Are creative thinking and systems thinking related?

Systems thinking can be a type of creative thinking. Some systems models are more innovative or insightful than others.

Rea Lavi To what end? I mean you answered Are creative thinking and systems thinking related? in your definitions. One is imagination and thinking outside the box and the other is more or less a synonym for holistic.

What is ignored so far is Do you think these two cognitive abilities are related? If so, in what way/s? If not, why? Rea I would have led with that write after the title and deleted the rest of your sentences for a much more powerful question.

Sincerely

Chris YUKNA

PS reiteration is the stuff of science, I would council starting all over or editing your question :-)

Christopher Gerard Yukna good point! Best not to give my own take right away and leave things open.

Karl Pfeifer do you mean to say that certain methodologies for system modeling result in more creative system models than other methodologies? Could you perhaps give an example for what you mean?

Excellent Rea Lavi I didn't know how to text my ideas politely it is so cold a media, I wished that we could just have a coffee in the "infinite corridor" and discuss it;-) but hey I am in France now. I'll try to think about this question a bit more and get back to you Monday.

Rea Lavi I meant that articulating a systems model for something can itself be an innovative or creative act, e.g. if it involves developing a new methodology. There can be innovation or creativity in applying a model or implementing a methodology too.

Perhaps J.H. Woodger's attempt to represent biology in terms of an axiomatic system was creative even if not particularly fruitful.

Interesting.

I feel systems thinking is broader or that creative thinking is part of systems thinking.

Tonderai Dari that is an interesting take, in what way is creative thinking part of systems thinking? Perhaps you could provide an example for what you mean?

Karl Pfeifer what do you mean by "creativity in applying a model or implementing a methodology"? Could you perhaps give an example of how an established methodology can be applied creatively (if this was what you mean)?

Christopher Gerard Yukna you were polite and correct.. if I didn't know how to receive criticism I would get nowhere!

On the surface not really. I am with Sir Ken Robinson creativity is to create. This could be a bench made from pallets, a street garden, or art like poetry and sculpture. the more you create the more you develop a style or styles that lend an aura of originality. Creative work habits really set you apart from everyday people. Systems thinking is regarding how things work in a system, how the parts interact very similar to holistic thinking. A lot of specialists ignore the big picture to reduce the problem to a few variables usually for speed or ease of calculation. Reductionism can produce ideas, objects, laws but not very often. Because they have reduced the problem to a small area say how fissures form on a particular iron alloy their results appear duller and smaller. Since reductionists seem to have the upper hand in many fields, thinking about the system or large interactions between objects gives the impression of creating or utilizing creativity or obtaining originality or uniqueness. Again removing these individuals from the herd. So I would say the link between creative and systems thinking is how their output appears outstanding. In both cases to excel in either takes a lot of time invested, even appears to be procrastination. Look at how long Darwin took to develop his take on evolution, the hours needed to compose music, any of the projects Da Vinci worked on. Indeed, I would suggest that Leonardo Da Vinci is the best example of where you have both traits in one person. nuff said. Chris Yukna

PostScript I did forget another way that system thinking (holistic) could engender creativity if used correctly. People tend to innovate at the intersections or frontiers between disciplines. (The Medici Effect) For example between the domains of biology and geology or folk music and sculpture. Again, if your systems thinking exposes where those ideas could collide well, that's a surefire opportunity for creating.

It seems to me in the answer Christopher Gerard Yukna contains a very important point - results.

Ye shall know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16, KJV).

Rea Lavi

Creativity can involve: "Breaking old thinking patterns. Making new connections. Getting fresh perspectives."

— https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newCT_88.htm

For example, there may be established methods for prescribing and implementing therapies involving certain drugs. Ignoring these and pursuing an "off-label" use can involve creativity as characterized above.

Sometimes, however, an existing methodology may just be applied in shortsighted ways because those who use or even developed it may lack the imagination to realize its full extent or to apply it in appropriately subtle ways.

Hermann Gruenwald in what way? Do you mean that engaging in systems thinking might 'lock' someone's mind into a specific scope of the problem, without looking outside of it? Or do you mean something else?

Karl Pfeifer thank you for that answer! I suppose that if someone has not been introduced to a specific systems thinking methodology, then using that methodology for the first time would be considered creative on their part, but not necessarily so for someone who has already used the same methodology before many times and is well-versed in it. This would be creativity in reference to the individual undergoing the process, not to the process itself or to its end product.

Christopher Gerard Yukna thank you for the thoughtful answer! I tend to think that systems thinking (using any ST methodology) is only creative in reference to the individual who hasn't used it before, or as you pointed out, the rarity of holistic thinking in general which gives ST an air of creativity.

I would also say that since ST requires us to determine a scope for the system (the system proper and its environment), it may prevent us from thinking outside of the system or from rearranging the components of the system in our mind so that we can think differently about the problem. In this way, ST can obstruct creative thinking.

Of course, the benefit or detriment of ST depends on what stage of problem-solving/project we're at. It can certainly serve as a valuable way of thinking about a problem/project during certain stages.

I think that, the systematic thinking will lead to the creative thinking. However, it maybe there are some exceptions. The relation between them does not recognizable and determinable, easily. It could be an interesting subject matter for study in many fields of psychology sciences.

Rea Lavi

I don’t believe creativity in systems thinking is limited to new users. I say this because I think people aren’t always aware of all the possibilities inherent in a system, its ramifications, potential, application to other domains, generalizeability, nuances, or whatnot. In other words, people who employ a system, even ones that they were instrumental in devising, can be shortsighted and hidebound about it.

I think of the methodological approach to philosophy dubbed Ordinary Language Philosophy and its central idea of “meaning as use”. A lot of mileage was gotten from notions of what one would or wouldn’t say under certain circumstances and from what would be considered “deviant utterances”. It took creative minds to realize that a distinction between “truth conditions” and “assertion conditions” was consistent with the terms of reference of the methodological framework. Noncreative minds had adhered to the letter rather than the spirit of the methodology.

Yes, creative thinking and systems thinking are very much related. System thinking can be the foundation or stepping stone of the creative thinking process and vice-versa. System thinking gives a structure and direction to creative thinking by adding a certain fluidity into it. System thinking has a boundary, whereas creative thinking cannot be confined within a boundary, and it is limitless.

I agree with what Sovan is saying but not the last bit.Systems thinking has a boundary which one assigns depending on system of interest but otherwise it also has no boundaries.Creative thinking can be done when someone is not establishing connections or taking cognisance of the whole and how it functions(in Reductionist pathways).While systems thinking you have to know the whole,its parts how to break them down and how they function as a whole.So they have somethings in common but to me systems thinking is greater

Bit late to the party, so to speak. The usual cliché about systems thinking ("The whole is greater than the sum of the parts") is attributed to the Gestalt psychologist Kurt Koffka, as you know. Its major advantage as a framework is its ability as a formalised approach to accommodate real-time dynamic systemic change at a variety of levels. In this sense, it's TMM a holistic approach rather than a 'cognitive ability,' as you put it. So FWIW I'd regard the systems approach useful for understanding some creative aspects of cognition and appropriate for tackling notions of creativity more specifically as emergent properties, subject to perturbations from the environment, dynamic (transforming over time), and not located necessarily in individual minds but in the interactions between creators and their collaborators, audience(s), and so on. This brings the relational aspect of creativity to the fore as opposed to locating creativity in an individual genius, a mildly Victorian understanding, if you get my drift. Thanks, a thoughtful and challenging question.

Creative thinking and complex systems design/thinking are definitely very close to each other. Creative thinking is about forgetting what we were told, taught, and imprinted about, and simultaneously designing the whole thing from the scratch.

Often, forgetting old thinking patterns is the most difficult part of the creative thinking. This can be easily overcome by immersing into (and from the point of) the thinking of described phenomena instead of using human thinking.

To think like a complex system, which express the observed phenomena, that we are trying to describe by a complexity model is the key to being capable to capture the critical properties of the observed phenomena. This process gets even more complicated as complex systems often express emergent properties that are quite hard to grasp from scratch.

Karl Pfeifer Is there a reference you could suggest as an introduction to Ordinary Language Philosophy and 'meaning as use'? It sounds like a concept well worth exploring in my line of work.

Jiří Kroc, when you mentioned "immersing into (and from the point of) the thinking of described phenomena instead of using human thinking", are you referring to Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology, or something else?

Marc Duby an insightful answer about how systems thinking can facilitate creative thinking by giving us a holistic view of a problem, phenomenon, or artifact. I am not sure whether 'systems thinking' is in fact a cognitive ability. I normally use the term as short for 'systems approach to problem solving'. However, many employers, educational institutions, etc. do refer to it as a cognitive ability/thinking skill, so as an educator and as a researcher in education, I often need to refer to it as such for practical purposes. I think this argument can also be extended to other so-called cognitive abilities, including creative thinking. There is something to be said however for being able to look at the whole rather than its parts (this statement requires expounding of course).

Dear Rea Lavi, by the words "immersing into ..." was meant the exact method I do use in my own research. When I do keep metals that recrystallize, I become the crystals. When I do describe the heart, I do become and think as the heart.

In this way, we can start to 'observe' the world from the point of view of described natural phenomenon. It is a very productive approach as it shifts our perception of the phenomenon from human to the required one. Rea Lavi, by the words "immersing into ..." was ment the exact method I do use in my own research. When I do keep metals that recrystallize, I become the crystals. When I do describe the heart, I do become and think as the heart.

In this way, we can start to 'observe' the world from the point of view of described natural phenomenon. It is a very productive approach as it shift our perception of the phenomenon from human tup to the required one.

Rea Lavi Here are some "general info" sources for Ordinary Language Philosophy and 'meaning as use' as per your request:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2183455?origin=JSTOR-pdf (esp. section II.)

I also stumbled across this one which looks like it might be useful, although I haven't myself seen the contents:

Of course, creative thinking is the ability to think about something in a new way, it may be a new approach to a problem, a solution to a conflict between a number of people, or a new result from a data set, and because everyone wants to think creatively and be able to provide new perspectives whether In their work, professional or even personal life, for more see :

Iain McGilchrist's "The Master and his Emissary" may shed some light on the topic, where l would say creative thinking applies more to the Master, while systems thinking, to the Emissary. In other words, you can have creative thinking without systems thinking, but not systems thinking without creative thinking, as there are and have been many destructive systems thinkers.

FYI: You might consider the following publication -

Lauff, C. et al., Design Innovation (DI) Methodology Handbook – Embedding Design in Organizations, ISBN: 978-981-18-1207-1, Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) and University of Colorado Denver (CU Denver) | Anschutz Medical Campus, Singapore, 2021; published on SSRN (Social Science Research Network), DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3860569, or

Kristin Lee Wood Thank you for the recommendation! I will check it out.

Karl Pfeifer Thank you so much for the great sources! I will check them out.

Cj Nev Interesting, I have not heard of The Master and his Emissary. I will check out. Thank you!

When trying to address open-ended problems, we must acknowledge that they are different from what we encountered in the past (otherwise, they would be replica and not open-ended) and therefore their understanding, formulation, and solution requires creativity. Similarly, open-ended problems requires systems thinking to capture the relationships between the parts and whole of the problem and its embedding in a larger system. Consequently, creative and systems thinking go hand by hand for addressing challenges. I consider both as parts of the skill of designing.

More on this? Check the book: We Are Not Users: Dialogues, Diversity, and Design, MIT Press, 2020 https://www.amazon.com/dp/026204336X/

In a similar vein to above post of not placing the cart (systems thinking) before the horse (creative thinking), or as my mother occasionally disparaged, prisoners running the prison, l came across this related publication as well: 

Another grave outcome of operating solely on systems thinking without creative thinking:

Yes

In conjunction with previous posts, this January 6, 2022, article pointing to 1980s discovery of LESS right (creative, unconventional) brain response delay over the left (systems, conventional) brain anisotropy, a significance in itself delayed.

More succinctly expressing the wheel-spinning problem of relying on systems thinking over creative thinking, last paragraph:

"The new realization for the computational scheme of a neuron calls into question the spike sorting technique which is at the center of activity of hundreds of laboratories and thousands of scientific studies in neuro-science. This method was mainly invented to overcome the technological barrier to measure the activity from many neurons simultaneously, using the assumption that each neuron tends to fire spikes of a particular waveform which serves as its own electrical signature. However, this assumption, which resulted from enormous scientific efforts and resources, is now questioned by the work of Kanter's lab."

I think they are related, and I'm actually exploring that myself.

But I personally think that in some case the difference between them is subtle.