Shop More Submit  Join Login
×

:icontechgnotic: More from techgnotic


Featured in Collections

journals by lilittu

Cool Journal by RioluNation

Journals by BluestOfBirds


More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
February 27, 2013
Submitted with
Sta.sh Writer
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
280,792 (13 today)
Favourites
3,471 (who?)
Comments
2,286
×










Forward by techgnotic






Picasso seeing a seven as an upside down nose?


Right brain warriors in the new age will be the coveted candidates ordained to lead and guide us; lifting the torch to light the way forward into a brave new beautiful world.


Artists have always feared that they are unappreciated and that the march of progress comes only from business, science and their machines. 1984 was imagined by an artist projecting these exact fears. Our guest essayist suggests the computer will never be our master, but only the super high speed counting machine it was meant to be leaving humans with only one pure task— being creative.














The Right Brain Revolutionby Auren Hoffman


Over the next 100 years, the importance of creativity will trump systems thinking due to the rapidly escalating power of computers.


No, I’m not talking about an apocalyptic “Rise of the Machines,” but rather about the future ascent of people who excel in creativity, intuition, and the marshaling of original solutions, things that computers won’t be able to do for a long time. Tomorrow’s rewards will be won by creative people who contribute new ideas. Call it the Right Brain Revolution.








For the past few centuries, society has richly rewarded strong systems thinkers, logical, analytical, objective people such as computer programmers who build software, engineers who build bridges, lawyers who write contracts, and MBAs who crunch numbers. But as computers take over more of the pure systems thinking, people with only this skill set will find their importance decline. There are about 4 to 5 million engineers and computer scientists employed today in the US and few will be automated out of existence. But in the next 50 years, those that excel in creativity-- big picture thinkers, artists, inventors, designers -- will rise to the top. It could be as big a paradigm shift in labor market history as when tools made physical strength irrelevant, or assembly lines replaced the cottage industry. The illiterates of the future will not be those who cannot read and write or code, but those who cannot connect the dots and imagine a constellation.


From 1975 to 1994 only 0.5% of psychological studies concerned creativity, but now it’s a flourishing field complemented by an entire industry of self-help books on how to become more creative. A recent IBM poll of 1,500 CEOs from 60 countries and 33 industries identified creativity as the No. 1 “leadership competency” of the future (more than rigor, management discipline, integrity and even vision).










1




Instead of making a resolution to learn how to code in 2013, you might make a resolution to learn how to draw.


Auren Hoffman



2




Computers are no match for the average fourth-grader when it comes to creativity.


Auren Hoffman



3




Instead of encouraging your child to major in engineering, you might encourage her to study philosophy.


Auren Hoffman















In the United States, the key predictive score to spot a good systems thinker-- our future leaders-- has been the SAT and IQ tests. Our universities have, for the most part, outsourced their admissions decisions to these tests. And that was probably a good thing. In the last few hundred years, systems thinking trumped all other talents. We needed to build bridges and understand complex matters. While creativity, emotional intelligence, and other talents have been important, they were relegated to second place in predicting a person’s success. But while high IQ is important, it isn’t very correlated to creativity.


That is going to change.


Over the next 30 years, we are going to see a big societal shift that will give outsized rewards to creativity. Systems thinking, while still important, will move to second-fiddle in the talent hierarchy.







So What To Do?






1

Education and parenting should aim to provide the conventional skills (math, problem solving, and test taking skills) while also encouraging creative, out-of-the-box type thinking. Computers are no match for the average fourth-grader when it comes to creativity.




2

Instead of making a resolution to learn how to code in 2013, you might make a resolution to learn how to draw. After a few months of lessons you might begin to observe the world differently seeing details, light and shadows, shapes, proportions, perspective and negative space.




3

Instead of encouraging your child to major in engineering, you might encourage her to study philosophy, ask smart unsettling questions and practice making unusual and unexpected mental associations.



Albert Einstein said;


“I have no special gift. I am only passionately curious.”






About Auren Hoffman


Auren Hoffman is an industry visionary with a global battlefield view of emerging business, commerce, technology, and social realities that is truly second to none. His analysis of current trends, unique in a revolutionary perspective, makes him sought after as an advisor to a multitude of divergent companies and business professionals. In a recent essay Auren sounded the alarm alerting his colleagues across multiple industries to the radical shift in direction necessary to ensure success by sharing his thoughts on what will be of most value in the coming decades of this new emerging reality - - you, the artist.












Auren’s writing in future-speak. But the future may be now. The gigantic proletarian participation in the arts all over the Internet from deviantART to YouTube to Vimeo or smaller influential places such as Behance or 500 Pixels or the millions of Wordpress blogs and the complete wonder of a genuinely crowd-sourced and peer-reviewed Wikipedia— all of this is a massive popular takeover of the arts— not a revolution but an inconspicuous re-engineering enabled by technology.


makepictures








Questions For the Reader


  1. Do you believe your art advances the human condition?

  2. Do you believe that those with more creative rather than systems-oriented thought processes are destined to assume the leadership role at this point in human history?  Do you see evidence of this happening already?

  3. Have you ever experienced a knee-jerk fear of advancing, accelerating technology "taking over" all human relevancy? Or have you always felt secure in technology remaining a tool serving a human master no matter how advanced the A.I. becomes?

  4. Are we at the apex of what is achievable technologically and now, as Auren Hoffman suggests, about to enter a Next Phase of human society beyond sheer survival emphasizing the arts?
















Picasso seeing a seven as an upside down nose? Right brain warriors in the new age will be the coveted candidates ordained to lead and guide us; lifting the torch to light the way forward into a brave new beautiful world. Artists have always feared that they are unappreciated and that the march of progress comes only from business, science and their machines. 1984 was imagined by an artist projecting these exact fears. Our guest essayist Auren Hoffman suggests the computer will never be our master, but only the super high speed counting machine it was meant to be leaving humans with only one pure task - being creative.

Writers: $techgnotic & Auren Hoffman
Designers: $marioluevanos
Add a Comment:
 
:iconrazevortex:
razevortex Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
nice its kind of... inspiring... n1
Reply
:icontaffer9:
taffer9 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
As a mathematician I was delighted to be informed that a computer can do my job for me!

It's probably true that it sounds plausible enough, but it is seven miles wide of the truth.

Computers can be useful to prove some kinds of theorems in mathematics, and sometimes even discover new ones, but mostly the things they discover are weird and uninteresting - they seem to deal best with objects whose properties suit the way a computer operates, but most things don't fit nicely into this class.

Dualistic jibber-jabber about "right brains" and "systems thinking" does not even begin to coalesce with the manifold ways things turn out in a world where the truth is not always what you make it.

Sounds like typical management speak to me, spend so much energy putting people into boxes, and then telling them to think outside the box. But then why did you put them in the box in the first place?!

N.B. I personally would not start a new paragraph with "THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE", when the previous paragraph consists of multiple propositions. It admits two amusingly different interpretations of what you wrote, though.
Reply
:iconanabiyeni:
Anabiyeni Featured By Owner May 18, 2014  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
I know statistics (my interest) is a bit different from math, but your comment gave me a horrifying image of computers taking over all statistical work. I've found that calculating meaningful statistics requires some level of creativity. We will always need people to identify connections and levels of importance for computers.
Reply
:iconsherricherry:
SherriCherry Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
furt schmurt!
Reply
:iconvaiointhefuture:
VaiointheFUTURE Featured By Owner Sep 12, 2013  Student Artist
i'm the future! :D
Reply
:iconlusterdust:
Lusterdust Featured By Owner Aug 29, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
This is kinda cool and all, but I thought that right brain vs. left brain thing was ripped apart and disproved (to an extent)? Ah well :U
Reply
:iconthecart00nist:
TheCart00nist Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2013
I really wanna read, but I didn't slept last night and I'm impatient!
I CAN'T DRAW AND CAN'T FIND INSPIRATION!
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................

What is wrong with me?
By the way: I like the drawings.
Reply
:iconjajamola88:
Jajamola88 Featured By Owner Jul 30, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
1. No, I'm not an arrogant prick. One person's drawings of TF2 characters and Vocaloids don't have a huge impact on all of humanity.

2. No. Leadership requires both logical, process-based thinking (you people make logical people sound like dull, boring computers.) and creativity.

3. Computers will always be a tool for humans, because we made them that way. The most powerful supercomputer in the world is useless if nobody turns it on. They can't do everything for us. Even though you use a keyboard and software to type, your computer, no matter how powerful, won't write fanfiction on its own. It can't draw conclusions from the data scientists get using it.

4. No. "That's it! We can't do anything else now! Let's give up trying to improve medicine and engineering and burn the labs!"

          I draw because it's relaxing and I get ideas out of my head, not because my creativity is some magical path to power. Science, math, and computer engineering will continue to play a critical role in human life, and they all require creativity, albeit not the kind that you use to create art. 

This assumes that we are at our scientific limit and that there's no point in further scientific research. We aren't. We still can't travel outside the solar system in less than a decade, we can't grow new limbs for amputees,  we can't desalinate ocean water cheaply. Finding solutions to problems like these also requires a good amount of creativity, combined with knowledge. Good job encouraging the stereotype that STEM fields are dull bean counting. Good job helping to perpetrate the stereotype of the snobby, hipster artist/writer who thinks that their art advances all of mankind.
Reply
:icondivdv:
divdv Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2013
The author fails to realize that coding is an artform as well and that logic can be just as effective as a paintbrush. 
"Instead of making a resolution to learn how to code in 2013, you might make a resolution to learn how to draw".
I am sorry but that is some stupid advice. Coding teaches you how to think. Problems that need to be solved via coding can and sometimes need to be approached creatively. The author doesn't seem to realize or acknowledge this fact. It may be born out of misconceptions he has about programming or sheer ignorance. I do not know. As a game developer, I believe video games are the ultimate art form. 
“It’s the sum total of every expressive medium of all time made interactive… it’s awesome!" Making a video game is almost all about problem solving when it comes to programming. I apologize for any "venom" that may be inferred from this post. The insinuation that coding is somehow not a "creative" endeavor is almost insulting. The author toutes that drawing will make one "observe the world differently seeing details, light and shadows, shapes, proportions, perspective and negative space." I've been programming the graphics of my current project and I can empathize with the previous statement in all it's areas. The author devalues logic in the face of creativity but I say that they are sides of the same coin. Creativity and logic can have beautiful synergy.

I'll conclude with a Richard Feynman quote/story that feels relevant:

"I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."

Reply
:iconleowings-fly:
LeoWings-Fly Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2013
I do agree in what you same even though there some scientists who doesn't care. They do see more than most of. Plus most people who aren't artist they can see how beautiful the flower is too.
Reply
Add a Comment: