Review: How to be Creative - A Practical Guide for the Mathematical Sciences

Review: How to be Creative - A Practical Guide for the Mathematical Sciences - Nicholas Higham and Dennis Sherwood ****

Some subscribe to the view that creativity is only about the arts - but this is to misunderstand the nature of creativity. There is a huge amount of creativity in the sciences, yet we rarely seen any guidance on improving it. (Creativity is also important to business, but that has a solid literature.)

How to be Creative does what it says on the cover - unlike some books on creativity, it’s a practical guide, easy to read and apply. The authors start with a brief introduction to the nature of creativity and the reality of engaging creativity on demand. They then look at the basic structure of a creativity session, particularly one that's team oriented (the quick version is 'don't do anything they do on The Apprentice when attempting brainstorming’). We then get a good chapter expanding on possible creativity techniques.

So far, the topics covered have been general purpose problem solving and idea generation techniques, but the most novel content is the next chapter which is specifically about mathematical creativity (with a touch of physical science thrown in). Finally we return to the general for a chapter on workshops and one on evaluation of ideas. The whole thing is a compact 100 pages. It's practical, easy to read and effective.

If you are involved in STEM work, this book is really worth a look - it might change your view on the relevance of creativity to you career. My only real criticism is that it's priced more like a textbook than a general purpose title - but hopefully it’s one that your organisation might purchase.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

You can order How to be Creative from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog