How early awards and recognition can decrease inventors' creativity:
Post-it Notes, Spanx, the iPhone, two-day Prime shipping. From unique gadgets to revolutionary business ideas, the most successful inventions have one thing in common: creativity. But sustaining creativity can be difficult.
New research from Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, has identified one reason why some first-time producers struggle to repeat their initial creative productions while others go on to continually produce creative works.
[...] "In our study, we found that people who develop novel ideas and receive rewards for them start to see themselves primarily as a 'creative person,'" Baer said.
"This newfound identity, which is special and rare, is then in need of protection. Essentially, once a person is in the creative limelight, stepping out of it — by producing a novel idea that disappoints or pales in comparison to earlier work — is threatening and to be avoided. One way to do so is to stop producing altogether. You cannot compromise your identity and reputation when you do not produce anything new."
[...] "Harper Lee is a perfect example of this phenomenon," Baer said. "Her first book, 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' is one of the bestselling and most acclaimed American novels of all time. Yet she didn't publish again until 55 years later. And her second book, 'Go Set a Watchman,' written in the mid-1950s, is considered to be a first draft of her legendary one hit wonder."
[...] Previous research has focused on the benefits of awards, but Baer and Deichmann found that winning an award can, paradoxically, temper the creativity of producers because it introduces an extra layer of stress to the creative environment.
Journal Reference:
Dirk Deichmann and Markus Baer, A recipe for success? Sustaining creativity among first-time creative producers, J Appl Psychol, 2022. DOI: 10.1037/apl0001019
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2022, @12:30PM (3 children)
I've been a creative engineer all my life, with lots of little personal successes and a few problem solving inventions that were even useful to customers. I've also met some very successful inventors that started companies and made it big. As noted in tfs, these were one (or at most two) hit wonders--although they also remained creative in their personal lives.
Hitting the jackpot as an inventor seems to me to be just that, luck of the draw. Of course being in the right place at the right time with the right idea is a prerequisite--in other words you have to buy a ticket to even have a chance in the lottery.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Wednesday July 20 2022, @03:45PM (2 children)
Similar story here. I've had many friends and family say "you should be an inventor". What does that mean? Do you just announce that you're an inventor and poof, you're an inventor?
I know a very wealthy inventor. I just know him in a social group setting. I've never asked him his backstory, how it all came about, what his inventions are, etc. I should just ask him.
Part of the problem for me: what constitutes an "invention", versus just good old engineering not really worthy of a patent?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2022, @03:55PM
> ... announce that you're an inventor and poof, you're an inventor?
Dunno. Maybe it works by distance, like advanced degrees? I've got a bachelor's degree, but have good visibility in my niche. The few times I've given talks in other countries, the lecture organizers list me as having a doctorate.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday July 20 2022, @10:09PM
Yes, whenever I hear of someone whose profession is "inventor", I imagine someone who is unable to hold down any other sort of job.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kvutza on Wednesday July 20 2022, @12:53PM (3 children)
A lot of people continue creative work even after having success. Among writers, it was e.g. Isaac Asimov.
This post reminds me that it is quite reasonable to doubt work of psychologists.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday July 20 2022, @01:53PM (2 children)
So with the one-hit wonders, we need to keep in mind that the first work didn't create a long term system of creativity. Further hard work would need to happen.
(Score: 1) by kvutza on Wednesday July 20 2022, @03:08PM (1 child)
Yes, I agree: both that there are much more one-hitters than several-hitters, and that the big picture was missed by the study.
A thing is that even when you continue with one theme, you can still add a bunch of creativity. E.g. Asimov and Einstein added it even after they got their names known. Starting a completely new theme is another thing, and you can hardly expect it, regardless of what you do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Wednesday July 20 2022, @03:59PM
Asimov was a prolific writer. Great talent, usually benefits from success. As they are then able to capitalize on their success by continuing to do what interests them. In the event that someone wrote something and were successful. But, they weren't greatly interested in that thing to begin with. They will obviously try to capitalize on the success in ways that mean they do as little "creative" work as possible. Since, creativity requires more thought and risk.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 20 2022, @02:33PM (2 children)
Tell them they're worthless, unworthy of recognition, make 'em try harder - 'cause the article says to recognize their greatness puts them under pressure/stress to do better next time?
I think this varies, tremendously, with individual circumstances. Not only do some people "hit it big" with their best work and they really aren't capable of surpassing it (J.K. Rowling?), but with that success they also likely have less financial incentive to produce, more social distractions than when they were unknown, more pressure to conform to social expectations than when they were unknown, etc.
I did a little bit of writing for prize money about 10 years back. After about 10 submissions, one paid off with a $3000 award - at a time when we really could use the money, so that was nice. The one that "won" was, in my opinion, just about the most poorly written of all I submitted. I whipped it off on a laptop in bed between 9 and 11pm, one pass, barely proofread and submitted. Sometimes that "devil may care" aspect of a work is what gets it recognized. I got busy with a series of three new jobs in less than 2 years and never went back to the submissions, the payout was too random for me. It sounds all glamorous to receive $3000 for 2 hours' work, but most submissions I put more like 4-8 hours effort into and yielded zero reward, and for every topic I chose to work I probably reviewed 10 others for at least 5 minutes each on average, so... something on the order of 70 hours invested overall for that unpredictable $3000 payout. It was nice to finally get recognized for my efforts, even if it was a minimal effort work that got recognized, but it would have been extra disappointing to do 20 more submissions with no "wins."
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 21 2022, @04:54PM (1 child)
The really creative step would have been to exploit your success to attract a stable of Chinese students which you berate for lack of productivity as they churn out copy and you attend faculty luncheons to discuss Leadership and Vision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2022, @12:17AM
Looks like you didn't get the message? Outsourcing to China is so last year...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Wednesday July 20 2022, @02:57PM (4 children)
So I only have a single hit? So? What more do I need considering there is de-facto perpetual copyright?
I can milk that single success forever. Why bother working again if I can live off one single success?
"Love me do" was released in 1962. Even if both, Ringo and McCartney croak today, the song will enter public domain in 2092, 130 years after it was released.
If I had a hit like that, that could even still probably feed my grandchildren, why the hell would I even bother ever creating again, unless I really, really want to? There sure is no compelling reason for it aside of "I wanna".
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2022, @04:01PM (2 children)
I think your attitude is why you are not Paul or Ringo -- they both continue to create and record music, apparently because they love it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 21 2022, @05:34PM (1 child)
Except Ringo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2022, @12:24AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringo_Starr_discography [wikipedia.org]
Most recent album: What's My Name Release: 25 October 2019[
Most recent single: "Zoom In Zoom Out" 2021
A 2021 cover of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_You_Later,_Alligator [wikipedia.org]
Not huge hits, but he's still going. I'm not particularly a fan, but the guitar playing son of a friend has worked with Ringo in the last few years, so I hear some stories.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 20 2022, @09:58PM
>I only have a single hit? So? What more do I need considering there is de-facto perpetual copyright?
Promotion, distribution, marketing, tie ins, etc. When you're digitally published there will come the day when pirated versions of your work are as easy or easier to find than the ones readers pay for and you get a (small) cut of.
It's a highly developed system, and like so many others that involve fame, there's a pyramid. Everybody knows the pinnacle dwellers who make millions from their work every year without ever doing anything else. Then there are 10x as many who make good money, better than average office drone salary and benefits, then there are 100x as many who make less than office drone compensation for their creative works, and 1000x as many who barely got any compensation at all, ever.
Without playing patsy with the existing systems, you've got a snowball's chance in hell of reaching pinnacle compensation. They may pass you 10% or less of what people are paying them for your work, but they know how to pump up the volume such that you are still getting 10x more than you ever would without them, even if you retain 100% of income. You don't have the up front investment money, you don't have the promotion channel relationships - to get into those channels without their yoke on your neck will cost you more than 10x what it costs them.
The system truly is rigged. India used to be up front about castes, in the Western world today you're not bound to caste by birth, but rarely will you marry far from your "level" unless you are the one choosing to "go slumming." Rarely will you better your position by 100x or more - sure, there are pinnacle case examples in every generation, but with Billions of people on the planet, you've got better odds hitting a $100M lottery payout with a single $1 play, not to mention that many reaching the pinnacle were only starting a short distance below it.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday July 21 2022, @12:38PM
A far simpler, and more common, explanation, is that it's just plain ordinary regression to the mean. This has been widely studied, see for example the Sports Illustrated Cover Curse.