Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6226999" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I was using cognitive styles and strategy as the orthodox usage within the field.  I'm specifically using it with respect to the burgeoning research on creativity and papers I have read.  As far as structure, granularity, and boundaries, I'm using them within the general orthodox in their sentences.Resolution has many meanings.  My usage here is "the quality and quantity of information conveyed within a defined parcel/space."With respect to the latter portion of your rejoinder, I will just say that by no means to I believe that we inhabit a subjective world whereby the quality of Miles Davis versus the quality of Miley Cyrus is unknowable , specifically when parameters of judgement are well-defined and you can collate legitimate data (which you can with music, food, rules systems, et al).However, I wasn't so much speaking to general preferences (this kobe hambuger is tastier than this ground beef hamburger) as I was focusing on how creativity bears itself out with respect to overarching structure, hard boundaries, and a continuum of resolution in the space between the boundaries.  This is why I brought in Cormac McCarthy versus Stephen King.  They diverge dramatically from one another with respect to the information overtly conveyed to the reader.  Stephen King saturates you.  Cormac McCarthy gives you little in the extreme (willfully obviously).  However, there is no default measurables with respect to the output of creativity and imagination by the readership by proxy of the authorial inputs.  You don't get "The Road" and "No Country For Old Men" is conducive to a broad and rich imaginative experience while "The Shining" and "The Dark Tower" lead to a more narrow and less provacative imaginetive experience.  I think that can be mapped to RPG theory easily enough.  Regarding imagination, some thrive with less, or opaque, ruleset structure and higher resolution settings while, conversely, others thrive with tighter, more overt, ruleset structure, lower resolution setting but thematic exemplars to anchor their imagination to.In total, I'm certainly not disputing that quality of (anything) can be discerned using precise metrics.  I'm merely disputing the premise (at least what I think it is) that some systems (and their component parts; eg overt ovarching structure, information resolution, codified boundaries)universally provoke imagination and creativity better than others.</blockquote>

Verification