Why Is Man Creative?

[Seil]

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1991/ch910303.gif

So I was talking with me Bio prof. about kissing (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=37232) last February, and she talked about the evolutionary benefits of certain behaviors. For instance, we groom ourselves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ruDo5nxIuk&playnext_from=TL&videos=mV0uGHi8S9U) to keep away small pests and the diseases they could carry. We fight for resources. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=706)

A lot of things can be credited to evolution - why we do this, why we do that... But why are we creative? Why do we write poetry, sing songs or paint paintings? What evolutionary benefit does this serve? Why do we do it?

[Sithdarth]

Tools. At some point evolution stumbled onto the fact that a mind that can create things is infinitely more versatile than even the best most adaptable body. A mind that can make tools can overcome just about anything given the time to invent and generally much more quickly than physical evolution. The ability to think more and more abstractly and thus devise more and more complex tools is a giant evolutionary advantage. Everything that we do that is creative is in some way at its base a tool. Language and art are meant to convey meaning and keep records for example. They are social tools. Oh and we aren't the only creative ones just the best at it.

[POS Industries]

Really, any given episode of According To Jim potentially shatters the idea that mankind is inherently creative.

But all kidding aside (OR WAS I?), such endeavors arguably aren't exclusive to our species, though it may still be mainly a primate thing. (http://www.koko.org/world/art_portraits.html)

EDIT: Because of tools, yep. There we go. Thank you, Sith.

[mauve]

One might argue that our need to be creative and express ourselves evolved as a way to reduce stress and solve more complex problems we might face. One might also suggest it is a biproduct of our species evolving more advanced brains.

Humans aren't the only species to exhibit creativity, although this can be contested based upon your definition of "creativity." True, we may be the only species to create art and music (I'm not counting zoo animals that people teach how to "paint"), but more intelligent animals have demonstrated very clever ways of solving problems that aren't directly related to evolution. Take the example of the crows in Japan who learned to drop nuts into crosswalks to let passing cars crack the shells. The nuts aren't their only food source-- finding ways to crack them open wasn't something they needed to do to survive. Extra freaky: Look at the example of the aquarium dolphins who taught themselves to blow bubble rings. They serve no real purpose: the dolphins blow the bubbles and then push them around with their noses for no reason other than entertaining themselves.

[POS Industries]

(I'm not counting zoo animals that people teach how to "paint")
Let's not kid ourselves here. You could put up a painting by Koko the Gorilla in the middle of a Jackson Pollock exhibit and no one would be the wiser.

[Seil]

Let's not kid ourselves here. You could put up a painting by Koko the Gorilla in the middle of a Jackson Pollock exhibit and no one would be the wiser.

There was a quote by someone - I'm not sure who - about perspective; they said that "If I showed you a rather rudimentary picture, you might say that it was total garbage. However, if I told you that the picture was done by a chimpanzee, you'd say 'Oh - well in that case, it's rather good for a chimpanzee.'"

[POS Industries]

As someone who's dabbled in abstract expressionism myself, I wouldn't exactly call the style "garbage," really.

And both Pollock and Koko were definitely better at it than I was.

[Fifthfiend]

Why Is Man Creative?

So that man's work can be hotlinked on web forums in illegibly tiny resolution.

[Geminex]

Tools. At some point evolution stumbled onto the fact that a mind that can create things is infinitely more versatile than even the best most adaptable body. A mind that can make tools can overcome just about anything given the time to invent and generally much more quickly than physical evolution. The ability to think more and more abstractly and thus devise more and more complex tools is a giant evolutionary advantage. Everything that we do that is creative is in some way at its base a tool. Language and art are meant to convey meaning and keep records for example. They are social tools. Oh and we aren't the only creative ones just the best at it.

This is interesting... but how would you define "creative" in the first place? Because what you're describing here is the result of us evolving larger, more intelligent brains. And while it makes sense that the ability to recognize patterns would develop in parallel to the ability to replicate those patterns, the fact that the most intelligent members of human society aren't always hugely creative, and vice versa, doesn't really support that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The actual problem is that we developed these huge brains before we started exploiting tool use heavily and before they were seemingly useful.

[Geminex]

Well, when Sith said "tools" he didn't just include tie-a-rock-to-a-stick style contraptions, he also mentioned Language and art
Unless my bio teacher was bullshitting, evoluion of our large brains was largely driven by a need to interact and communicate with our tribes. The ability to build axes, make fire and gradually destroy our environment with one, the other, or both was just a fun extra.

[greed]

Take the example of the crows in Japan who learned to drop nuts into crosswalks to let passing cars crack the shells. The nuts aren't their only food source-- finding ways to crack them open wasn't something they needed to do to survive.

I once saw a crow lever some food out of a crack in a tree trunk it couldn't reach with it's beak using a stick. The scary part? After the stick didn't work by itself, it placed a pebble underneath to use as a fulcrum. That worked. I've also seen them dunk corn chips in water to make them soft enough to eat. And apparently the ones in Queensland Australia have figured out that the eyes of cane toads aren't poisonous, so they eat the eyes and leave the rest alone. Those things are smart.

People like to talk about how smart parrots are, but crows are pretty scary when it comes to logic.

[Toast]

This is interesting... but how would you define "creative" in the first place? ... the fact that the most intelligent members of human society aren't always hugely creative, and vice versa, doesn't really support that.

Whether people are always hugely creative or not really does hinge on the definition of creativity you're using. If your definition of creative has to include a product (a physical object that is created) then you're probably right. If that product then has to have an impact and be widely recognized within its domain (genre) then you're even more right. That's a very narrow way to view creativity, although it apparently is a very common theoretical view.

If creativity is a process of building new information out of known facts and observations, then we're doing it all the time. Of course, that can readily be argued to be too broad a definition as well.


One might argue that our need to be creative and express ourselves evolved as a way to reduce stress and solve more complex problems we might face. One might also suggest it is a biproduct of our species evolving more advanced brains.


I think this is the most likely reason why creativity developed. Could you imagine how utterly boring the world would be without fiction? I've always thought that man's first dabbling with spirituality was just fiction that caught on.

[Sithdarth]

The actual problem is that we developed these huge brains before we started exploiting tool use heavily and before they were seemingly useful.

Yeah see you've fallen for the same fallacy almost all of us fall for. Size is almost entirely unimportant in terms of capability. I mean yeah sure bigger helps but true brain power comes from structure. For example, even bees have a bullshit detector. This scientist did an experiment where he took bees out in a boat with pollen in it and when they went back to the hive and told the other bees there was food in the middle of a lake not a single one believed it. There was a parrot that could do math. There are several species that can recognize themselves in a mirror. There are monkeys that can use currency and other monkeys that can tell the difference between a picture of an apple and an apple instantly from a distant. (That last one even human babies have trouble with for awhile.)

Our brain might have been big but it wasn't wired for the kind of abstract creative thinking we do now until tool use became an integral part of our survival. That is when we moved onto the plains, started walking on two legs, and started stealing meat from predators. Our hands where free all the time to hold and make better tools and we needed better organization just to stay alive in the open. Thus those of us with brains wired for more and more creativity survived. Plus the extra energy from the meat really helped power a more active brain. Which is why we beat out some of the other early plains primates that were largely vegetarian but otherwise quite like us.

As for modern humans; everyone is creative in the sense that everyone can think of abstract things that don't exist. (Except maybe those with Autism.) Some people are just better at it than others. Of course even back when we first developed creativity there must have been people much better at it than other people. The only difference is back then they had a better chance of living and producing offspring than the less creative and now that isn't really a problem. Evolutionarily speaking people with very little creativity aren't as well adapted for survival. (Which would probably include me as I am no artist. Although I can be creative with problem solving so who knows.)

[BitVyper]

Yeah see you've fallen for the same fallacy almost all of us fall for.

To be fair, I think he meant size figuratively. It's just easier to refer to our "giant brains." Also our brains definitely are a lot larger than those of our ancestor species. Not the point, I know, but I'm just sayin.

Our brain might have been big but it wasn't wired for the kind of abstract creative thinking we do now until tool use became an integral part of our survival.

Out of curiousity, when would you say that was? I mean, I'd say it seems like it was pretty important before Homo Sapiens was even a thing. Homo Ergaster (sp?) had Acheulian tools, which take a fair bit more thought than what came before. It's still not super-complex, but it shows refinement already, and makes it more likely that tools were being carried around for everyday use, since you couldn't just make them on the spot.

[Sithdarth]

I'm not sure anyone knows exactly when it happened. I'm relatively sure that it was probably when the climate changed and we moved onto the plains at least. That's when we had to go upright and when we had to significantly change how we survived. It seems like a good bet for when tools became really integral to survival.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

No they had a pretty good idea when it happened and it was well before it was needed.
The leading idea was that climate change was one of the key factors in seperating the species in that those with more creative potential started to survive because they needed it. Brain varation happened before this though.
While the climate change was probably the selector there is a struggle to explain why some variations of humans created such massive brains before they were needed (and in this case, size actually is a reasonably indicator of complexity- somewhat total size but more importantly number of connections) as there was vastly more energy needed to create them.
Well this is me takig it on faifth from a guy I met at a conference but he was a leadign theoretical biologist so I trust that he knew what was he talking about.

[POS Industries]

As for modern humans; everyone is creative in the sense that everyone can think of abstract things that don't exist. (Except maybe those with Autism.)
Might depend on how severe a case of autism we're talking about.

[Sithdarth]

(and in this case, size actually is a reasonably indicator of complexity- somewhat total size but more importantly number of connections) as there was vastly more energy needed to create them.

Exactly how did they manage to determine connections from bone records? I know you can make a reasonable guess based on size and how the brain folds, i.e. the wrinkles we have on our brains. However, I was under the impression significantly wrinkled brains didn't show up until after we where out on the plains. At the very least Dolphins and Chimps also have crazy wrinkly brains in their own right. Large wrinkly brains are a good indicator that something is smart but you can't really tell how smart just from that. You need actual behavioral evidence.

Further, I would posit that tool use started as an enhancement to survival. Thus even when we were still in the trees the smartest ones survived the best. Everyone else survived too but not as well. More intelligence is always better for survival even if you aren't making stone axes yet. Then later a true brain explosion occurred when being smart wasn't just a matter of surviving better but surviving at all.

[CelesJessa]

I'm just going with "art" because "creativity" is too obscure (because then you're bringing in things like creative problem solving, etc).

As far as art is concerned, it originally came about as a method of record keeping, I believe. Before written language, things such as cave paintings were used to chronicle things (and they tell us a lot about prehistoric cultures.) In languages like Chinese, those pictures eventually turned into their written language.

Because people back then were hunters and gatherers and would be traveling a lot, the oldest art was very large in size and left in the places so I imagine one could say that it was kind of a way to mark our territory, or at least to say that we had been there. Later cultures that were more permanently settled would make art that was more functional (like pottery). And a lot of art was made as deity worship.

(Yay art history?)

[Wigmund]

Mankind is creative as an elaborate natural defense for Earth-based lifeforms as a ruse so that when the advanced alien races come to judge us we'll be saved by the defense of "But they have art". And then when they least expect it, we'll slaughter them all because we're vicious bastards...just like chimpanzees and dolphins.

That's why the dinosaurs died out - they didn't have some kinda art so when the aliens came they were judged unworthy and received an asteroid to the face.

[Hanuman]

A truly brilliant invention is one that transcends your ability to imagine it, thus being creative allows you to invent the absurd without being limited to having it be useful in the way that it re-defines usefulness post-creation.

[Krylo]

You guys are putting way too much thought into this.

Man is creative 'cause chicks dig poetry.

[bluestarultor]

http://i43.tinypic.com/25p7ci9.png

[Fifthfiend]

New topic: Why is that stick-dude's dick coming out of his stomach

[bluestarultor]

New topic: Why is that stick-dude's dick coming out of his stomach

It's a boob and an arm. A rather short arm, but fuck if I was going to spend time fixing it for a one-shot joke that I'm surprised the Tinypic mods haven't removed yet.

[Fifthfiend]

But it already has two arms coming out of its head. That thing in the middle is clearly a dick.

[bluestarultor]

But it already has two arms coming out of its head. That thing in the middle is clearly a dick.

No, that's her hair, which I also couldn't be arsed to fix with a third strand.

Get with the program! :p



Edit: I should mention I'm working with a touchpad, so the fact that it turned out as well as it did is pretty amazing given my already-terrible art skills.

Edit again: and the one arm is holding a club.

[Wigmund]

Is the red guy wielding a club? Cave man S&M?

[Fifthfiend]

No, that's her hair, which I also couldn't be arsed to fix with a third strand.

You can come up with excuses all day for why that isn't a man with one freakishly long arm standing behind some sort of horrifying prehistoric creature with a dick hanging off its stomach and its arms coming out of its head, but at the end of the day, it's still a man with one freakishly long arm standing behind some sort of horrifying prehistoric creature with a dick hanging off its stomach and its arms coming out of its head.

[katiuska]

Extra freaky: Look at the example of the aquarium dolphins who taught themselves to blow bubble rings. They serve no real purpose: the dolphins blow the bubbles and then push them around with their noses for no reason other than entertaining themselves.

Dolphins also have pretty advanced communication; for example, they've found that if you bring a dolphin out, teach it a puzzle, send it back, and bring in a second dolphin later on, the second dolphin will usually know the answer right away.

My only question is why dolphins feel that stuff is relevant to share in the first place.

Also, dolphins have names! I found that out recently. A lot of things we think of as specific to humans have analogs in other species, though they don't demonstrate them to the same degree.

Exactly how did they manage to determine connections from bone records? I know you can make a reasonable guess based on size and how the brain folds, i.e. the wrinkles we have on our brains. However, I was under the impression significantly wrinkled brains didn't show up until after we where out on the plains. At the very least Dolphins and Chimps also have crazy wrinkly brains in their own right. Large wrinkly brains are a good indicator that something is smart but you can't really tell how smart just from that. You need actual behavioral evidence.

Further, I would posit that tool use started as an enhancement to survival. Thus even when we were still in the trees the smartest ones survived the best. Everyone else survived too but not as well. More intelligence is always better for survival even if you aren't making stone axes yet. Then later a true brain explosion occurred when being smart wasn't just a matter of surviving better but surviving at all.

Well, important to tools themselves is the ability to use them, mentally and physically. Simians sort of lucked out, in that they had the capacity to manipulate the environment to a large degree and the capacity to take advantage of it. Other animals may be smart, but it's hard to accomplish what we have without grasping hands.

Anyway, as far as artistic creativity goes, it most likely has roots in early communication; artistic endeavors are still arguably ultimately about communication and expression.

You guys are putting way too much thought into this.

Man is creative 'cause chicks dig poetry.

In all seriousness, "mate selection" is brought up as a possible origin of things like music, but I don't know how much support there is for that.

[CelesJessa]

You can come up with excuses all day for why that isn't a man with one freakishly long arm standing behind some sort of horrifying prehistoric creature with a dick hanging off its stomach and its arms coming out of its head, but at the end of the day, it's still a man with one freakishly long arm standing behind some sort of horrifying prehistoric creature with a dick hanging off its stomach and its arms coming out of its head.

Also I think that yellow thing is some other kind of prehistoric creature coming down to check out the action.

[POS Industries]

Also I think that yellow thing is some other kind of prehistoric creature coming down to check out the action.
It's clearly Hand Banana. (http://aqua-teen-hunger-force.wikia.com/wiki/Hand_Banana_%28episode%29)

[DFM]

I think it's further down the field, like we've got an isometric view of the ground and it's the next freaky stomach dick creature standing around waiting to get boned by the thing with the ten foot arm.

Edit: I think it has a tail and/or is pooping.

[bluestarultor]

Man, I didn't think people would be analyzing it that much. If I'd known, I'd have put more effort into it. XD

[Fifthfiend]

Also I think that yellow thing is some other kind of prehistoric creature coming down to check out the action.

It's a three-legged yellow Yeti.

And by three-legged I mean heh.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I sense some kind of racial message, the red man is dominanting the black man and will soon dominate the yellow man with no white man in site. Is this some kind of alternate history without European existence- showing the American indian ruling all- but a gentle giving love.

[Amake]

We are made to make something better than ourselves.

That's what I think.