The fact is, you can spread behaviour virally. I've seen it in my national things.

Surely, you should be paying attention to this?

De Groot on chess, plus OODA, plus compressed expertise from Weick. Intuition is something very interesting. As is instinct, and it's evil twin, cognitive bias.

Creativity. Enhancing the creativity of learners has been a goal of psychology
and education for generations. It is an unrealised goal. After many false dawns
based on claims of success that could not be replicated, it is clear that teaching
learners to be creative in any meaningful sense is at the very least difficult and
perhaps impossible. The lack of a clear theoretical base to guide consideration
of the issue of creativity has the inevitable consequence of a field based more
on enthusiasm than solid, understandable findings. We must at least consider
the possibility that not only are there no established techniques for teaching
creativity, but that the very concept makes little theoretical sense and if so,
there may never be grounds for optimism that teachable/learnable creativity
techniques will become available. The current analogy between evolution
by natural selection and human cognitive architecture provides a base from
which to consider the problem of creativity.
Evolution by natural selection is a creative system etc etc

This all seems a bit ridiculous - if you can teach people decision-making, you can teach them creativity, surely? What is creativity if it's not an OODA loop?

There's also something here about the 'major function of learning' being about storing stuff in long-term memory. This is - kind of - against the idea of informal learning. And related to the idea that there's no such thing as intuitive. And related to the idea that there's no such thing as literacy skill (cf Daniel Willingham). Presumably, all that stuff in long-term memory is useful. If you can connect it to the present day situation - and therefore creativity is the most important thing around.

Yet this extract seems to be *exactly* what I'm saying:
How can this system explain variations in human creativity? Random
alterations to a knowledge base are presumably just as likely in one individual
as another and yet some people are consistently more creative than others.
The answer is in the size of a knowledge base. Alterations to a large knowledge
base have the potential to generate ideas quite beyond the capabilities
of a person with a much smaller knowledge base. In other words, differences
in creativity between individuals are not due to differences in creative
processes but rather, are due to differences in the knowledge bases to which
the same creative processes are applied. If so, attempting to teach humans to
be creative is likely to be as futile as attempting to teach evolution by natural
selection to be creative. We can use instruction to assist learners in acquiring
a knowledge base and that knowledge base can increase the probability of
them being creative.

Make sure, to see the piece on completion effect.

Also see: the goal-free effect. Could you activate lots of learning with creativity and thus exploit the goal-free effect? How many things *can't* be used in learning? Just what *is* irrelevant? This is easy to answer in an educational setting, but far less easy to do in life. See Slumdog Millionaire, for example.

A couple of things: there's a whole load of these German words which are really useful.

And I'm not sure I get all this. But the idea of the Umwelt is powerful, to say the least. Related to schemata?

I think this is the key to gameification. This is rarely understood and I don't think many people understand Transmedia.

Practice makes perfect? Cognitive neuroscience study suggests that it's the kind of practice that matters -