Editor's Note, July 30: Jonah Lehrer has recently admitted that he fabricated some of the quotes attributed to Bob Dylan in this book. As a result, its publisher has stopped its sale while it determines whether further steps are needed.

Many of us have some creative aspect to our lives, whether it's in our jobs, in our domestic activities, or in our hobbies. If we don't restrict "creativity" to the narrow realm of the traditional Fine Arts, we find creativity in many unusual places. Creativity isn't always encouraged, and often is disparaged, especially in educational settings, but its importance as a human endeavor can't be overstated. Not everyone will be or needs to be a Creative Genius—whatever that means—but nurturing that side of our mental makeup is an important part of life.

If you get past the idea that creativity lies solely in the realm of divine inspiration, reserved for a precious few of us, then perhaps creativity can be studied, learned, and taught. That's the premise of Jonah Lehrer's book Imagine, subtitled "How Creativity Works": understanding it as a process means it can be nurtured. Imagine is a broad-ranging book, covering a bit of neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and more than a touch of corporate brown-nosing. The cast of characters includes musicians, playwrights, writers, scientists of various persuasions, and graphic designers. It's a well-written, wonderful, sometimes frustrating book—one that rewards the thoughtful reader with plenty to ponder.

Inside the Corporations, Outside the Mindset

First, let me get my major criticisms out of the way. Lehrer spends a lot of time in corporate settings (3M, Procter and Gamble, Pixar) and runs the serious risk of taking their PR as unvarnished fact. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but if these companies were as uniformly wonderful places to work as the pictures he paints, I suspect every company would emulate them: the combination of financial success and ideal working conditions would be as catnip to CEOs. (One of Lehrer's gigs, at least at the time of his book jacket biography, is writing for the Wall Street Journal, so perhaps his biases are opposite to mine.)

Similarly, Lehrer picks up on a relatively small number of scientific case studies to bolster his points (for example, one specific set of sensory tests given to Harvard undergraduates). While this can certainly be a fair writer's shortcut—going in depth is not always desirable for reasons of clarity and sticking to the main point—it feels a bit too pat. Every study supports the same conclusions, with none of the ambiguities that plague real scientific research and especially any field involving human diversity of thought. My colleagues in psychology and other human-centered fields no doubt can say more to my critique, whether to refute or support it.

A final example: in his chapter "The Outsider", Lehrer emphasizes the advantages that come from an outside perspective on a problem. I think his broad point is partly true: sometimes new approaches to old problems are best seen by someone who hasn't been obsessively thinking about it, and who can bring a different area of expertise to bear. However, there are degrees of outsiderism (to coin a term): while a biologist may shed light on a problem in physics, it's less likely that a plumber will resolve the dark energy problem in cosmology. Scientific training may carry across disciplinary lines, as with Lehrer's example of two physicists who discovered a scaling law relating city population to quality of life. However, it's hubristic at best to think that this is a general principle (and I say this as a physicist: we're notorious for thinking we can solve any problem in any field).

Creativity for the Masses

However, Lehrer's book shines in many other ways; I found myself nodding in agreement and taking a lot of notes as I read. Particularly, he shows a passionate side while writing on education, something I heartily welcome. In the last chapter, he makes a point that probably will resonate with many of us: American culture is exceptionally good at fostering creative geniuses, but only in athletics. We identify the talent early, separate and nurture it through camps, training, and public attention. While he writes about a school for the arts in New Orleans and another for technology, other creative areas (science comes to mind) do not have nearly the same resources. The arts are often the first to go in school funding, and while there's a Title IX for athletics, there is none for chemistry.

Similarly, while I was critical of some of his points about outsiders, others are valid. Forcing yourself to take a break from an idea by traveling or working on something completely different is indeed a good way to break through creative deadlocks. Lehrer also is correct, I think, in his identification both of why Shakespeare was a great writer but also very much a man of his time, rather than an anomaly blessed by the gods. Anyone who can weave Bob Dylan, mathematician Paul Erős, and Pixar into a single narrative has my attention.

Lehrer is an excellent writer, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has read his work in Wired or heard his contributions to NPR's "Radiolab", and he tells a compelling story. Even when I found fault, he inspired further thought and investigation, never a desire to throw the book down in disgust. I can think of no higher praise than he has inspired me to think deeply about this subject, in ways I am not accustomed to do. Lehrer has inspired my own creativity.