The Importance of Limitations for Creativity and Learning (2023)
Posted by andsoitis 17 hours ago
Comments
Comment by tholman 1 hour ago
Comment by jebarker 1 hour ago
Comment by evrydayhustling 17 minutes ago
Comment by skyberrys 13 hours ago
I asked her what she meant, and instead of telling me, she just laughed and said go ahead, remove the restrictions and see for myself.
She was right! Without the restrictions there were so many more possibilities I had to work much harder to complete the assignment. It was still fun though and I learned more than just the assignment from that lesson.
Comment by cowlevel 12 hours ago
And now I'm in the real world where you can do almost anything. It's not just software platforms that are the problem. Should I apply for jobs? Definitely. Which jobs? And what about the other paths? Should I also write some SaaS and hope I get acquihired? Which one? In which platform? Should I learn how government contracts work? Probably can't get one as an individual, but should I learn about them anyway? Should I pay the fees to found a company, even though it's just me and doesn't have a business plan, to look more legitimate to potential customers for the thing I don't even know yet?
Comment by andsoitis 2 hours ago
Check out the book Algorithms to Live By.
Comment by podocarp 1 hour ago
Comment by mettamage 4 hours ago
Comment by agentn7o2nh 12 hours ago
Comment by messe 6 hours ago
Comment by bmitc 4 hours ago
Comment by kstenerud 1 hour ago
I'm the exact opposite. I want the choices and possibilities so that I can run with them. When the space is limited, it can still be fun and interesting, but only until you've plumbed the depths and everything you do becomes derivative, repetitive, and boring.
Growing up, my favorite toy was a huge bucket filled with random lego pieces. Some were basic bricks, some were from the technical set, some were from themed sets (cars, space ships, etc). I'd spend hours coming up with new designs, the original box designs long forgotten.
Comment by lopsotronic 12 hours ago
Many lesser directors often end up with "lightning in a bottle" -- aka a film that far exceeds their normal ability -- because the common stress of the experience on direction, on production, on the talent made for a synthesis better than sum of its parts.
It doesn't always work that way, but when it does it's very striking.
Comment by chneu 16 hours ago
The "walls" are the rules and the task is to figure out how to succeed within those rules. Succeed is up to perspective in many instances.
This encourages creativity. It's why I love baseball, cuz the rules are constantly evolving as people game them. It's so joyful seeing people exploit the rules they agreed to play by.
Limits force us to think INSIDE the box. It's a lot of fun.
Communal boredom is also very important. Being bored with friends is an amazing launching pad for new ideas and thinking.
Comment by vigilantpuma 15 hours ago
Comment by foolswisdom 12 hours ago
Comment by mettamage 4 hours ago
Comment by andsoitis 15 hours ago
Some games approximate infinite play: Minecraft, Roblox, EVE Online, Second Life, Gary's Mode.
However, even they have technological, economic, and rule-based boundaries.
Comment by pnexk 6 hours ago
Comment by gverrilla 12 hours ago
Comment by RaffaelKuhn 1 hour ago
Comment by neronuser 5 hours ago
Comment by acbart 11 hours ago
Comment by dupsik 11 hours ago
I wonder why our own dreams are so fascinating, then.
Comment by rramadass 5 hours ago
Comment by Esophagus4 1 hour ago
Comment by txhwind 2 hours ago
Comment by elzbardico 1 hour ago
Now, compare it with my own situation living in a medium mountain city in Brazil. Whenever I wanted to read a book published in the US, I had to go to a physical book shop in a major city at least some 100 miles from my city, and pay for each book, at least twice (probably more) that now I pay a month for o'Reilly.
Of course I would read each book cover to cover, and come back to it multiple times, until I had to start doing things like taping the cover back to the book.
Comment by rramadass 9 hours ago
The analytical power should not be confounded with simple ingenuity; for while the analyst is necessarily ingenious, the ingenious man is often remarkably incapable of analysis. The constructive or combining power, by which ingenuity is usually manifested, and to which the phrenologists (I believe erroneously) have assigned a separate organ, supposing it a primitive faculty, has been so frequently seen in those whose intellect bordered otherwise upon idiocy, as to have attracted general observation among writers on morals. Between ingenuity and the analytic ability there exists a difference far greater, indeed, than that between the fancy and the imagination, but of a character very strictly analogous. It will be found, in fact, that the ingenious are always fanciful, and the truly imaginative never otherwise than analytic.
-- "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" by Edgar Allan Poe
Now apply the above to "complex" (eg. C++/Rust/etc.) vs. "simple" (eg. C/Scheme/etc.) languages. Note also the different mental modes between "constructing a program" (i.e. synthesis) vs. "debugging a program" (i.e. analysis).
The overall mental model/framework must be "simple" while its components (layered and treated as black-boxes) can be complex at a different layer (eg. DSLs) to which another simple model can be applied recursively. It is useless to focus on individual language features while it is all important to construct the larger paradigm/pattern/usage into which those same features can be grouped and thought of as a single unit. Always employ top-down and stepwise-refinement in thinking.
Comment by keenStone 8 hours ago
Comment by vconnor 7 hours ago
“I’m staring at my agent’s prompt, I can ask it to do anything I wish, anything at all, yet nothing comes to mind…”
Comment by motohagiography 13 hours ago
there isn't much to add to it other than the slight refinement that constraints yield technique. it's similar to relating to rules as tools and not merely limits or constraints. it's an orientation.
Comment by Obscurity4340 13 hours ago
Comment by learntoplaypitc 47 minutes ago
Comment by dharmasthan 9 hours ago
Comment by freebsd_lovefes 11 hours ago
Comment by BubbleRings 3 hours ago
Give them a huge bin of Lego pieces gathered from many sets, all sorted by color and type, and…
They don’t know what to do with it.
Comment by ButlerianJihad 3 hours ago
If by "Lego set" you mean a pre-determined object that is decomposed into LEGO style blocks, and must be assembled in only one form, in order to match the photo on the box, that is some kind of modern perversion of the Spirit of LEGO.
When I was a small child, we had several kinds of kits. My neighbor had the ultimate nerd's Erector Set type building materials.
I had a set for very small children, called "Bristle Blocks". These were various plastic shapes that locked together with plastic bristles on the end. They also included rolling wheels. They were very versatile, and we could build all kinds of things, my sister and I. We had a big pile of randomly-shaped Bristle Blocks that we stored in a duffel bag.
We also had, courtesy of my grandmother, a very old set of non-LEGO. It was a house model, that was composed of the same type of blocks, and they all had specific uses and placements. It was fun to build, tear down, and rebuild, and yeah, they could be composed into different shapes if you really wanted, but the goal was to reproduce the house.
We also had Lincoln Logs. These were 100% wood, and they notched together like a real-life log cabin would. And they also included green-colored slats for the roof. There were no pre-made patterns, and so you could just build the logs in whatever shapes, but they were obviously designed for houses, and cabins, and other building-shaped things.
These were all really fun, and exercised our creativity. I have no idea why a child would "not know what to do" with a huge bin of random LEGO pieces. I believe that the vast majority of kids would find a way to make them work together. LEGOs were built because of their interchangeability.
By the same token, we also had a lot of Star Wars official merch. And some of those vehicles had many fiddly parts that you could take apart, and put back together. And admittedly, I treated some like LEGO, and I would unscrew all their panels and disassemble them completely, to see how they worked.
I was not as adept at reassembling them, and so my father tended to get pissed when I ruined a very expensive Star Wars vehicle through my curiosity. But at least it wasn't one of his radio sets.