You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

FrameBenignly comments on How much do we know about creativity? - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: NancyLebovitz 09 June 2015 12:43PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (22)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: FrameBenignly 09 June 2015 04:36:29PM 2 points [-]

Your approach looks quite unscientific to me. What empirical evidence do you have to support this? How would you go about codifying these ideas into a proper scientific theory?

Comment author: ahbwramc 09 June 2015 05:14:50PM 3 points [-]

I mean, I don't really disagree; it's not a very scientific theory right now. It was just a blog post, after all. But if I was trying to test the theory, I would probably take a bunch of people who varied widely in writing skill and get them to write a short piece, and then get an external panel to grade the writing. Then I would get the same people to take some kind of test that judged ability to recognize rather than generate good writing (maybe get some panel of experts to provide some writing samples that were widely agreed to vary in writing quality, and have the participants rank them). Then I would see how much of the variation in writing skill was explained by the variation in ability to recognize good writing. If it was all or most of the variation, that would probably falsify the theory - the theory would say the most difficult part of "guess and check" is the guessing part, but those results would say it's the checking.

That's the first thing to come to mind, anyway.