Of all the things that have helped mankind evolve into the species that we are today, thought diversity has played a very vital role. It is a fact often neglected, or heavily hooded by terms like “creativity” or “out-of-the box thinking”. This is not at all to demean the concept of being “innovative” or “creativity”. However, every human is nurtured and nature-d to think differently, and thus everyone has an inherent kind of creativity of their own. Is there then a difference that exists between thinking different and being creative?
Let us travel back in time, when stone was man’s best friend. Nurture and nature for everyone was inherently the same. So logically, if that trend had still continued, then right now, I’d probably be etching this stuff down on a stone tablet in a primitive language, wearing a tiger skin robe. That is, if tigers were not extinct with the hunting we’d still be doing. But then something different must have emerged in “Stone Age” to prompt development.
Now let us consider our example early man (let us call him John), who invented the concept of agriculture. That concept would have sprouted up in John’s mind if poor John had seen the death of a dear relation when they were out hunting a mammoth or a saber-tooth, and he wanted to find a safer way to survive, or the forest where John resided had seen an unexplained migration and poor John had no constant source of food, or n-number of possibilities like that to which John might be looking for a solution. In any case, the misery would have added a different shade of thought in his mind. And thus John’s thought diversity would be key to Agriculture.
However, the argument is a little flawed. We have not considered the situation, when everything was as usual as it could be, and John was trying to be “creative”. Trying to think öut-of-the box, that is. Suddenly, he’d come up with the brilliant idea of harvesting crops. And agriculture would be widespread, eventually. But somehow, that seems a little improbable. Why would someone accept something new, when the old method was working fine? How probable is it that the idea would have come up to John on its own, just trying to be creative, if he had never even seen a situation that demands change?
If you think that probability might be low, well then, we have almost reached the answer. Thought-Diversity would have actually triggered the major changes, and “creativity” is a by-concept of that. Once upon a time, necessity is the mother of invention. At that point of time, we were just trying to figure out a possible solution to a dire situation. And thus, the progress was slow. Now, in this era of rapid transformations, we try to be “Creative”. That is, we try to locate necessity and then invent. And due to this concept of forced or deliberate thought diversity, we have genuinely benefited a lot.
So, looking from this perspective, thought-diversity and creativity are things that are based on the same foundation. Since, every single human has been hard-wired to comprehend things differently; therefore, it is not that one has to be necessarily “creative” to think “creatively”. Thought-Diversity is as inherent to us as our genes, and thus one has to just utilize this innate ability to bring about an “innovation”.