argumentative essay television kills creativity

Writing, Among Other Things

• Inspiration
• Blogs to Read

Does TV kill Creativity?

These days, however, TV has become interesting. There is something for everyone and, therefore, it is no wonder that everyone is watching more TV than ever before.  I am no exception.

But, with the increase in my TV viewing time, I couldn’t help wondering: Does watching TV  TV kill creativity?

I did a Google search using the string “ Does TV kill creativity?” and got 17,700,000 results. I am sure that among these results there must have been links to researches that prove it does, and there must be other links to researches that prove it doesn’t, and there must be links to still other researches that prove TV does not affect creativity at all.

I, therefore, decided to do a little thinking for myself, and share my thoughts on the subject with you.

When I felt that I was spending more time watching TV – and less time reading – I initially tried to justify that by telling myself that watching TV was the same as reading, only at a much faster speed. While it took me about 5-6 hours to read a book, I could watch a similar story on TV in less than an hour. This reasoning, however, did not hold for long as I begin to have a gnawing feeling that there was something wrong with it.

TV kills imagination, and Imagination is an important part of creativity.

For example, when you read, “It was a beautiful morning,” your mind immediately begins to draw a picture of a beautiful morning for you. This picture will definitely be different for different readers.

But, every reader draws a picture .

On the other hand, when you are watching a beautiful morning on TV, you get the picture drawn for you, and this picture is the same for every viewer.  So, TV does not leave any room for you to exercise the power of your imagination. You simply become a passive recipient of someone else’s imagination. This can’t be good for your creativity.

Moreover, TV is a huge time sink. It keeps you indoors, and on your couch. Thus, you miss out on the exercise and the experiences that you would have got if you had not stayed indoors. Exercise and new experiences, as we all know, are well known enhancers of creativity. Watching TV keeps you away from them.

So, I feel that TV definitely kills your creativity, and even if it does not kill creativity, TV does not let you be more creative than you already are. Wouldn’t you agree?

(Image courtesy: svilen001 from sxc.hu)

Share this:

Creativity TV

August 9, 2012 at 7:00 pm

i go with this article, and its a big time consuming device..kills our time and adds i hate them..

September 24, 2012 at 3:17 am

Interesting perspective, and I appreciate reading it.

I think I’d add further that our (that’s collectively, not necessarily a finger pointing at you or I) choice to be constantly inundated with technology is leading us to become a giant society of stupid, Attention Deficit Disorder individuals. In addition to the many forms of passive entertainment at our proverbial fingertips (social media, like Facebook, etc; video games, that are increasingly becoming more “realistic” and stimulating; in addition to all of the easy answers we have via technology (GPS, Wikipedia, aforementioned video games…), I don’t think many people (even myself) are as alive as we used to be even 5 years ago. (In their book “So Sexy So Soon”, Diane Levin and Jean Kilbourne describe this as a “Problem Solving Deficit” … and that was written about 5 years ago! Hell, look where I’m discussing this … in cyberspace, instead of face to face with a group of friends and/or intellectuals)

Sorry for the rant. 🙂

March 28, 2021 at 7:04 pm

I completely agree with what you said, but tv may also be your only form of exposure to new cultures which could inspire you to create your own subculture(or fandom). I personally think that tv could be an inspiration ,to you or your kids, to try something new which could enhance your creativity.

Thats just my opinion though

February 19, 2023 at 9:22 pm

I do think that it does kill creativity

What do you think? Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

If you like the blog, you might like my ebook too.

You can get the latest updates by subscribing to the blog here

Recent Posts

• My Resolutions for 2024!
• Has Hating Gandhi ji Become Fashionable?
• Happy New Year 2023-Transform!
• How To Predict The Future?
• How to be Unique?
• Need a Hero? Be one!
• Back From A Break!
• 7 Quotes That Can Scare Writers!

Recent Comments

• Sonia Dogra on My Resolutions for 2024!
• Gundo on Does TV kill Creativity?
• Virender on Happy New Year 2023-Transform!
• Armand Kriel on Does TV kill Creativity?
• Kasziddy on 5 Ways to Avoid Repeating Your Mistakes

© 2024 NeoBluePanther

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑

Actually, reality TV isn’t killing screen creativity – switch on

Tutor in Media Studies, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement

Kirsty Leishman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Queensland provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

On Wednesday a headline on The Conversation declared the death of creativity in television, and the subsequent article screamed J’accuse! in the face of one of the least valued television formats: reality television.

The article, by Carla Rocavert, asserted creativity and reality TV have never gone “head to head” in any discussion on either (at least as it’s revealed in a Google search). Despite this claim, the article goes on to quote the creator of high-profile programs Big Brother and The Voice, Jon de Mol , explicitly articulating his development of new television formats as a creative endeavour.

While de Mol may conceive of his television work in this way, the article denies him any merit an alignment with creativity might impart. Indeed, the author distinguishes an authentic, non-commercial creativity practised by artists – actors, writers, production designers and so forth – from the emergence of creativity as a discourse, a way of structuring and understanding the everyday activities of work and life, in the service of “corporate techno-capitalism”.

For the author, it seems, reality television is no more than a lamentable manifestation of the latter.

I don’t disagree with the identification of the rise of creativity as a managerial, disciplining discourse, and certainly formats such as MasterChef recast the lowly-paid trench work of kitchen infantry in the rosy hue of creative expression; but I do take issue with many other aspects of the article.

The author seems very sure of the character of those who sign up as participants for reality TV shows, describing them as “wannabe stars” and “desparados”, who are part of an enterprise that’s stealing work from professional actors. To quote from the article:

Though it’s tempting to keep rehashing the widespread academic and other evidence of worker exploitation and stolen wages (US$40 million a year by New York based, non-scripted TV companies alone in 2013, according to the Writer’s Guild of America), pitifully cheap production values, links to mass plastic surgery, eating disorders and generally diminishing morality in audiences, “frankenbiting” (where dialogue is deceptively edited to create better stories), metadata surveillance, the impoverishment of public discourses and the fact the that the whole thing is predicated on being real when it is extraordinarily fake – there is another aspect to reality TV that makes it even worse. The genre is also shrinking creativity.

We learn much about how the author interprets the narratives of reality television, but very little about how audiences do the same (or anything about their moral integrity!). When the author argues that reality television, absent of art, denies “the stories that are really for the people”, I can only think of the ever-present transformation narrative of reality television, where a struggle of some kind, either personal or physical (often both) is followed by triumph and celebration.

Is there a more universal story? Does it have to be created by those who fit the author’s definition of artist in order for it to be meaningful?

Even more curious is the idea that the rise of the reality television format has lead to a decline in creativity in television production more broadly. According to what measure? Much more television is being produced today than ever before, across all genres.

While the article conflates scripted drama, which employs actors and writers of fiction, with creativity, there’s more than enough airtime on the free-to-air channels alone to accommodate multiple formats and genres of television.

And if we must privilege scripted drama, then I see no evidence at all in Australia or the rest of world that reality formats are “killing creativity” or pushing out drama programming. After all, this is the era of HBO and Netflix; in advanced capitalist societies such as Australia, we are no longer bound to the schedule of broadcast television.

If anything, reality television is a response to the changing landscape of television, where the most filmic, high-end drama from around the world is available on demand on a range of platforms and electronic devices. Reality television exploits the live dimension of broadcast television to gather large audiences, to create a common culture, and, yes, to sell to advertisers.

Whatever else reality television may be, it isn’t evidence of the second fall of Rome.

A version of this article appeared on The Peanut Gallery blog.

• Intellectual history

Research Fellow in Coastal Numerical Modelling

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

English Compositions

Short Essay on Bad Effects of Watching Television [100, 200, 400 Words] With PDF

Everything in this world has both good and bad side effects. Watching television is not an exception too in this context. In the session today, I will discuss how to write short essays on those bad effects of watching television. 

Short Essay on Bad Effects of Watching Television in 100 Words

We all love to watch television. Adults like to watch news, sports, movies and dramas, while children love watching cartoons. But watching too much television has many bad effects. Watching television for too long can put pressure on the eyes and cause eyesight problems. People who watch television for long hours have a tendency to overeat and can easily become obese. This can in turn lead to several health issues like diabetes and heart diseases.

Most of the content shown on television is for entertainment and does not add any value to our lives. They also show violence, criminal activities and mature content which can harm children if they are exposed to such things. Watching too much television can also kill creativity and imagination, cause a lack of focus and promote negative behaviour in children. 

Short Essay on Bad Effects of Watching Television in 200 Words

Watching television is a favourite pastime of many people. Some adults like watching the news and sports while others like watching movies and dramas. Children, on the other hand, are most interested in superhero shows and cartoons. Although watching television is fun, sitting in front of the television for long hours is not a healthy habit and can cause a lot of issues.

Watching television continuously for several hours can strain our eyes and lead to eyesight problems. It is also linked to obesity as it is observed that people who watch too much television have a tendency to overeat. This can cause health issues like diabetes and heart diseases in the long run.

Most of the shows on television are for entertainment and do not add any value to our lives. Instead of spending hours watching such shows, we can use that time to learn new skills, exercise, read books or catch up with our family and friends. Many programs also show violence, criminal activities and mature content which can harm children if they watch it. 

Watching too much television kills creativity and imagination as well as alters brain development in children. It can also cause a lack of focus and lead to poor work performance. 

We should not watch television for long hours and should stay away from negative, violent and graphic content. Parents should also monitor the content that kids consume. Television is for entertainment, we should not let it negatively impact our health and well-being. 

Short Essay on Bad Effects of Watching Television in 400 Words

Television has become an important part of our daily lives. Be it, children or adults, everyone likes to watch television. Some people watch news and sports while others watch movies and dramas. Superhero shows and cartoons are what most children love to watch. Watching television is not necessarily bad, but today, many people spend several hours a day in front of their television screens. This is not a healthy habit. Watching too much television has many bad effects. 

Most dramas and shows on television are for entertainment and do not add any value to our lives. We spend hours watching such shows and waste our precious time which we could have used to learn something new, read books or catch up with family and friends.

Manny of those contents also contains acts of violence, illegal activities, use of alcohol, drugs and other addictive substances. Exposure to such content is not good for children who are very gullible and can be easily misled. Many shows feed us false information and are harmful not just for children but also adults as they distort our sense of reality. 

People who spend a lot of time watching television, live passively. Watching too much television kills creativity and imagination as our mind is unable to come up with new and unique ideas. It can also cause a lack of focus in children as well as adults and thus, lead to poor work performance. Watching too much television also puts pressure on our eyes and causes fatigue.

The continued strain on the eyes and eye muscles can damage them and cause eyesight problems. Watching television has been linked to obesity and it is observed that people who watch television for long hours have a tendency to overeat. Without physical activity and exercise, it can quickly lead to health issues like diabetes and heart diseases. 

Research has shown that too much television can alter brain development in children and promote aggression and violence. It can also make young people feel inadequate by showing fake picture-perfect realities and cause self-image related issues.

Watching television is additive and not knowing when to stop can negatively impact our lives. We should not watch television for long hours and should stay away from negative, violent and graphic content. Parents should set a time when the children are allowed to watch television and always monitor what content they are consuming. Television is meant for entertainment and we should not sacrifice our health and well-being because of it. 

That was all about writing essays on the bad effects of Television. If you still have any doubts in this context even after going through this session, post them in the comment section below. To get the latest updates on our upcoming session, don’t forget to join us on Telegram .

Thank you. See you again, soon. 

Watching TV: Is It Good or Bad? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Argument for positive effects of tv watching, argument for negative effects of tv watching.

Future fulfilment and success that is enjoyed by people in their adult life depends mainly on the emotional as well as the intellectual development that was experienced in their childhood. The experiences are derived from direct experiences that results from interactions with people around us and indirect experiences that are attributed to the ever growing media sources in the technological world we are living in. In the modern world, the media sources have been taken over by the mass media which incorporates the television; it’s most prominent and prevalent category. Television is attributed to influencing the society’s perception on the real world through the images it depicts. It has however experienced its share of negative and positive criticism. Despite this, it has continued to be adopted throughout the world hence becoming the favourable mass media device. Over the years a lot has been said and written over the impact of television within our society.

The general perceptions and explanations that are attributed to the effects of television in the social life tend to incline on the negative aspects thereby disregarding the other factors that bring about the positive effects of television. Television is considered as a socializing agent (Fisch 112, 113).

One of the functions of the media is to depict the current happenings in the modern world. These happenings are often depicted in the television dramas or the news. For instance while dealing with violence, the media plays its role by indicating the threat it poses and implies the appropriate response that arises from the threat. The focus therefore needs to be shifted from the simple journalistic idea, if the reality which is expected to be captured by the media is to change the motive media of images that are structured to have a role in the determination of social agendas.

Educational Television programs are regarded to have a positive effect on children’s cognitive development as well as social development in adults. There are programs that encourage prosocial behaviours within the society. Positive effects have been identified in the variety of different cultures as they advocate sharing and respect within the society. Among the positive effects of prosocial shows are the increase in interaction levels and a decrease in aggression levels among the viewers as the effects will be will be visible in the real world. Watching TV programs has also been regarded as another way of fostering group identity as teenagers or viewers are known to identify themselves with media preferences (Parke and Clarke-Stewart 307).

According to Straubhaar and LaRose, violent behaviour effects from television have received a lot of attention from researchers than any other antisocial behaviour. Teenagers are regarded to possess the biggest percentage of television viewers. This therefore means that majority of the studies conducted are based on the teenagers within our society. The effect of television on the youngsters and teenagers at large has been an issue of concern in the public domain. This is because it is difficult for the youngsters to comprehend the difference between the current world they are living in and the world they perceive in the small screen. In the current world teenagers tend to spend numerous hours in a day watching the television without supervision. This hence creates room for possibility of harming the young developing mind with contents that are regarded as antisocial behaviour and as well as violent behaviour (Straubhaar and LaRose 407).

According to Martin, majority of the experts laid the blame of increase decay of social behaviours on the television and other forms of the media. It is these forms of media that glorify the unacceptable norms of the society such as drug use and irresponsible sexual behaviours. When these behaviours are seen or encouraged over the televisions the viewers are attracted to them and tend to try the theoretical behaviours practically. This therefore indicates that the viewers imitate what they see or hear over the various sources of media. The fact that the television or the film industries glorify these behaviours, they bear the burden of causing a decline in moral behaviour and increase in moral decay within the society. In the modern world majority of the rap and rock songs are incorporated with messages of violence in their lyrics. This will bound to increase deviance among the teenagers as the forms of entertainment known to them glamorizes the themes that are inclined to deviance behaviours (Martin 89).According to the cultivation theory, television addicts are mainly less concerned with violent acts as they perceive these acts as justified and they can tolerate it. The viewers’ perception on violence is moulded according to what he or she sees on the television thus in time, violence is not viewed as problematic but rather as an acceptable behaviour. The cultivation theory suggests that addicts of the television often perceive the world in a frightening and violent dimension which is contrary to the situation at hand. In addition to this, these viewers tend to be victims of the same violence they are watching. In summation, the violent televised shows are one of the root causes of violent behaviours in the social world as they tend to be more desensitized and aggressive to the aftermath of watching these programs in the sense that they consider the world revolving around them to be fearful, a phenomenon regarded as “mean world syndrome”.

Despite the various factors that contribute to the negative development of behaviours within the society, the one factor that cannot be ignored is the impact the television has in shaping the behaviour of the whole society we are living in. Media violence is one of the factors that are attributed to negative and antisocial behaviours among the developing teenagers and the society as whole. Human beings tend to imitate what they see a process called observational learning. It is at this stage that the youths are normally curious in trying out any kind of behaviour. The observational learning has been described as one of the main psychological process upon which the effects of media violence are based especially in a teenager’s that are developing.

In April 6, 1998 the Time Magazine wrote an article that indicated that a time was coming when the debate on media violence will be put in the same platform as the one the debate on tobacco’s impact on health was kept on. In addition the article went on to condemn researchers who don’t bother in debating over the increased bloodshed over the television that is bound to affect the viewers witnessing it.

Slapstick humour as well as other comedic elements has a way of camouflaging scenes of moral decay. As from its definition, it is regarded as humour achieved from physical action, slapstick humour has been incorporated in various television shows. There are several reasons as to why comedy which is one of the many television shows is regarded to condone violence. Some of the reasons include: 1) in comedies, the seriousness of the violent scenes is downplayed leading to the notion that violence is just another trivial by the viewer; 2) violence is camouflaged by excluding it from the schemas; and 3) when combined together humour and violence will result to downplaying the level of violence.

As regarding the deviant behaviours some of the entertainment shows are centrally focus on portraying a negative perception. The music entertainment shows that depict singers advocating on the use of drugs such as marijuana are bound to instigate negative and deviant behaviours among the teenagers. Majority of these singers are depicted in a lavished life of comfort that is yearned by majority of the teenagers and the moment they portray the use of drugs and other negative sexual behaviours as a common way of life, the teenagers will incline to the newly acquired way of life by trying out the same behaviours shown on the TV.

A lot of the attention from the researchers while conducting their researches has mainly been focused on the negative effects that television has as opposed to its positive effects. While considering the due care that is needed in showing the various programs to the viewers, it must be noted that television when used sensibly will give rise to numerous benefits. However the current form of media has been used to instigate negative social behaviours within the society we are living in.

Fisch, M. Shalom. Children’s learning from educational television: Sesame Street and beyond. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 2004.

Martin, Gus. Juvenile justice: process and systems. CA: Sage Publication Ltd. 2005.

Parke, D. Ross. and Clarke-Stewart, Alison. Social Development. NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2011.

Straubhaar, D. Joseph. Media now: understanding media, culture, and technology. CA: Thomson Corporation. 2006.

• Communication and Media: Home Town Media Project
• The SCI Effect of TV
• Laughter is the best medicine
• Is Watching TV Bad or Good?
• Quite Interesting, British Television Programme
• Philosophical Aspect of "Judge Judy" TV Show
• Narrative in Reality TV: An American Idol
• How Television Shows Reflect American Culture
• Screenology, a Modern Vision of the World
• “RuPaul’s Drag Race” Reality Show Reaction
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 9). Watching TV: Is It Good or Bad? https://ivypanda.com/essays/watching-tv-is-good-or-bad/

"Watching TV: Is It Good or Bad?" IvyPanda , 9 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/watching-tv-is-good-or-bad/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Watching TV: Is It Good or Bad'. 9 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Watching TV: Is It Good or Bad?" January 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/watching-tv-is-good-or-bad/.

1. IvyPanda . "Watching TV: Is It Good or Bad?" January 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/watching-tv-is-good-or-bad/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Watching TV: Is It Good or Bad?" January 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/watching-tv-is-good-or-bad/.

• Search Close search bar
• Open menu Close menu

Do schools really “kill creativity”?

Blog 24 Apr 2018 8 Comments

In the most watched TED talk of all time, educationalist Sir Ken Robinson FRSA claims that “schools kill creativity”, arguing that “we don’t grow into creativity, we grow out of it. Or rather we get educated out of it”. Yet to Robinson, “creativity is as important as literacy and we should afford it the same status”.

My former colleague Tim Leunig FRSA, while working as Chief Scientific Advisor at the Department for Education, delivered a  TEDx talk that tackled Robinson’s argument  head on. “True creativity” he argues, “is based on knowledge which in turn is based on literacy”. Our schools, where children develop the literacy skills on which all further learning depends, are therefore not killing creativity, but cultivating it by providing the “foundations young people need to be properly creative”.

As evidence of how schools kill creativity, Robinson cites the example of a young girl called Gillian Lynne who, at the age of eight, was already viewed as a problem student with a probable learning difficulty due her inability to sit still and concentrate. When her mother sought a medical explanation for Gillian’s constant fidgeting and lack of focus, the doctor suggested they speak privately. As the two adults got up to leave, the doctor turned on the radio. Left alone in a music-filled room, young Gillian began to dance. Observing her through the window, the doctor turned to her mother.  “Gillian’s not sick” he said, “she’s a dancer”. Today, at the age of 92, Gillian can look back on a long career in ballet, dance and musical theatre which saw her become one of the world’s most successful choreographers, with hits like Andrew Lloyd-Webber’s Cats and Phantom of the Opera among her many achievements. Yet her school had all but written her off, mistaking her extraordinary talent for some form of behavioural problem or cognitive impairment.

As evidence of how schools cultivate creativity by imparting the knowledge on which it so often depends, Leunig goes back to the Enlightenment. He talks about the introduction of crop rotation, which allowed more people to live off the produce of England’s soil, a pre-requisite for the mass movement of people from the fields to the factories, mills and mines that powered the industrial revolution. He talks about the great breakthrough that allowed that revolution to happen: the invention of the steam engine by Thomas Newcomen . And he talks about the knowledge that led to this invention –  knowledge of how, when steam condenses in a vessel, a vacuum is produced, and of how therefore, a piston could be forced out of a cylinder when steam is injected into it, and sucked back in again when the steam condenses. And he points out how this one brilliant insight enabled the British to “power the factories, get water out of the mines, and get locomotives running across the country and steam ships taking goods to the furthest corners of the globe”. Not only was this arguably the most important invention in economic history Leunig argues, but it wouldn’t have been possible without knowledge.

Does how we define creativity matter?

What is striking about these two talks is how different are the definitions of creativity on which they are based. To Robinson, creativity is about imagination, self-expression and divergent thinking. In contrast, Leunig’s examples of creativity show how, through the use of logic and the application of scientific principles, existing knowledge can be marshalled to create innovative new solutions to longstanding problems. To Robinson, creativity is natural – something you’re born with. Whereas for Leunig, it is highly dependent on the prior acquisition of biologically secondary knowledge – something you need to be taught. For Robinson, creativity is an alternative to literacy, and is often displayed by those who struggle academically; people who display what Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner would describes as an alternative or non-cognitive form of intelligence (kinesthetic in Lynne’s case). For Leunig, creativity is a cognitive competence that gains form and substance within particular knowledge domains – domains to which which the illiterate cannot gain access. 

Why do these differences matter? And what are their implications for schools, particularly those that put a premium on the cultivation of students’ creativity?

The short answer is that they matter because they illustrate how meaningless it is to talk about creativity in abstract terms, as if the word describes the same thing in different domains when, as Robinson and Leunig’s dispute show, it clearly does not.

As Professor Dylan Wiliam explains in his 2013 paper Principled Curriculum Design :

"A huge amount of research on skill acquisition has found that the skills developed by training and practice are very rarely generalised to other areas and are, in fact, very closely related to the specific training."

It is certainly unhelpful, and probably wrong, therefore, to talk about ‘critical thinking skills’. Critical thinking is an important part of most disciplines, and if you ask disciplinary experts to describe what they mean by critical thinking, you may well find considerable similarities in the responses of mathematicians and historians. The temptation is then to think that they are describing the same thing, but they are not.

The same is true for creativity. Creativity is not a single thing, but in fact a whole collection of similar, but different, processes. Creativity in mathematics is not the same as creativity in visual art. If a student decides to be creative in mathematics by deciding that 2 + 2 = 3, that is not being creative, it is just silly since the student is no longer doing mathematics…Creativity involves being at the edge of a field but still being within it.

Similar arguments can be made for other ‘21 st Century Skills’ such as problem-solving, communication and learning how to learn. There is some evidence that students who learn to work well with others in one setting may be more effective doing so in other settings, so some transfer is definitely possible. However, the really important message from the research in this area is that if you want students to be creative in mathematics you have to teach this in mathematics classrooms. If you want students to think critically in history, you have to teach this in history.

How should creativity be taught in schools?

Rather than thinking about creativity as something that can be taught as a generic skill, or taught only in the so-called ‘creative subjects’, Wiliam suggests that schools should use it as a “tool for auditing the breadth of the curriculum being offered in each discipline or subject”. This means ensuring that all subjects are taught in what Guy Claxton calls an epistemically broad way. So rather than teaching history “as if it is about fact and dates, it should be taught as an epistemic apprenticeship into the discipline of history involving facts and dates and understanding bias in historical sources and chronology and cause and effect”.

Considering how contested is the question of what and how to teach school children, it is remarkable how broad is the consensus about the indispensability of the disciplines – each with its own structure and rules, language and logic, perspectives and habits-of-mind. Indeed, even Howard Gardiner, in a recent piece entitled “re-imagining learning” which, as the title promises, is highly critical of traditional school models and teaching methods , is clear about the limits of that re-imagining:

“Mastering disciplines, learning to communicate effectively, engaging civilly in discussion and argument – these have been, and should remain, at the forefront of all education. The ancients talked about the importance of understanding what is true (and what is not); what is beautiful (and what is not worth lingering over); and what is good (in terms of being a worthy person, worker and citizen). These educational goals should be perennial”

It is worth dwelling on this briefly. Because in that first statement – about mastering disciplines, learning to communicate effectively, engaging civilly in discussion and argument – Gardiner captures the essence of the Trivium – the three arts of ‘grammar’, ‘rhetoric’ and ‘dialectics’ that Martin Robinson FRSA argues provide the basis for what John Milton once described as “a complete and generous education”. And in the second – about understanding what is true (academics) what is beautiful (aesthetics) and what is good (ethics) – Gardiner encapsulates the essence of what we at the RSA mean when we talk about an education of the “head, hand and heart”.

So. Do schools “kill creativity”?

The short answer is ‘no’, although they certainly can if they forget two important lessons:

First, that if the maximum number of children are to be given the greatest possible chance of realising their creative potential, schools need to provide and rich and broad curriculum that includes the so-called creative subjects that are the visual and performing arts.

And second, that if they are serious about cultivating real creativity across the curriculum, they need to remember that creativity describes a whole collection of similar, but different processes. In other words, they need to understand the central place of the disciplines in education, and take them as their starting point in curriculum design.

The example cited by Robinson is thought-provoking, but it doesn't, in itself, address creativity. Dance is no more creative than writing. It is a medium of expression and as such gives tools to be creative. When the girl in the example found herself at dance school I have no doubt she would have been subjected to rigourous, disciplined training to perfect her plies, her jettes and her pirouettes. Once she had mastered them, I expect she had much more scope to creatively interpret the dances or the music, or to choreograph a new piece. The arts are no more inherently creative than the sciences. We just think of the arts as creative endeavours but creativity is not confined to them.

I'll confine my comments to the opening sentences citing Tom Leuning's arguments:

“True creativity” he argues, “is based on knowledge which in turn is based on literacy”. Our schools, where children develop the literacy skills on which all further learning depends, are therefore not killing creativity, but cultivating it by providing the “foundations young people need to be properly creative.”

1.  "True creativity"? "properly creative"?- anyone who begins and ends any argument with phrases like that needs to examine and justify his concepts .....and the TED talk reveals that Leuning thinks "real creativity" is that which is leads to "making something better", "making something new" - and that these better new things will, for him be practical innovations.  Fair enough, but not the whole story - and one which could go hand in hand with Robinson's arguments - no need to set up these versions of creativity in opposition to each other.

2.  Is all knowledge "based on literacy"? Do the illiterate have no knowledge? 

3. "Our schools, where children develop the literacy skills on which all further learning depends"  - well here we have to question the nature of these "literacy skills" which "our schools" develop. "Our schools" - what and where are they? Some contemporary English schools do indeed help some children develop the kinds of literacy skills which enable them to become enthusiastic readers and writers, collecting, explaining and pursuing knowledge.  Other schools do not - and there are many reasons why some schools do and others do not.  Does "all further learning" really depend on literacy? 

4. "Our schools...... are therefore not killing creativity." That "therefore" springs from a set of unexamined assumptions about what is currently happening in "our" schools.   

Breakthrough ideas - a form of creativity - often emerge from those who have no 'knowledge'. 

I'm sure I'm not the only person who learned literacy at home before starting school, and many widely-acknowledged 'creative people' say they started learning when they left school!

I recall going to the inaugural lecture at 'RSA North' at Dean Clough when Sir Ernest Hall uplifted the audience, with lines like "one moment of inspiration is worth a thousand qualifications".  

I wish The RSA would invest in participative platforms for these kinds of debates rather than relying on channels like the website where an article is written (and promoted in the newsletter 7-8 months after it's published?!) and all Fellows can do is add screened, asynchronous comments. Not particularly creative is it?!

One of the key features of Ken Robinson's argument is that the standardisation and 'industrialisation' of the British schools system (and it's the same in Australia) kills creativity and stifles individual creativity - artistic and all other forms of creative thinking and creative expression. 

Ken is not just advocating for greater priority being given to the visual and performing arts, although he is a strong advocate for the arts. 

However, there is something to be said for 'traditional learning disciplines like reading, writing, grammar and spelling'. For example, it would be more respectful if the article, throughout, had the correct spelling for Howard Gardner!

More seriously, another question that is worthy of debate is whether The RSA - in its relationship with the RSA Fellowship - encourages creativity (if so, what type of creativity?) or kills creativity?  

Plato said something along these lines: “I would teach children music, physics, and philosophy; but most importantly music, for the patterns in music and all the arts are the keys to learning”.

Good analytical thinking, in scientific terms at least, is quite different from insightful thinking, where something 'pops into your head', often whilst in a state of relaxed cognition & undertaking autonomic stage psychomotor activities. These 'aha' moments are the result of new neural connections; they are new thought 'created in the mind' for the first time as new synaptic connection has taken place. 

One thing is broadly agreed by the literature around this, and it is that an examination is a totally inappropriate evaluation metric, due to time constraints and emotional understandings. So therefore, unless we evaluate learner performance to take account of this, how can we argue for or against? 

Another wonderful insight can be found by looking at alternative subjects and the commentaries coming from their potential employers. Sense of initiative? Common Sense? Without curiosity and a willingness to see beyond the obvious, how will our learners ever respond?

Page 1 of 2

Related articles

• Let me explain
• Yen Endra Kelvi
• SUBSCRIBER ONLY
• Whats Your Ism?
• Pakka Politics
• NEWSLETTERS

Watching TV just 15 minutes a day can kill creativity in kids, says study

Children who spend just 15 minutes or more a day watching their favourite cartoons on television may be at an increased risk of losing their creative minds as compared to those who read books or solve jigsaw puzzles, a study says.

"There was clear evidence that children came up with less original ideas immediately after watching television,"said Sarah Rose, Lecturer at Staffordshire University in Britain," although adding "these effects disappeared after a short time." However, "if children are less creative in their play, this could, over time, negatively impact their development," Rose said. There is a belief that slow-paced programmes are more educational but our findings do not support this, Sarah said.  In the study, the team looked at the immediate impact of television on three-year-old's creativity. They compared children who watched -- Postman Pat, with those who read books or played jigsaw puzzles.  The children were tested for throwing up maximum original creative ideas. The study is potentially useful to those who produce children's television shows, early year educators, as well as parents. The findings were presented at the British Psychological Developmental Conference in Belfast, recently.

Related Stories

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to write an argumentative essay | Examples & tips

How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips

Published on July 24, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

An argumentative essay expresses an extended argument for a particular thesis statement . The author takes a clearly defined stance on their subject and builds up an evidence-based case for it.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

When do you write an argumentative essay, approaches to argumentative essays, introducing your argument, the body: developing your argument, concluding your argument, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about argumentative essays.

You might be assigned an argumentative essay as a writing exercise in high school or in a composition class. The prompt will often ask you to argue for one of two positions, and may include terms like “argue” or “argument.” It will frequently take the form of a question.

The prompt may also be more open-ended in terms of the possible arguments you could make.

Argumentative writing at college level

At university, the vast majority of essays or papers you write will involve some form of argumentation. For example, both rhetorical analysis and literary analysis essays involve making arguments about texts.

In this context, you won’t necessarily be told to write an argumentative essay—but making an evidence-based argument is an essential goal of most academic writing, and this should be your default approach unless you’re told otherwise.

Examples of argumentative essay prompts

At a university level, all the prompts below imply an argumentative essay as the appropriate response.

Your research should lead you to develop a specific position on the topic. The essay then argues for that position and aims to convince the reader by presenting your evidence, evaluation and analysis.

• Don’t just list all the effects you can think of.
• Do develop a focused argument about the overall effect and why it matters, backed up by evidence from sources.
• Don’t just provide a selection of data on the measures’ effectiveness.
• Do build up your own argument about which kinds of measures have been most or least effective, and why.
• Don’t just analyze a random selection of doppelgänger characters.
• Do form an argument about specific texts, comparing and contrasting how they express their thematic concerns through doppelgänger characters.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

An argumentative essay should be objective in its approach; your arguments should rely on logic and evidence, not on exaggeration or appeals to emotion.

There are many possible approaches to argumentative essays, but there are two common models that can help you start outlining your arguments: The Toulmin model and the Rogerian model.

Toulmin arguments

The Toulmin model consists of four steps, which may be repeated as many times as necessary for the argument:

• Make a claim
• Provide the grounds (evidence) for the claim
• Explain the warrant (how the grounds support the claim)
• Discuss possible rebuttals to the claim, identifying the limits of the argument and showing that you have considered alternative perspectives

The Toulmin model is a common approach in academic essays. You don’t have to use these specific terms (grounds, warrants, rebuttals), but establishing a clear connection between your claims and the evidence supporting them is crucial in an argumentative essay.

Say you’re making an argument about the effectiveness of workplace anti-discrimination measures. You might:

• Claim that unconscious bias training does not have the desired results, and resources would be better spent on other approaches
• Cite data to support your claim
• Explain how the data indicates that the method is ineffective
• Anticipate objections to your claim based on other data, indicating whether these objections are valid, and if not, why not.

Rogerian arguments

The Rogerian model also consists of four steps you might repeat throughout your essay:

• Discuss what the opposing position gets right and why people might hold this position
• Highlight the problems with this position
• Present your own position , showing how it addresses these problems
• Suggest a possible compromise —what elements of your position would proponents of the opposing position benefit from adopting?

This model builds up a clear picture of both sides of an argument and seeks a compromise. It is particularly useful when people tend to disagree strongly on the issue discussed, allowing you to approach opposing arguments in good faith.

Say you want to argue that the internet has had a positive impact on education. You might:

• Acknowledge that students rely too much on websites like Wikipedia
• Argue that teachers view Wikipedia as more unreliable than it really is
• Suggest that Wikipedia’s system of citations can actually teach students about referencing
• Suggest critical engagement with Wikipedia as a possible assignment for teachers who are skeptical of its usefulness.

You don’t necessarily have to pick one of these models—you may even use elements of both in different parts of your essay—but it’s worth considering them if you struggle to structure your arguments.

Regardless of which approach you take, your essay should always be structured using an introduction , a body , and a conclusion .

Like other academic essays, an argumentative essay begins with an introduction . The introduction serves to capture the reader’s interest, provide background information, present your thesis statement , and (in longer essays) to summarize the structure of the body.

Hover over different parts of the example below to see how a typical introduction works.

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts is on the rise, and its role in learning is hotly debated. For many teachers who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its critical benefits for students and educators—as a uniquely comprehensive and accessible information source; a means of exposure to and engagement with different perspectives; and a highly flexible learning environment.

The body of an argumentative essay is where you develop your arguments in detail. Here you’ll present evidence, analysis, and reasoning to convince the reader that your thesis statement is true.

In the standard five-paragraph format for short essays, the body takes up three of your five paragraphs. In longer essays, it will be more paragraphs, and might be divided into sections with headings.

Each paragraph covers its own topic, introduced with a topic sentence . Each of these topics must contribute to your overall argument; don’t include irrelevant information.

This example paragraph takes a Rogerian approach: It first acknowledges the merits of the opposing position and then highlights problems with that position.

Hover over different parts of the example to see how a body paragraph is constructed.

A common frustration for teachers is students’ use of Wikipedia as a source in their writing. Its prevalence among students is not exaggerated; a survey found that the vast majority of the students surveyed used Wikipedia (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). An article in The Guardian stresses a common objection to its use: “a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing” (Coomer, 2013). Teachers are clearly not mistaken in viewing Wikipedia usage as ubiquitous among their students; but the claim that it discourages engagement with academic sources requires further investigation. This point is treated as self-evident by many teachers, but Wikipedia itself explicitly encourages students to look into other sources. Its articles often provide references to academic publications and include warning notes where citations are missing; the site’s own guidelines for research make clear that it should be used as a starting point, emphasizing that users should always “read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says” (“Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia,” 2020). Indeed, for many students, Wikipedia is their first encounter with the concepts of citation and referencing. The use of Wikipedia therefore has a positive side that merits deeper consideration than it often receives.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

An argumentative essay ends with a conclusion that summarizes and reflects on the arguments made in the body.

No new arguments or evidence appear here, but in longer essays you may discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your argument and suggest topics for future research. In all conclusions, you should stress the relevance and importance of your argument.

Hover over the following example to see the typical elements of a conclusion.

The internet has had a major positive impact on the world of education; occasional pitfalls aside, its value is evident in numerous applications. The future of teaching lies in the possibilities the internet opens up for communication, research, and interactivity. As the popularity of distance learning shows, students value the flexibility and accessibility offered by digital education, and educators should fully embrace these advantages. The internet’s dangers, real and imaginary, have been documented exhaustively by skeptics, but the internet is here to stay; it is time to focus seriously on its potential for good.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

An argumentative essay tends to be a longer essay involving independent research, and aims to make an original argument about a topic. Its thesis statement makes a contentious claim that must be supported in an objective, evidence-based way.

An expository essay also aims to be objective, but it doesn’t have to make an original argument. Rather, it aims to explain something (e.g., a process or idea) in a clear, concise way. Expository essays are often shorter assignments and rely less on research.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

The majority of the essays written at university are some sort of argumentative essay . Unless otherwise specified, you can assume that the goal of any essay you’re asked to write is argumentative: To convince the reader of your position using evidence and reasoning.

In composition classes you might be given assignments that specifically test your ability to write an argumentative essay. Look out for prompts including instructions like “argue,” “assess,” or “discuss” to see if this is the goal.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/argumentative-essay/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis statement | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, how to write an expository essay, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Essay Samples
• College Essay
• Writing Tools
• Writing guide

Creative samples from the experts

↑ Return to Essay Samples

Argumentative Essay: TV is Taking Away the Habit of Reading Books

Ever since the invention of books, reading has been a popular past time with those able to read. As literacy levels increased, reading soon became something that the majority of the population enjoyed, and because literacy and reading are integral to each other, the more people read books, the better they could read, and the better educated they became. But more recently, technology means that less and less people are choosing to read to fill their time. One of the main things that people now do in their free time when they ordinarily would have been reading is to watch television, and there are a number of reasons why this is happening.

First of all, watching television is easier than reading. It doesn’t require us to use our brains as much or concentrate as hard, so watching TV can be more appealing after a long day of work. Furthermore, some people are not very well educated and do not want to be, and would consider reading to be something done by intellectuals only. But this perpetuates the problem and becomes a cycle, whereby people don’t read because they can’t read well, and never will read better because they won’t read.

The increase in choice of TV programmes also means that more and more people are choosing to watch TV. When there were only a handful of channels available, if there was nothing on that someone wanted to watch, they would pick up a book. But now, with the great choice of channels and the ability to record and watch on demand too, we can always find something on that we are interested in watching, so we are less likely to pick up a book because we are bored with the television.

The cost of books is also having an impact, because with television you don’t have to pay for as much as you want. There are subscription costs and license fees, but once you’ve paid those, you can watch as little or as much TV as you want, with the only additional cost being electricity. With books, however, the more you read, the more you have to spend. And while it’s true that you can pick them up second hand, sometimes it’s hard to find what you want, and some people don’t like to buy things second hand, so the price of books compared to television could certainly be a factor.

Overall, there can be no doubt that the availability, choice and price of television are meaning that less people are choosing to read books. Plus, because reading improves with practice and technology is moving forward all the time, it is a situation that is only going to get worse.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

• Free Essays Download
• Writing Tools List
• Proofreading Services
• Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

Social media is killing your creativity

Social media and creativity

Note: This post contains affiliate links. 

Listen to the audio version or read the post below.

Don’t worry, I’m not one of ‘THOSE’ people.

I’m not a social media killjoy. I love it and use it often, every day.

But recently, I’ve been exploring ways to decrease the time I spend waste on Facebook and Instagram (the platforms I use the most) by learning about the impact of social media usage on my brain.

I find that understanding how our brains work inspires me to WANT to change my behaviour. Knowing that I CAN change helps inspire me, too. And intrinsic motivation is the best place for change to come from, right? It’s better than someone yelling at us to get off Facebook.

I was curious about the relationship between social media and creativity. And by this, I don’t mean writing creative social media posts. I mean how social media affects our creativity, so I started researching.

What I found is that there is a feel-good neurohormone in our brain bringing us little bursts of joy. It’s called dopamine. You might have heard the expression ‘getting a little dopamine hit’.

So, what’s wrong with a little joy? A lot, apparently. Those little dopamine hits via social media are killing our creativity.

Now, I’m not a scientist (and if you are, feel free to let me know anything I get wrong here in the comments and if you aren’t, feel free to shut the hell up add meaningful comments to this post) but I’ll do my best to interpret what I found.

What is dopamine?

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, one of those chemicals that is responsible for transmitting signals in between the nerve cells (neurons) of the brain. When dopamine neurons become activated, they release dopamine.

Psychology Today

OK, so dopamine is like a courier in the brain, carrying important messages between neurons, nerves and other cells in our body.

It’s produced in several areas of the brain and is released by the hypothalamus , which links our nervous system to our endocrine system.

Dopamine and social media

How does dopamine affect people.

The minute you take a drug, drink alcohol, smoke a cigarette if those are your poison, when you get a like on social media, all of those experiences produce dopamine, which is a chemical that’s associated with pleasure. When someone likes an Instagram post, or any content that you share, it’s a little bit like taking a drug. As far as your brain is concerned, it’s a very similar experience. Now the reason why is because it’s not guaranteed that you’re going to get likes on your posts. And it’s the unpredictability of that process that makes it so addictive. If you knew that every time you posted something you’d get a 100 likes, it would become boring really fast.

Adam Alter, New York University professor and author of “ Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked

I haven’t read Alter’s book. I’m afraid it will be like Allen Carr’s seminal book, Easy Way to Quit Smoking and I’ll end up wanting to delete all my social media accounts or deal with the thought of manipulative corporations behind them each time I take a dopamine hit. I’m looking at you, Facebook.

I wonder how much dopamine and ego are in partnership. And how much of this stuff the wealthy corporations behind successful social platforms know this. Very well, I assume. Social media is designed to be distracting. It’s their business to make social media as distracting as possible so they keep us on their site longer and generate more ad revenue off us while we’re sucked into its vortex. I don’t know about you, but the more I’m consciously aware of how I’m being manipulated, the more I want to rebel.

But, if you feel the lure of checking your phone all too often and enjoy that dopamine rush a little too much, know that we have the power to change our behaviour.

And it’s not as hard as you might think.

Rewiring and re-training our brains

Neuroplasticity  is your brain’s ability to change during your life. The expression ‘You can’t teach an old dog new tricks’ is false. You can teach an old dog new tricks and you can no longer use that as an excuse to put off learning the guitar or studying Mandarin or whatever else you’ve had on your ‘one day’ list because you think you’re too old. We can also train ourselves to not be so reliant on social media for those little feel-good hits of dopamine.

We can retrain our brains by creating new neural pathways. We can retrain our brains by not reaching for our phones during those brief moments of boredom, like at the bus stop or in the queue at the supermarket. The more times we practice and don’t reach for our phones to kill those microseconds of boredom, the better we get at it and we start to create those new neural pathways we need to make it easier to no longer feel the pull to impulsively reach for our phones.

The challenge

The next time you feel the urge during a moment of boredom to check your phone, don’t. Delay. Wait five or ten minutes. Maybe the urge will completely pass.

Decision fatigue and social media

When we grab our phones or turn on our computers first thing in the morning to check emails or social media or news sites, we’re giving away our best decision-making time to our devices and our social media accounts. Each time we decide to like an Instagram post or comment on a Facebook post, we’re burning through our decision-making energy stores. Same when we choose our socks and decide what to eat for breakfast.

Decision fatigue poisons creativity. Wasting our decision-making ability on transient, unimportant details in our social media feeds crowds out the space we need for creation. Our decision-making ability and willpower is finite and needs to be replenished daily.

To be our best creative selves, we need to give our brains the space they need to be creative. We need to reserve our decision-making for things that matter, not whether to give a like to that highly stylised but yummy looking plate of pancakes with hot sauce or whether we’ll wear the Argyle or plain socks today.

Developing new habits to help fight decision fatigue

There are some simple things you can do at day’s end when your decision-making and willpower well is running dry that will help you the next day:

• Write out your to-do list for the following day.
• Write a list of all the things you know you need to remember the following day.
• Write out your ‘ta da’ list of your accomplishments that day.
• Decide what you’re going to wear and set out your clothes ready for the morning. This can extend to other family members who rely on you for their daily clothing choices.
• Decide what you’re going to eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
• Pack your bag with anything you need for the following day. If you’re a parent, you can do this for the little people in your life you have to organise.
• Develop a shut down routine after you finish working so you’ll stop ruminating about work over dinner or while watching Suits or whatever it is you do in the evening and stop you from further depleting that decision-making well.

I don’t do all of this. I do some, but rarely all each day. But here’s the thing, when I do them, even just a couple, it really does help. I get greater mental clarity and better productivity as a consequence. There’s more focus and I do better quality work.

Combat decision fatigue by committing to at least two of the above items for one week, then check in and see if it’s helping you. You can, of course, do them all, but that might seem like too much change to handle all at once. I’m going to commit to 1, 3, 4 and 7.

Reclaiming creativity

When you’re in that sometimes elusive but always utopian state of flow and making connections between ideas, layering ideas and creating good stuff, we must experience a dopamine hit. Lots of micro-bursts of feel-good hits. And how much better for us is that compared to the thrill we get from an Instagram like or three. Pancakes with hot sauce? Meh.

I would much rather experience that state of flow than watch the world flow past in my news feed. But yet I continue to succumb to the lure of my phone during brief moments of distraction. Working with my phone out of the room is helpful. It’s weird, but I don’t feel the urge to check social sites via my computer’s browser – it’s my phone that lures me and where I need to be retrained. But if you do find it hard to resist sneaking a peek at Facie while working, use a browser plugin like Work Mode  that will stop access to social media sites via your computer’s browser.

Deep work, by Cal Newport

I don’t remember Cal’s exact suggestion, but I interpreted it as don’t look at your phone for the first hour of the day . This could be your computer, too. Or a tablet, or any other electronic device you use.

I was intrigued by the idea and gave it a go. What better way to avoid decision fatigue than to avoid having to decide whether or not to give the stack of pancakes a like.

This idea was next level choosing socks the night before (go for the Argyle ones, always). I was diligent for a while. And it was wonderful. I spent the morning kid wrangling and getting The Monsta off to daycare and me off on a walk or to the gym.

On the days that I didn’t turn my phone on for the first hour+, I found the urge to check social media declined for the rest of the day. It just didn’t seem that important. I was also more productive.

These days, I give myself about 30 minutes before checking my phone. The exception is when I’m expecting a project catastrophe or I’m in weekend mode – choosing whether or not to like an image of a stack of pancakes is the pinnacle of my decision-making ability in holiday mode.

Truth: I hated this book. I found it repetitive and padded out to create a bloated word count. But its biggest fault is that it came from a place of unacknowledged privilege.  He wrote it for a very narrow audience of men who clearly don’t have to partake in boring household chores or early morning kid wrangling and can swan into their office after a morning run, preferably an academic office, men who are secure enough in their own importance to give the middle finger to the establishment that employs them by dictating the terms of their work arena. If he’d just acknowledged what a privilege this position is, I might not have had such an adverse reaction to the book.

But, if you’re keen to read the book, buy it from Dymocks ,  QBD Books ,  Book Depository  or Amazon .

Level 1: Work with your phone out of the room, or at least out of your eye line and more than an easy arm’s reach away. Silence your notifications. Activate the Work Mode plugin. Don’t check your social accounts for at least an hour, then have a quick break and get straight back into work mode. (Cal would say that’s a terrible idea and you shouldn’t be on social media at all because any connection you make there is completely shallow. Ha! What a stick in the mud!)

Level 2: Don’t use your phone for at least the first hour of the day (or your laptop, desktop or tablet). Go about your normal morning routine, minus checking email and other notifications. See what happens.

Over to you. Do you feel a chronic urge to check social media on your phone or computer? Do you have any strategies for dealing with decision fatigue or for reclaiming your creativity? I’d love to hear about them in the comments below.

Pin this post

3 replies to "Social media is killing your creativity"

I wonder how the dopamine hit begins in the first place re. social media? Would it be the same as the pleasure people feel when they become famous? Is this why fame often kills creativity- the old sophomore album syndrome (their first album was awesome but their second album sucked). Great article!

i love everything about this, your writing style, your honesty (especially your brief review of the book). I’m conducting research for a social media post about how SM affects creativity. This is very helpful. Thank you and well done.

Thanks for your feedback – it’s lovely to hear. All the best for your writing goals.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website. *

Home — Essay Samples — Arts & Culture — Creativity — Do Schools Kill Creativity Speech Analysis

Do Schools Kill Creativity Speech Analysis

• Categories: Creativity

About this sample

Words: 455 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 455 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Arts & Culture

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 498 words

4 pages / 1599 words

2 pages / 778 words

3 pages / 1361 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Creativity

In the world of comedy, Adam Sandler is a polarizing figure. Loved by some and criticized by others, Sandler has carved out a unique niche in Hollywood with his distinct brand of humor. In this essay, we will delve into the [...]

Nike is a globally recognized brand that has revolutionized the sports industry through its innovative products and impactful marketing campaigns. One of the key figures behind Nike’s advertising success is Dan Wieden, the [...]

Imagination and creativity are two of the most extraordinary capabilities of the human mind. They enable individuals to transcend the limitations of their immediate reality, envisioning possibilities and generating novel ideas [...]

As I sit down to write this descriptive essay about myself, I am faced with the daunting task of trying to put into words who I am as a person. How do I capture the essence of my being in a few paragraphs? How do I convey my [...]

Tattoos have long been regarded as a form of self-expression and artistry. From ancient civilizations to modern times, individuals have adorned their bodies with permanent ink to convey personal meanings, beliefs, and [...]

Explanation of what creative writing encompasses Distinction from other forms of writing Various forms and examples of creative writing Explanation of each type Creative writing as a means to express [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on a Ted Talk: Do Schools Kill Creativity?

Creativity is what ultimately nurtures innovation. And innovation is the future. The big question is – are creativity and innovation inherited in each of us? The answer is yes. 

The first argument Sir Ken Robinson makes in his speech is that the modern educational system does not encourage mistakes. Initially, kids are not at all afraid of being wrong. But many of them lose this capacity. 

In every educational system, there is a pretty common hierarchy of the subjects taught at school. The most important ones are considered to be math and languages. Then come humanities, whereas arts are typically at the very bottom of this hierarchy. 

So, do schools really kill creativity? Apparently, the answer is yes. In schools, creativity and innovation are not encouraged. And there is no tolerance for mistakes. We also shove kids into limited frameworks of what is generally believed they will need in their future. 

Finally, we tell kids who and what they can or cannot be way too often. And to ensure their successful future, as a teacher or parent, you can always change the way you think and give way to children’s creative urge.

Related Posts: