Great read, as always - thanks. I was especially interested in the element that addressed the relationship between walking and creative thinking. I'm delighted that you brought clarity and realism to the study's claims. For me, there are two fundamental flaws in the study.
First, for far too long, creativity scholars have extrapolated from divergent thinking tests to draw conclusions about creativity and creative thinking. Divergent thinking is one tiny part of creativity, and an only slightly larger part of creative thinking. And the tests themselves are of dubious merit. I believe it was Mark Runco who said we might be better off without them.
Second, the study authors have used what is effectively Stein's standard definition of creativity (https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092), which includes the two qualifications, novel and useful. This definition has been widely accepted within the field. Yet, the two qualifications have no place in the authentic definition of creativity, which is simply the act of bringing something into existence. They seem to have appeared quietly in the 19th century when scholars were exploring the nature of genius, and have made themselves comfortable ever since. Worse, they have been used to exclude outputs that would otherwise be considered creative (https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.137).
I believe the world would be a better place if we ditched divergent thinking tests and democratised creativity.
Thank you, Alisdair. This is such a valuable comment.
Your point about divergent thinking is especially important. I tried to be careful in the article not to present the study as showing that walking “makes people more creative” in any broad sense, but your comment takes that caution further. A divergent-thinking task is not the same thing as creativity, and it’s certainly not the same thing as creative achievement and creative practice.
I love your phrase “democratised creativity.” That offers a much richer direction for thinking about creativity than reducing it to performance on a lab task.
The connection between walking and ideas - that's been mine since childhood. In school, in college, in university - I always learned on the move. Walking around the room, talking through the material out loud, and that's when things actually settled in. Not just memorized - understood more deeply. And even now, 17 years after graduating, whenever I'm taking new courses, the same thing. Walking still works best. For a long time, I thought it was just a habit. Turns out there's a mechanism behind it.
I love that you discovered for yourself, long before reading about any research, that walking helped ideas and understanding take shape.
What’s especially interesting is that you weren’t simply walking. You were also speaking the material aloud and actively working through it, rather than trying to absorb it passively. The study I discussed looked specifically at generating ideas, so it doesn’t fully explain your experience, but your lifelong habit is a wonderful example of how thinking and movement can become closely connected.
Great read, as always - thanks. I was especially interested in the element that addressed the relationship between walking and creative thinking. I'm delighted that you brought clarity and realism to the study's claims. For me, there are two fundamental flaws in the study.
First, for far too long, creativity scholars have extrapolated from divergent thinking tests to draw conclusions about creativity and creative thinking. Divergent thinking is one tiny part of creativity, and an only slightly larger part of creative thinking. And the tests themselves are of dubious merit. I believe it was Mark Runco who said we might be better off without them.
Second, the study authors have used what is effectively Stein's standard definition of creativity (https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092), which includes the two qualifications, novel and useful. This definition has been widely accepted within the field. Yet, the two qualifications have no place in the authentic definition of creativity, which is simply the act of bringing something into existence. They seem to have appeared quietly in the 19th century when scholars were exploring the nature of genius, and have made themselves comfortable ever since. Worse, they have been used to exclude outputs that would otherwise be considered creative (https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.137).
I believe the world would be a better place if we ditched divergent thinking tests and democratised creativity.
Thank you, Alisdair. This is such a valuable comment.
Your point about divergent thinking is especially important. I tried to be careful in the article not to present the study as showing that walking “makes people more creative” in any broad sense, but your comment takes that caution further. A divergent-thinking task is not the same thing as creativity, and it’s certainly not the same thing as creative achievement and creative practice.
I love your phrase “democratised creativity.” That offers a much richer direction for thinking about creativity than reducing it to performance on a lab task.
Quite a lot of food for thought - I would go out and take a walk right now if it wasn't so late at night :) Jokes apart, an excellent read!
Thanks Sonia, much appreciated.
The connection between walking and ideas - that's been mine since childhood. In school, in college, in university - I always learned on the move. Walking around the room, talking through the material out loud, and that's when things actually settled in. Not just memorized - understood more deeply. And even now, 17 years after graduating, whenever I'm taking new courses, the same thing. Walking still works best. For a long time, I thought it was just a habit. Turns out there's a mechanism behind it.
I love that you discovered for yourself, long before reading about any research, that walking helped ideas and understanding take shape.
What’s especially interesting is that you weren’t simply walking. You were also speaking the material aloud and actively working through it, rather than trying to absorb it passively. The study I discussed looked specifically at generating ideas, so it doesn’t fully explain your experience, but your lifelong habit is a wonderful example of how thinking and movement can become closely connected.
An absolute bullseye.Action always shatters the paralysis!