Creative people need to learn the basics of negotiation, marketing, etc. Logical, linear thinkers can learn to do the boogaloo.

Maybe my children will grow up to become customized website designers–but I suspect that accountants and dentists will earn more.

I’m not sure what would qualify as “intellectual risk taking”. If this simply means “initiative” then I agree it’s more a case of “quit stifling it” than inventing a new course to teach it. Perhaps an entrepreneurial approach to learning would be to define goals and let the students try to reach those goals by any means necessary.

I suppose dropping out of school to become a black market entrepreneur could be considered intellectual risk-taking, in which case many districts already excel at this.

What specific aspects of iPod: conceptualization, design, engineering, production planning, marketing, logistics–does this individual believe are incapable of being done overseas?

The economic engine needs more iPods (a talisman no one really knew to miss until it arrived) and fewer data-crunchers (tasks that can be shipped overseas or tackled with software such as TurboTax).

While I don’t have any particular insight into Apple’s processes, my experience in other areas of engineering is that producing a quality product like an iPod is dependent on a lot of data-crunching – done by test engineers.

As for critically analysing paintings, hmmm, a doctor who teaches the course thinks that it leads to a 50% improvement in accuracy. Perhaps we should apply a bit of critical thinking to that statement? Katz could be right, but he’s not a reliable source.

Furthermore, the article assumes that there is something new about this. But there isn’t, the economy has always been dependent on a mix of creative thinking and tough analytical thinking. For example the development of the automobile and its mass production required a number of creative breakthroughs about new ways to do things. Ditto the development of the railway and electricity. Consider for example the breakthrough in realising that power could be transmitted by AC means rather than DC means. Or, to take a nastier example, Napolean’s innovation in military techniques back in the early 19th century forced other European nations to innovate back again. I’ve just been reading “The Mould in Dr Florey’s Coat”, about the development of pencillin as an effective medical treatment in the 1930s and this required a fair bit of creative thinking, eg how to make the pencillin stable so it could be transported and stored before injecting. The Green Revolution in agriculture happened in the middle of the 20th century.

May I ask what evidence you based this assertion on? The evidence I know is to the contrary. For example between 1830 and 1900 GDP growth per capita in the UK was 157%. From 1930 to 2000 it was 274%. In the USA GDP per capita growth was 191% between 1830 and 1900, and 365% between 1930 and 2000. See http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_09-2008.xls

In other words, since the invention of adolesence, people became far more productive economically, which implies a lot of innovation going on.

Also, since 1900 we’ve had the Civil Rights movement, and now there’s a black president of the USA, the second wave of feminism, with female Prime Ministers in the UK, NZ, and India and elsewhere, and female Secretary of States in the USA, the Gay Rights movement, etc. So the future for blacks, women, homosexuals, disabled people has been opened up, the opposite of stifling.

We’ve had the vast increase in creativity shown in Hollywood, Bollywood, and the Hong Kong and Japanese film industries. We’ve had the invention of TV and the incredible creative richness of that, from Monty Python to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. While you can find early examples of SF in the 19th century, Asimov, Heinlein, Greg Bear, Terry Pratchett are all 20th century writers.

In science we have had amazing inventions and discoveries – the development of penicillin, the discovery of the structure of DNA, the Coase theorem in economics, the proof that ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection, Chomsky’s idea of a “universal grammar” in linguistics, etc.

And the arts have shown a remarkable level of creativity in coming up with weird stuff so the art collectors can continue to feel superior to the hoi polloi. This does strike me as a waste of time, but it’s creative.

I don’t see how you can reconcile any of this with the belief that there’s been a loss in curiousity, creativity, or invention.

Right brain — that is the creative side…let the kids explore this side…

Creativity is fine, but you need analytical discipline as well. Otherwise you make remarkable statements like “Adolescence was invented at the turn of the last century to keep these naturally curious, creative, inventive kids out of the world and stifle their future…they succeeded” and don’t even apparently think whether to check this hypothesis against reality.

No, they’re mostly traders (Milken, Meriwether, Madoff etc.).

“…see the sterling example with three kids who mouths his way to the unemployment line…”

If you mean Bobby Krotendorfer, I think it’s admirable that he’s doing what he can, particularly when two of the kids aren’t his.

I think Pink is incorrect in his analysis and that his ideas are going to fall apart with the economy. Nobody needs designers and empathic life counselors after the auto plant, the suppliers, dealers, surrounding restaurants, K-Mart, and Starbucks close.

But I’m still trying to figure out how to get one of those corporate poet jobs.

I’m with Joanne on this one. While half a brain is certainly better than none (see the sterling example with three kids who mouths his way to the unemployment line), a whole brain certainly seems to be the way to go.

I agree with Claus, too.