Inside the Box 创造力真的受欢迎吗

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.

在美国，我们从小就被教导要赞赏发明家和思想家们的成就——这些具有创造力的人物的想法改变了我们的世界。从梵高到史蒂夫·乔布斯，我们赞颂这些以想象力著称的最伟大的艺术家和创新者们。以创新的眼光来审视世界通常被视为一个优点，甚至是一种美德。网上的招聘版块到处是招募“有创意的人”和“具有创造力的”思想者的广告。我们所受的教育认为，我们自己的创造力也会得到赞赏，而且如果我们有好主意，我们就会取得成功。

这全是谎言。关于创造力，很少有人承认这一点：大多数人其实并不喜欢创造力。研究证实了很多具有创造力的人物一直都认为的一点：人们对创新思维持有偏见，尽管他们坚持相反的说法。

“我们将具有创造力的人物视为英雄并赞美他们，但我们赞美的其实是创造的结果。”加州大学伯克利分校商学院专门研究创造力的研究员巴里·斯托说。

斯托称大多数人都会规避风险，他把这些人称为满足他人者。“就像在西方文化中我们极力赞美独立那样，人们也要承受极大的从众压力。”他说。满足他人者会避免惹麻烦，即便这意味着放弃真理或拒绝一个好主意。

宾夕法尼亚大学2011年的一项研究表明，即便是那些自称在寻找创造力的人对创意的反应也是消极的。不确定性是新想法所固有的一部分，也是大多数人几乎竭尽全力去避免的东西。人们对确定性的偏好使他们对创意产生偏见，甚至会影响他们辨识创意的能力。

我的一位挚友在一家新创办的小公司上班。她是一个极富创造力和聪明才智的人，属于人群中喜欢冒险的那一类。虽然当初公司是由于她具备解决问题的能力而聘用她的，但她却常常无法解决实际问题，因为没人愿意听她的意见。“我甚至会说：‘我来做这项工作。只要批准我做，我会独立完成，”她说，“但他们不批准，所以这个系统依然效率不高。”

在纪录片《九月刊》中，安娜·温特全然拒绝其创意总监格蕾斯·柯丁顿的主意。她这么做除了体现自己的权力外似乎没什么别的理由。

对一个有创造力的人而言，这是一种司空见惯又常常令人恼怒的经历。即便是在人们认为具有创造性的环境里——在广告公司的创意部门和杂志的编辑会议上——我都看到过那些有着最有趣的想法、最具创造性思维的人受到忽视或嘲笑，而得到欣赏的是那些重复既定解决方案的人。

“如果某样东西真的很棒，那就没人喜欢它。”散文家兼艺术批评家戴夫·希基说。希基以对艺术界——尤其是对艺术教育——的尖刻批评而著称。他认为艺术教育对好的想法有着系统化的排斥，这使得平庸变得制度化。艺术正在经历希基所称的一个“愚蠢的阶段”。

实际上，和我交谈过的每个人都同意一种观点：相对于绝妙的主意，循规蹈矩的主意被人们接受的可能性要大得多。

斯托曾应邀为1995年出版的一本关于企业界创造力的书撰稿。由于受够了他所见到的那些虚伪假象，他将自己写的那一章命名为“为什么没人真的想要创造力”。该章节内容控诉了我们的文化对待新想法和具有创造力的人物的方式。

“在决策风格方面，大多数人达不到具备创造力的理想状态……除非他们要对自己的决策策略负责。他们倾向于找到简单的解决方式：要么不进行十分审慎的思考，要么根据将要评估他们的人的喜好来模式化地做出选择。”

不幸的是，我们最初的创意被埋葬的地方正是本该对创意敞开怀抱的地方——学校。研究表明，老师严重歧视具有创造力的学生，却喜欢那些属于满足他人者的同学——他们更愿意听从指示并遵照执行。

即便孩子们有幸遇到了一位乐于接受其想法的老师，但像标准化测试、“不让一个孩子落后”以及“力争上游”（该计划的名字本身就体现了对非线性创造性思维的反对）这样的计划也会确保他们的思维不偏离“正”轨。具有讽刺意味的是，即便学校教给了孩子们世界上最具创新性的头脑所取得的成就，孩子们自己的创造力却正在被扼杀。

承受这种消极性并不容易，而且就像身上的伤口会带来痛楚，社会排斥也会让人痛苦。但在这所有的排斥中仍存在一缕希望。康奈尔大学的一项研究认为，对创新过程而言，社会排斥其实并不是件坏事，甚至还能促进这个过程。该研究表明，如果你私下怀疑自己可能不合群，那你遭到排斥的情况则证实了你的解释。这种效果可以让具有创造力的人物从融入他人的需求中解脱出来，并让他们能追求自己的爱好。

或许对某些人来说，遭到排斥的痛苦就像马拉松训练所带来的痛苦——训练思想的耐力。研究表明，你将需要这种耐力。真正的创意需要很长时间才能被人们接受。想法越好，所需的时间就越长。就算是诺贝尔奖得主的工作往往也在很长一段时期内遭到同行的排斥。

大多数人认为，那些以具有创造力著称的人的过人之处是其韧性。虽然创造力有时会带来丰厚的回报，但其却与幸福无关。斯托说一个成功的、具有创造力的人是“能够承受从众压力并无视社会压力的人”。

富有创意地活着是一种选择。你必须致力于打造自己的思想，为可能会得不到认可做出牺牲。你必须放弃取悦他人，甚至往往要放弃取悦自己。

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

2. risk-averse：规避风险的

3. partiality [?pɑ?（r）?i??l?ti] n. 偏爱

4. The September Issue：《九月刊》，一部记录《时尚》（Vogue）杂志2007年9月刊出版全过程的纪录片

5. Anna Wintour：安娜·温特（1949～），《时尚》（Vogue）杂志美国版的主编

6. Grace Coddington：格蕾丝·柯丁顿（1941～），《时尚》（Vogue）杂志美国版的创意总监

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

8. mediocrity [?mi?di??kr?ti] n. 平庸

9. fall short of：达不到；不符合

10. squelch [skwelt?] vt. 压制；遏制

11. sneaking [?sni?k??] adj. 潜在萦绕的；暗自的

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