backyard. Everything you see is ripe for innovation.

Adapted from INGENIUS by Tina Seelig, Ph.D. Copyright © 2012 by Tina L. Seelig. Used with permission of HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers.

Tina Seelig is the author of What I Wish I Knew When I Was 20 and inGenius: A Crash Course in Creativity. She has a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Stanford, serves as the Executive Director of the Stanford Technology Ventures Program, and teaches a course in the Department of Management Science & Engineering on Creativity and Innovation.