In the midst of this CPSI coverage, I don't want to lose this creativity-related comment by Greg Burton on the last apprentice mind post: "It seems to me that when we talk about 'creativity,' we're dealing with a wide range of human activities, and that creativity can be applied to both innovation and invention.

If we make the functional differentiations on 'invention' and 'innovation' then we can see how apprentice mind applies to both activities. It also seems that 'invention' can be both social and personal, and thereby provides a bridge between the range of 'purely personal' (creativity) and 'purely social' (innovation).

I've talked about innovation vs. creativity before. It might sound like splitting hairs, but there's value in discussing distinctions among creativity, innovation, and invention. My addition to what Greg said is that each seems to be a different function, or to function at a different level. I'd place these chronologically in this order -- first, creativity, because creativity is a way of thinking. Then, invention -- making an individual creation. Then, innovation, which I see as more of a process, or a culture.

Greg Burton again on apprentice mind -- "Creativity is an individual function - innovation is a social function. This may seem obvious, but if we are really looking for "applied creativity" we're looking for innovation. And the cultural changes or learning changes that apply 'creative skills' to individuals won't do a thing unless they change the social innovation climate."

Over the years I've been gathering up definitions for creativity and innovation. There are a lot of the them, since just about everyone in the business of innovation and creativity finds it necessary to define these terms in order to align their thinking about what they are doing.

There are some themes that tend to repeat themselves, though, and although there are also some themes that tend to repeat themselves. One of them is this individual/social split.

Another one is a functional kind of split, as in "creativity is a behavior; innovation is a process." This kind of functional split lends itself to sayings like "you can have creativity without being innovative, but you can't be innovative without being creative."

Why am I going on about this now? Because I think that clear understanding of how creativity and innovation work are critical to understanding how the apprentice mind approach benefits both. And that's my argument -- the apprentice mind approach does enhance one's ability to learn and practice creativity and innovation as well -- just in slightly different ways.

You can learn to think laterally all day long, but you'll be missing something -- probably many somethings -- if you never question your preconceived notions. And there is nothing about lateral thinking skills or the way they are taught that guarantees you'll look at something with a fresh mind. Edward de Bono's process sneaks in the random word stimulus to jump your mind off its usual track and to shock you into apprentice thinking. But what if you already viewed the world with apprentice mind -- imagine how much more powerful deliberate lateral thinking would be.

Among the responses I got to the post on apprentice mind was one person who commented that the post affirmed his belief that it's essentially a waste of time to teach creativity skills, and one person who emailed me to affirm that he, along with Edward De Bono, believes that creativity skills *can* be taught.

I believe that too. And I didn't intend to say otherwise. However -- teaching someone creativity skills does not guarantee they'll understand how and when to use them. And, I think "apprentice mind" -- or something like it -- has to be present also.

A hallmark of Edward De Bono's thinking is that creativity is a "derailment," if you will, from established patterns of thinking -- which are not creative largely because they *are* established patterns of thinking. His creativity exercises are meant to derail those patterns so new ideas can emerge. Apprentice mind is something like a suspension of these established patterns of thinking and categorization. I think they feed each other. Put these two together -- creative skills and apprentice mind -- and there's power.

Also in response to that post, Greg Burton sent me a link to his post about an Ohio State University cognitive study whose results found adults did better remembering pictures of imaginary animals than they did remembering pictures of real cats because the fact that they could categorize cats allowed them to not pay attention to the individual pictures.

In the words of one of the study's authors, "The ability to categorize is often very helpful, but this study shows how it can lead people to ignore individual details...The results show how some types of memory might be better when people forget what they know and instead approach a subject with a child-like sense of naïveté."

I'm seeing apprentice mind as the willingness and ability to approach -- a problem, a product, a person, the world itself -- without applying the filter of your existing knowledge to it. When I was a reporter, I learned to ask questions even when I already thought I knew the answers. When I moderate focus groups and conduct depth interviews, I approach people as if I don't know anything about the subject they are going to talk about. In both cases, suspending prior knowledge is the only way to find out what you don't know you don't know. Apprentice mind.