Creativity is a phenomenon in which something new and valuable is somehow formed. Items created may be intangible (such as ideas, scientific theories, musical compositions, or jokes) or physical objects (such as invention, literature, or painting).
Scientific interest in creativity is found in a number of disciplines: engineering, psychology, cognitive science, education, philosophy (especially philosophy of science), technology, theology, sociology, linguistics, business studies, songwriting, and economics, including the relationship between creativity. and general intelligence, personality type, mental and neurological processes, mental health, or artificial intelligence; the potential to nurture creativity through education and training; creativity maximization for national economic benefits, and the application of creative resources to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning.
Video Creativity
Etimologi
Leksem in English creativity comes from the Latin term cre? "to create, create": suffix derivatives are also derived from Latin. The word "create" appears in English as early as the 14th century, especially in Chaucer, to show the divine creation (in The Parson's Tale). However, its modern meaning as an act of human creation did not appear until after the Enlightenment.
Maps Creativity
Definitions
In a summary of scientific research into creativity, Michael Mumford suggests: "Over the last decade, however, we seem to have reached a general agreement that creativity involves the production of novels, useful products" (Mumford, 2003, p, × 110), or, in Robert Sternberg's words, the production of "something original and precious". The author has deviated dramatically in precise definitions beyond this common parallel: Peter Meusburger considers that over a hundred different analyzes can be found in the literature. As an illustration, one definition given by Dr. E. Paul Torrance describes it as "a process of being sensitive to problems, shortcomings, knowledge gaps, missing elements, disharmony, etc., identifying difficulties, seeking solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about deficiencies: testing and reexamining these hypotheses and may modify and retest them, and eventually communicate the results. "
Aspect
The theory of creativity (especially the investigation of why some people are more creative than others) has focused on various aspects. Dominant factors are usually identified as "four Ps" - processes, products, people, and places (according to Mel Rhodes). Focus on the process is shown in a cognitive approach that tries to describe the mechanisms of thought and technique for creative thinking. Theories that propose divergent rather than convergent thinking (such as Guilford), or that describe the staging of the creative process (such as Wallas) are primarily creative process theories. Focus on creative products usually appears in an attempt to measure creativity (psychometric, see below) and in creative ideas that are framed as successful memes. The psychometric approach to creativity reveals that it also involves the ability to produce more. Focus on the creative nature of people assumes more general intellectual habits, such as openness, level of ideation, autonomy, expertise, exploratory behavior, and so on. Focus on places consider situations in which creativity develops, such as degree of autonomy, access to resources, and goalkeeper nature. The creative lifestyle is characterized by inappropriate attitudes and behaviors and flexibility.
History of concepts
Ancient view
Most ancient cultures, including the thinkers of Ancient Greece, Ancient Chinese, and Ancient India, lacked the concept of creativity, seeing art as a form of discovery and not creation. The ancient Greeks did not have a term that corresponded to "to make" or "creator" except for the expression "poiein " ("to make"), applied only to poiesis poetry) and to poietes (poet, or "maker") that make it. Plato does not believe in art as a form of creation. Asked at The Republic, "Would we say, a painter, that he made something?", He replied, "Of course not, he just imitates."
It is generally argued that the idea of ​​"creativity" comes from Western culture through Christianity, as a matter of divine inspiration. According to historian Daniel J. Boorstin, "the earliest Western conception of creativity is the biblical creation story given in Genesis ." However, this is not creativity in the modern sense, which does not appear until the Renaissance. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, creativity is the only province of God; man is not considered to have the ability to create something new except as an expression of God's work. A concept similar to Christianity exists in Greek culture, for example, Muses is seen as the inspirational mediation of the Gods. Romans and Greeks called for the creative concept of an external "daemon" (Greek) or "genius" (Latin), associated with the sacred or the divine. However, none of these views resembles the modern concept of creativity, and the individual is not seen as the cause of creation until the Renaissance. During the Renaissance creativity was first seen, not as a channel for the divine, but from the ability of "great people".
The Enlightenment and after
The rejection of creativity that supports discovery and the belief that individual creation is a channel from which the divine will dominate the West may be up to the Renaissance and even then. The development of the concept of modern creativity begins in the Renaissance, when creation began to be regarded as derived from the individual's ability, and not God. This can be attributed to the leading intellectual movement of the time, appropriately called humanism, which developed a highly human centered view of the world, valuing individual intelligence and achievement. From this philosophy comes the Renaissance man (or polymath), an individual who embodies the principles of humanism in an endless courtship with knowledge and creation. One of the most famous and most successful examples is Leonardo da Vinci.
However, this shift occurs gradually and will not be immediately visible until the Enlightenment. In the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, the mention of creativity (especially in aesthetics), related to the concept of imagination, became more frequent. In Thomas Hobbes's writing, imagination becomes a key element of human cognition; William Duff was one of the first to identify imagination as the quality of genius, symbolizing the separation made between talent (productive, but not breaking new ground) and genius.
As a direct and independent study topic, creativity was effectively not gained attention until the 19th century. Runco and Albert argue that creativity as the subject of proper study began to appear seriously in the late nineteenth century with an increasing interest in individual differences inspired by the arrival of Darwinism. In particular, they refer to the work of Francis Galton, who through his eugenial view is deeply interested in the heritability of intelligence, with creativity taken as aspects of genius.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, prominent mathematicians and scientists such as Hermann von Helmholtz (1896) and Henri Poincarà ©  © (1908) began to reflect and openly discuss their creative processes.
The twentieth century to the present day
Insights PoincarÃÆ'Â © and von Helmholtz were built early in the account of the creative process by pioneering theorists such as Graham Wallas and Max Wertheimer. In his Art of Thought, published in 1926, Wallas presented one of the first models of the creative process. In the Wallas stage model, creative insights and illumination can be explained by a process consisting of five stages:
- (i) preparation (preparatory work on issues that focus individual minds on issues and explore problem dimensions),
- (ii) incubation (where the problem is internalized into the subconscious mind and nothing externally appears to occur),
- (iii) intimacy (the creative person gets a "feeling" that the solution is on the way),
- (iv) illumination or insight (where creative ideas explode from the subconscious into consciousness);
- (v) verification (where ideas are consciously verified, described, and then applied).
The Wallas model is often treated as four phases, with "intimacy" seen as sub-stage.
Wallas regards creativity as a legacy of the evolutionary process, allowing humans to adapt quickly to rapidly changing environments. Simonton provides an updated perspective on this view in his book, Genius Origins: Darwinian perspective on creativity .
In 1927, Alfred North Whitehead gave Gifford Lectures at Edinburgh University, later published as a Process and Reality. He is credited with inventing the term "creativity" to serve as his main metaphysical category. Scheme: "Whitehead actually creates our terms, is still the currency of choice of exchange between literature, science, and art... a term that is rapidly becoming so popular that it is everywhere, that its invention is in living memory, and by Alfred North Whitehead of all people, quickly becoming clogged ".
The formal psychometric measurement of creativity, from the perspective of orthodox psychology literature, is usually assumed to have begun with the 1950 speech of J. P. Guilford to the American Psychological Association, which helped popularize the topic and focused on a scientific approach to the conceptualization of creativity. (It should be noted that the London School of Psychology has instigated a psychometric study of creativity since 1927 with HL Hargreaves's work into the Faculty of Imagination, but has no similar impact.) Statistical analysis led to the recognition of creativity (as measured) as a separate aspect of human cognition for IQ type intelligence , which had previously been included. Guilford's work shows that above the IQ threshold, the relationship between creativity and intelligence measured is classically corrupted.
"Four C" model
James C. Kaufman and Beghetto introduced the "four C" creativity model; mini-c ("transformative learning" that involves "personal interpretation of experience, action, and insight"), little-c (daily problem solving and creative expression) , Pro-C (exhibited by professional people or creative vocations though not always leading) and Big-C (creativity is considered great in certain areas). This model is intended to help accommodate creativity models and theories that emphasize competence as an important component and historical transformation of the creative domain as a sign of creativity. Also, the authors argue, make a useful framework for analyzing the creative process in individuals.
The contrast of the terms "Big C" and "Little c" has been widely used. Kozbelt, Beghetto and Runco use the little-c/Big-C model to review the main theories of creativity. Margaret Boden distinguishes between h-creativity (historic) and p-creativity (personal).
Robinson and Anna Craft focus on creativity in the general population, especially with regard to education. Craft makes a similar distinction between "high" and "c small" creativity. and quotes Ken Robinson as referring to "high" and "democratic" creativity. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has defined creativity in terms of people who are judged to have made a creative contribution, perhaps a significant domain change. Simonton has analyzed the trajectories of careers of eminent creative people to map out patterns and predictors of creative productivity.
Creative process theories
There are many empirical studies in psychology and cognitive science of the process in which creativity takes place. Interpretation of the results of this study has led to several possible explanations of the sources and methods of creativity.
Incubation
Incubation is a temporary break from creative problem solving that can generate insight. There are several empirical studies that observe whether, as the concept of "incubation" in the Wallas model implies, periods of interruption or breaks from problems can help creative problem solving. Ward lists advanced hypotheses to explain why incubation can help creative problem solving, and notes how some empirical evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that incubation helps creative problem solving that allows "to forget" misleading instructions. The absence of incubation can cause the problem solver to become fixated on inappropriate strategies for solving problems. This work refutes the previous hypothesis that the creative solution to the problem arises mysteriously from the subconscious mind while the conscious mind is occupied on other tasks. This previous hypothesis is discussed in Csikszentmihalyi's five-phase model of the creative process that describes incubation as a time unconscious by your subconscious. This allows a unique connection created without your awareness trying to create a logical sequence of problems.
Convergent and divergent thinking
J. P. Guilford draws the distinction between convergent and diverging productions (generally renamed convergent and divergent thinking). Convergent thinking involves targeting the right solution for a problem, whereas different thinking involves creating the creative of multiple answers for a given problem. Different thinking is sometimes used as a synonym for creativity in the psychology literature. Other researchers sometimes use the term "flexible" thinking or fluid intelligence, which is roughly similar to (but not identical to) creativity.
Creative cognition approach
In 1992, Finke et al. proposed the "Geneplore" model, in which creativity occurs in two phases: the generative phase, in which an individual constructs a mental representation called a preinventive structure, and an exploration phase in which the structure is used to generate creative ideas. Some evidence suggests that when people use their imaginations to develop new ideas, they are highly structured in ways that predictable characteristics of existing categories and concepts can be predicted. Weisberg argues, on the contrary, that creativity involves only ordinary cognitive processes that produce extraordinary results.
Theory of Explicit-Implicit Interaction (EII)
Helie and Sun recently proposed an integrated framework for understanding creativity in problem solving, the explicit creativity-explicit theory (EII). This new theory is an attempt to provide a more unified explanation of the relevant phenomenon (in part by reinterpreting/integrating incubation theory and inseparable insights).
EII's theory depends on five basic principles:
- The presence and distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge;
- Simultaneous involvement of implicit and explicit processes in most tasks;
- Excessive representation of explicit and implicit knowledge;
- Integration of explicit and implicit processing results;
- The process is repeatable (and possibly bidirectional).
The implementation of computational theory is developed based on CLARION's cognitive architecture and is used to simulate relevant human data. This work is the first step in developing a process-based creativity theory that includes incubation, insight, and other related phenomena.
Conceptual mixture
In the The Act of Creation , Arthur Koestler introduces the concept of Honing Theory
The Honing Theory, developed mainly by psychologist Liane Gabora, argues that creativity arises because of the self-regulating nature of the universe and can improve itself. The creative process is the way in which each individual (and return) an integrated world view. The Honing theory places emphasis not only on externally visible creative outcomes but also internal cognitive restructuring and improvement of the world view generated by the creative process. When faced with a task that demands creativity, there is an interaction between the conception of the task and the worldview. The concept of the task changes through interaction with the worldview, and the worldview changes through interaction with the task. This interaction is reaffirmed until the task is completed, at which point not only are the tasks conceived differently, but the world view is subtly or drastically altered as it follows the natural tendency of the worldview to try to resolve dissonance and seek internal consistency between components, , attitude, or a little knowledge.
The main feature of sharpening theory is the idea of ​​a potential state. The Honing Theory argues that creative thought goes rather than by searching through and randomly 'mutating' predetermined possibilities, but by drawing on existing associations because of overlap in distributed nerve cell assemblies that participate in encoding experience in memory. In the middle of the creative process one may have made the association between the current task and the previous experience, but has not been denied, which aspects of previous experiences are relevant to the current task. Thus the creative idea may feel 'half-baked'. At this point it can be said to be in a potential state, for how it will actualize depends on the internal or external context it produces to interact with it.
Honing Theory is held to explain certain phenomena that are not addressed by other creativity theories, for example, how different works by the same creator are observed in research to show recognizable styles or 'voices' even through creative channels. It is not predicted by theories of creativity that emphasize accidental processes or accumulated expertise, but predicted by sharpening theory, which according to personal style reflects a uniquely structured world view of the creator. Another example is the environmental stimulus for creativity. Creativity is generally thought to be fostered by a supportive, nurturing, trustworthy environment conducive to self-actualization. However, research shows that creativity is also associated with childhood difficulties, which will stimulate sharpening.
Imaginative thoughts every day
In everyday thinking, people often spontaneously imagine alternatives to reality when they think "if only...". Their counterfactual thinking is seen as an example of everyday creative processes. It has been proposed that the creation of counterfactual alternatives to reality depends on a cognitive process similar to rational thinking.
Assess individual creative capabilities
Creativity comparison results
There is creativity quotient developed similar to the intelligence quotient (IQ). It makes use of divergent thinking test results (see below) by processing them further. This gives more weight to ideas that are radically different from other ideas in response.
Psychometric approach
The group J. P. Guilford, who pioneered modern psychometric studies of creativity, built several tests to measure creativity in 1967:
- The Plot title, where the participants are given a plot of the story and asked to write the original title.
- Quick response is a word association test that scores for inequality.
- Draft Drawings, where participants are given simple object and individual images and are asked to find common quality or features by two or more images; this is assessed for abnormalities.
- Unusual Usage is finding unusual usage for everyday objects such as bricks.
- Remote Associations, where participants are asked to find words between two given words (eg Hand _____ Calls)
- Remote Consequences, where participants are asked to list the consequences of unexpected events (eg gravity loss)
Built on Guilford's work, Torrance developed the Torrance of Creative Thinking Tests in 1966. They involve simple tests of different thinking and other problem-solving skills, judged on:
- Fluency - The total number of meaningful, meaningful, and relevant ideas generated in response to the stimulus.
- Originality - The scarcity of response statistics among test subjects.
- Elaboration - Number of details in response.
Such tests, sometimes called the Divergent Thinking (DT) test have been supported and criticized.
Adequate progress has been made in the automatic assessment of different thinking tests using semantic approaches. When compared to human appraisers, the NLP technique proved to be reliable and valid in assessing originality (when compared to human appraisers). The reported computer programs were able to achieve a correlation of 0.60 and 0.72 each for the human class.
Semantic networks are also used to construct a score of originality that results in significant correlations with socio-personal actions. Recently, an NSF-funded research team led by James C. Kaufman and Mark A. Runco combined expertise in creativity research, natural language processing, computational linguistics, and statistical data analysis to design scalable systems for automated computerized testing (SparcIt Creativity System testing index). This system allows automatic scoring of reliable, objective and measurable DT tests, thereby addressing most of the DT test problems that have been discovered and reported. The resulting computer system is able to achieve a correlation of 0.73 with a human grader.
Approach to social personality
Some researchers have taken a social-personality approach to measuring creativity. In this study, personality traits such as judgment independence, confidence, interest in complexity, aesthetic orientation, and risk taking are used as measures of individual creativity. A meta-analysis by Gregory Feist shows that creative people tend to be "more open to new experiences, less conventional and less precise, more confident, independent, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive." Openness, conscience, self-acceptance, hostility, and impulsivity have the strongest effects of the listed properties. In the framework of the Big Five personality model, several consistent traits have emerged. Openness to experience has proven to be consistent with regard to different kinds of different creativity assessments. Among the other Big Five traits, research has shown subtle differences between different creativity domains. Compared to non-artists, artists tend to have a higher level of openness to experience and a lower level of consciousness, while scientists are more open to experiencing, conscious, and higher in aspects of extraversion-dominance compared to non-scientists.
Questionnaire of the report itself
The alternative is the biographical method. These methods use quantitative characteristics such as the number of publications, patents, or performance of a work. Although this method was originally developed for highly creative personalities, it is now also available as a self-report questionnaire equipped with often less prominent creative behaviors such as writing short stories or making your own recipes. For example, the Creative Achievement Questionnaire, self-reporting test that measures creative achievement across 10 domains, was described in 2005 and proved to be reliable and valid when compared to other creativity measures and independent evaluations of creative output. In addition to native English, it is also used in Chinese, French, and German-speaking versions. This is the most frequently used self-report questionnaire in research.
Creativity and intelligence
The potential relationship between creativity and intelligence has been interesting since the late 1900s, when many influential studies - from Getzels & amp; Jackson, Barron, Wallach & amp; Kogan, and Guilford - not only focusing on creativity, but also on intelligence. This common focus highlights the importance of theoretical and practical relationships: researchers are not only interested if the related constructs, but also how and why.
There are several accounting theories for their relationship, with 3 main theories as follows:
- Threshold Theory - Intelligence is a necessary condition, but not enough for creativity. There is a moderate positive relationship between creativity and intelligence up to IQ ~ 120.
- Theory of Certification - Creativity is not intrinsically linked to intelligence. Instead, individuals are required to meet the level of intelligence required to obtain a certain level of education/work, which in turn offers an opportunity to be creative. Showing creativity is moderated by intelligence.
- Interference Theory - Extremely high intelligence can impair creative ability.
Sternberg and O'Hara proposed a 5 possible framework of the relationship between creativity and intelligence:
- Creativity is part of intelligence
- Intelligence is part of creativity
- Creativity and intelligence are overlapping constructions
- Creativity and intelligence are part of the same construction (set coincide)
- Creativity and intelligence are different constructs (set disjoint)
Creativity as part of intelligence
Some researchers include creativity, either explicitly or implicitly, as a key component of intelligence.
Examples of theories that incorporate creativity as part of intelligence
- Gardner's Theory for Multiple Intelligence (MIT) - implicitly incorporates creativity as part of MIT. To demonstrate this, Gardner cites examples of different famous creators, each of which differs in the type of intelligence, for example. Picasso (spatial intelligence); Freud (intrapersonal); Einstein (logical-mathematical); and Gandhi (interpersonal).
- Sternberg's Theory of Successful Intelligence (see Triage theory of intelligence) includes creativity as the main component, and consists of three sub-theories: Component (Analytic), Contextual (Practical), and Experiential (Creative). Experimental sub-theory - the ability to use pre-existing knowledge and skills to solve new and new problems - is directly related to creativity.
- The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory includes creativity as part of intelligence. Specifically, this is related to the group factor of long-term storage and retrieval (Glr). Glr narrow capabilities related to creativity include: ideational fluidity, smooth association, and originality/creativity. Silvia et al. conducted research to see the relationship between divergent thinking and oral fluency tests, and reported that both fluidity and originality in different thinking were significantly influenced by the wide-ranging Glr factor. Martindale expands CHC theory in the sense that it is proposed that creative people are also selective in their processing speed. Martindale argues that in the creative process, larger amounts of information are processed more slowly in the early stages, and as individuals begin to understand problems, the processing speed increases.
- Dual Process Theory Intelligence proposes a two factor/type intelligence model. Type 1 is a conscious process, and it involves a goal-directed mind, described by g . Type 2 is an unconscious process, and involves spontaneous cognition, which includes both dreamy and implicit learning abilities. Kaufman argues that creativity occurs as a result of the Type 1 and Type 2 processes that work together in combination. The use of each type in the creative process can be used for various levels.
Intelligence as part of creativity
In this relationship model, intelligence is a key component in the development of creativity.
Creativity theory that incorporates intelligence as part of creativity
- Sternberg & amp; Lubart Investment Theory. By using the stock market metaphor, they show that creative thinkers are such good investors - they buy low and sell high (in their ideas). Like under/low value shares, creative individuals generate unique ideas that are initially rejected by others. Creative individuals must persevere, and convince others of the value of ideas. Having convinced others, and thereby enhancing the value of the idea, the creative individual 'sells high' by abandoning the idea with others, and moving on to generate another idea. According to this theory, six different but related elements contribute to a successful creativity: intelligence, knowledge, thinking style, personality, motivation, and environment. Intelligence is just one of six factors that can be solely, or along with five other factors, generating creative thinking.
- The Amabile Component Creativity Model. In this model, there are 3 individual in-person components necessary for creativity - skills relevant to the domain, the process related to creativity, and task motivation - and 1 external component to the individual: the surrounding social environment. Creativity requires meeting all components. High creativity will be generated when a person: is intrinsically motivated, has high-level skills relevant to the domain and has high skills in creative thinking, and works in a highly creative environment.
- Theoretical Model of Amusement Park. In this 4-step theory, both domain-specific and generalist views are integrated into the model of creativity. The researchers used the theme park metaphor to show that in each of these creative levels, intelligence plays a key role:
- To enter the amusement park, there are initial requirements (eg, time/transportation to go to the park). Initial requirements (such as intelligence) are necessary, but not enough for creativity. They are more like prerequisites for creativity, and if one does not have a basic level of initial requirements (intelligence), then they will not be able to generate creative thinking/behavior.
- The two are subcomponents - common thematic areas - specificity enhancements. Like choosing the type of amusement park to visit (eg zoo or water park), this area is related to an area where one can be creative (eg poetry).
- Third, there is a custom domain. After choosing the type of park to visit for example water park, you have to choose which garden to go. In the domain of poetry, there are many different types (eg free verses, puzzles, sonnets, etc.) that should be chosen from.
- Lastly, there is a micro domain. This is a specific task that resides within each domain, e.g. individual row in free poetry poetry/individual rides at the water park.
Creativity and intelligence as different but overlapping constructions
This possible relationship involves creativity and intelligence as distinct, but intersecting constructs.
Theory that includes Creativity and Intelligence as Overlapping, But Different Construction
- Renzulli's Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness. In this conceptualization, talent occurs as a result of overlapping intellectual abilities, creativity, and task commitment above average. Under this view, creativity and intelligence are different constructions, but they overlap under the right conditions.
- PASS theory of intelligence. In this theory, the planning component - related to the ability to solve problems, make decisions and take action - overlaps with the concept of creativity.
- Threshold Theory (TT). A number of previous research findings have shown that the threshold exists in the relationship between creativity and intelligence - both constructs are quite positively correlated to IQ ~ 120. Above this IQ 120 boundary, if there is a relationship at all, it is small and weak. TT believes that a moderate level of intelligence is necessary for creativity.
To support the TT, Barron reported finding no significant correlations between creativity and intelligence in gifted samples; and a significant correlation in the gifted sample. Yamamoto in a sample of high school children, reported a significant correlation between creativity and intelligence r =.3, and reported no significant correlation when the sample consisted of gifted children. Fuchs-Beauchamp et al. in a sample of preschool children found that creativity and intelligence correlated from r =.19 to r =.49 in groups of children who had an IQ below the threshold; and in groups above the threshold, the correlation is r = & lt;.12. Cho et al. reported a correlation of 0.40 between creativity and intelligence in the mean IQ group of adolescent and adult samples; and the correlation is close to r =.0 for the high IQ group. Jauk et al. find support for TT, but only to measure creative potential; not a creative performance.
Many modern studies report findings on TT. Wai et al. in a study using data from longitudinal Youth Mathematics before Childbirth - a group of elite students from early adolescence to adulthood - found that differences in SAT scores at 13 years of age were predictive of creative real-life outcomes 20 years later. Kim's meta-analysis of 21 studies found no supporting evidence for TT, and instead a negligible correlation was reported between intelligence, creativity, and divergent thinking both below and above IQ 120. Preckel et al., Investigated fluid intelligence and creativity, reported small correlations r =.3 to r =.4 at all levels of cognitive ability.
Creativity and intelligence as a coinciding set
Under this view, researchers assume that there is no difference in the underlying mechanisms of creativity in which they are used in normal problem solving; and in normal problem solving, there is no need for creativity. So, creativity and Intelligence (problem solving) are the same thing. Perkins refers to this as a 'nothing special' view.
Weisberg & amp; Alba checks for troubleshooting by asking participants to solve a 9-point problem (see Think outside the box # Nine point puzzles) - where participants are required to connect all 9 points in 3 rows 3 dots using 4 straight or less lines, without lifting a pen or traces the same line twice. The problem can only be solved if the lines are outside the boundaries of the square points. The results show that even when participants are given this insight, they still find it difficult to solve the problem, thus indicating that to successfully complete the task is not just the necessary insight (or creativity).
Creativity and intelligence as set disjoint
In this view, creativity and intelligence are completely different, unrelated constructions.
Getzels and Jackson manage the 5 steps of creativity for a group of 449 children from grades 6-12, and compare these test results with the results of an IQ test previously administered (by the school). They found that the correlation between the measure of creativity and IQ was r =.26. High creativity groups score in the top 20% of the overall creativity measure, but are not included in the top 20% IQ scores. High intelligence groups print the opposite: they score the top 20% for IQ, but are beyond the top 20% scorers for creativity, thus demonstrating that creativity and intelligence are different and unrelated.
However, this work has been heavily criticized. Wallach and Kogan highlighted that the steps of creativity are not only weakly related to each other (as far as they are not more related to each other than those with IQ), but they also seem to utilize non-creative skills. McNemar notes that there is a big measurement problem, that IQ scores are a mixture of 3 different IQ tests.
Wallach and Kogan manage 5 creative measures, each of which generates scores for originality and fluency; and 10 measures of general intelligence for 151 grade 5 children. These tests are not time constrained, and are given in a game-like manner (aimed at facilitating creativity). Inter-correlation between the average creativity test r =.41. Inter-correlation between the mean intelligence measure r =.51 with each other. The creativity test and the correlated intelligence measurement r =.09.
Neuroscience
Neuroscience creativity sees brain surgery during creative behavior. This has been discussed in the article "Creative Innovation: Possibility of Brain Mechanism." The authors write that "creative innovations may require co-activation and communication between areas of the brain that are not normally strongly connected." Highly creative people who excel in creative innovation tend to differ from others in three ways:
- they have a high level of specialized knowledge,
- they are able to think divergently mediated by the frontal lobes.
- and they can modulate neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine in their frontal lobes.
Thus, the frontal lobe appears to be part of the cortex most important to creativity.
This article also explores the relationship between creativity and sleep disorders, mood and addiction, and depression.
In 2005, Alice Flaherty presented a three-factor model of creative encouragement. Drawing from evidence in brain imaging, drug research and lesion analysis, he described the creative drive as a result of frontal lobe interaction, temporal lobe, and dopamine from the limbic system. The frontal lobes can be seen as responsible for idea formation, and the temporal lobes for editing and evaluation of ideas. Abnormalities in the frontal lobe (such as depression or anxiety) generally decrease creativity, while abnormalities in the temporal lobe often increase creativity. High activity in the temporal lobes usually inhibits activity in the frontal lobes, and vice versa. High levels of dopamine increase general arousal and goal-directed behavior and reduce latent resistance, and all three effects increase the drive to generate ideas. The 2015 study of creativity found that involves the interaction of several neural networks, including those that support associative thinking, along with other default mode network functions.
Working memory and cerebellum
Vandervert describes how the frontal lobes of the brain and the cognitive functions of the cerebellum collaborate to produce creativity and innovation. Vandervert's explanation lies in sufficient evidence that all working memory processes (which are responsible for processing all thoughts) are adaptively modeled to improve efficiency by the cerebellum. Cerebellum (consisting of 100 billion neurons, more than the whole brain) is also widely known for adaptively modeling all body movements for efficiency. Small brain adaptation models of the working memory process are then fed back to the frontal lobe's working memory control process especially where creative and innovative thoughts arise. (Apparently, creative insights or "aha" experiences are then triggered in the temporal lobes.)
According to Vandervert, the details of creative adaptation begin with an "advanced" cerebellar model which is an anticipatory/explorative control for movement and thought. This cerebellar processing and control architecture has been called Modular Hierarchical and Identification for Control (HMOSAIC) Selection. New, hierarchical levels govern the architecture of the cerebellum control (HMOSAIC) evolved as mentally contemplating in extended working memory over time. This new level of control architecture is fed to the frontal lobes. Since the cerebellum adaptively modeled all movements and all levels of thought and emotion, Vandervert's approach helps to explain creativity and innovation in sports, art, music, video game design, technology, mathematics, child prodigy, and general thinking.
Basically, Vandervert argues that when one is faced with challenging new situations, the visual-spatial working memory and working memory associated with speech are broken down and reconstituted (fractionated) by the cerebellum and then mixed in the cerebral cortex in an attempt to cope with the new situation. With repeated attempts to cope with challenging situations, the cerebral-cerebellum mixing process continues to optimize the efficiency of how memory works handle situations or problems. Recently, he argues that this is the same process (involving only spatial-visual working memory and pre-language vocalizations) leading to the evolution of language in humans. Vandervert and Vandervert-Weathers have pointed out that this mixing process, as it continues to optimize efficiency, constantly improves prototyping efforts toward the discovery or innovation of new ideas, music, art, or technology. Prototyping, they argue, not only produces new products, but also trains the cerebral-cerebellum paths involved to become more efficient at making the prototype itself. Furthermore, Vandervert and Vandervert-Weathers believe that repetitive "mental prototyping" or mental exercises involving cerebellum and cerebral cortex explain the success of self-propelled self-repetition patterns initiated by the Academy Khan teaching method. The model proposed by Vandervert, however, received sharp criticism from several authors.
REM sleep
Creativity involves the formation of associative elements into useful new combinations or meeting some requirements. Sleep helps this process. REM rather than NREM sleep seems to be responsible. This has been suggested because of changes in cholinergic and noradrenergic neuromodulasi that occur during REM sleep. During this sleep period, high levels of acetylcholine in the hippocampus suppress feedback from the hippocampus to the neocortex, and lower levels of acetylcholine and norepinephrine in the neocortex encourage the spread of associative activity in the uncontrolled neocortex area of ​​the hippocampus. This is in contrast to awakening consciousness, in which higher levels of norepinephrine and acetylcholine inhibit recurrent connections in the neocortex. It is proposed that REM sleep adds creativity by allowing "neocortical structures to reorganize associative hierarchies, where information from the hippocampus will be reinterpreted in relation to previous semantic representations or nodes."
Affect
Some theories suggest that creativity can be very susceptible to affective influences. As noted in the voting behavior, the term "affect" in this context may refer to liking or disliking the key aspects of the subject in question. This work largely follows from the findings in psychology about the ways in which affective states engage in human judgment and decision making.
Relationships that positively affect
According to Alice Isen, positive influences have three main effects on cognitive activity:
- Positive influences make additional cognitive material available for processing, increasing the number of cognitive elements available to the association;
- Positive influences lead to unfocused attention and more complex cognitive contexts, increasing the breadth of elements deemed relevant to the problem;
- Positive influences increase cognitive flexibility, increasing the likelihood that diverse cognitive elements will become related. Together, this process causes a positive effect to have a positive influence on creativity.
Barbara Fredrickson in her vast and constructive model shows that positive emotions such as joy and love extend the range of cognitions and actions of one available, thereby enhancing creativity.
According to these researchers, positive emotions increase the number of cognitive elements available to the association (the scope of attention) and the number of elements relevant to the problem (cognitive scope).
Various meta-analyzes, such as Baas et al. (2008) of 66 studies on creativity and influence the support of the relationship between creativity and positive influence.
Creativity and artificial intelligence
The formal theory of creativity JÃÆ'¼rgen Schmidhuber postulates that creativity, curiosity, and interest are by-products of simple computational principles to measure and optimize the progress of learning. Consider an agent that can manipulate its environment and thus its own input of senses. Agents can use black box optimization methods such as learning reinforcement for learning (through trial and error) a sequence of actions that maximizes the expected number of prize signals in the future. There is an extrinsic reward signal for achieving externally given goals, such as finding food when hungry. But Schmiduber's objective function to be maximized also includes an additional, intrinsic term for modeling "effect-wow". This non-standard term motivates pure creative behavior from agents even when there is no external purpose. A wow-effect is formally defined as follows. Because agents are creating and predicting and encrypting the growing sensory history of actions and sensory inputs, they continue to improve predictors or encoders, which can be implemented as artificial neural networks or other machine learning tools that can exploit regularity in data to improve performance over time. Improvements can be measured appropriately, by calculating the difference in computational costs (storage size, number of synapses needed, errors, time) required to encode new observations before and after learning. This difference depends on the subjective knowledge of the encoder maker, which changes over time, but the theory formally considers this. The cost difference measures the current "wow-effect" power due to a sudden increase in data compression or computational speed. This becomes an intrinsic gift signal for the voter action. Objective functions thus motivate the action optimizer to create sequences of actions that cause more wow-effects. Irregular, random (or voice) data do not permit wow effects or learning progress, and are thus "boring" by nature (not rewarded). Known and predictable regularities are also boring. Attractive for a while is just an unfamiliar, new, regular pattern of action and observation. It motivates agents to conduct continuous, open, active, and creative explorations.
According to Schmidhuber, its objective function describes the activities of scientists, artists, and comedians. For example, physicists are motivated to create experiments that lead to observations obeying unpublished physics laws that enable better data compression. Likewise, composers receive intrinsic rewards for creating non-arbitrary melodies with unexpected but regular harmony that enables wow effects through increased data compression. Similarly, a comedian gets an intrinsic reward for "creating a new joke with an unexpected beating line, linked to the beginning of the story in an initially unexpected but quickly learned manner that also allows for better compression of perceived data." Schmidhuber argues that the advancement of ongoing computer hardware will greatly improve artificial scientists and artists who have not been perfect based on simple basic principles since 1990. He used the theory to create art with low complexity and an attractive human face.
Mental health
A study by psychologist J. Philippe Rushton found creativity to correlate with intelligence and psychotics. Another study found creativity to be larger in schizotypal than in normal individuals or schizophrenia. While different ideas are associated with bilateral activation of the prefrontal cortex, schizotypal individuals are found to have much greater activation of their right prefrontal cortex . This study hypothesizes that such individuals are better at accessing both hemispheres, allowing them to make new associations at a faster rate. In accordance with this hypothesis, ambidexterity is also associated with schizotypal and schizophrenic individuals. Three recent studies by Mark Batey and Adrian Furnham have shown a connection between schizotypal and hypomanic personalities and several different measures of creativity.
A very strong link has been identified between creativity and mood disorders, especially manic-depressive disorder (a.k.a. bipolar disorder) and depression (a.k.a unipolar disorder). In Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament, Kay Redfield Jamison summarizes studies of mood disorders at the level of the writers, poets and artists. He also explores the research that identify mood disorders authors and renowned artists such as Ernest Hemingway (who shot himself after treatment electroconvulsive), Virginia Woolf (who drowned herself when she felt a depressive episode coming up), composer Robert Schumann (who died in mental institutions) , and even the famous visual artist Michelangelo.
A study that looked at 300,000 people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or unipolar depression, and their relatives, found an over-representation in the creative profession for those with bipolar disorder and undiagnosed siblings of those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. There is no exaggeration as a whole, but an over-representation for artistic work, among those diagnosed with schizophrenia. There is no relationship for those who suffer from unipolar depression or their families.
Another study involving more than one million people, conducted by Swedish researchers at the Karolinska Institute, reported a number of correlations between creative work and mental illness. The authors have anxiety risk and bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, unipolar depression, and higher substance abuse, and almost twice that of the general population to commit suicide. Dancers and photographers are also more likely to experience bipolar disorder.
However, as a group, those in the creative profession are no more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders than others, although they are more likely to have close relatives with disorders, including anorexia and, to some extent, autism, the Journal of Psychiatric Research reports.
According to psychologist Robert Epstein, PhD, creativity can be hampered through stress.
Creativity and personality
Creativity can be expressed in a number of different forms, depending on the person and the unique environment. A number of different theorists have suggested the model of a creative person. One model shows that there is a kind to generate growth, innovation, speed, etc. These are referred to as the four "Creativity Profiles" that can help achieve that goal.
- (i) Incubation (Long Term Development)
- (ii) Imagine (Breakthrough Ideas)
- (iii) Upgrade (Additional Adjustments)
- (iv) Invest (Short-Term Destination)
Research by Dr Mark Batey of the Psychometrics at Work Research Group at Manchester Business School has suggested that creative profiles can be explained by four major creative properties with a narrow aspect in each
- (i) "Idea Generation" (Fluency, Originality, Incubation and Illumination)
- (ii) "Personality" (Curiosity and Tolerance for Ambiguity)
- (iii) "Motivation" (Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Achievement)
- (iv) "Confidence" (Producing, Sharing and Applying)
This model was developed in a sample of 1000 adults working using statistical techniques Exploratory Factor Analysis followed by Confirmation Factor Analysis by Structural Equation Modeling.
An important aspect of the profiling approach of creativity is to take into account the tension between predicting an individual's creative profile, as characterized by a psychometric approach, and evidence that team creativity is based on diversity and difference.
One of the characteristics of creative people, as measured by some psychologists, is what is called different productions . Different productions is the ability of a person to produce diverse assortments, but the number of responses is appropriate for a given situation. One way to measure different production is to manage the Torrance Test from Creative Thinking. Torrance of Creative Thinking tests assess the diversity, quantity, and suitability of participant responses to open-ended questions.
Other creativity researchers see the difference in creative people as a cognitive process of dedication to solving problems and developing expertise in the field of their creative expression. People who work hard at learning the work of people before them and within their current area, become experts in their field, and then have the ability to add and build information in advance in innovative and creative ways. In a research project by a design student, students who have more knowledge about their subject on average have greater creativity in their projects.
The aspect of motivation in a person's personality can predict the level of creativity in a person. Motivation comes from two different sources, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is an internal drive within a person to participate or invest as a result of personal interests, wants, hopes, goals, etc. Extrinsic motivation is someone's external encouragement and may take the form of payment, appreciation, fame, approval from others, etc. Although extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation can increase creativity in certain cases, extreme extrinsic motivation often inhibits creativity in people.
From the perspective of personality, there are a number of attributes associated with creativity in people. Creative people tend to be more open to new experiences, more confident, more ambitious, self-acceptive, impulsive, driven, dominant, and hostile, compared to less creative people.
From an evolutionary perspective, creativity may be the result of years of generating ideas. As ideas continue to be produced, the need to evolve generates the need for new ideas and developments. As a result, people have created and developed new, innovative, and creative ideas to build our progress as a society.
In studying the most creative people in history, some common traits in lifestyle and environment are common. Creative people in history usually have supportive, but rigid and non-nurturing parents. Most have an interest in their field at an early age, and most have very supportive and skilled mentors in their areas of interest. Often the fields they choose are relatively uncharted, allowing their creativity to be expressed more in the field with less information beforehand. Most highly creative people devote almost all of their time and energy to their craft, and after about a decade have a creative breakthrough about fame. Their lives are characterized by extreme dedication and hard work and breakthrough cycles as a result of their determination.
Another theory of creative people is the creative investment theory . This approach shows that there are many individual and environmental factors that must exist in the right way for a very high level of creativity that goes against the average level of creativity. In the sense of investment , someone with their particular characteristics in their particular environment can see the opportunity to devote their time and energy into something that has been ignored by others. Creative people develop ideas that are less appreciated or less recognized to the point that they are established as new and creative ideas. Just as in the financial world, some investments are worth buying, while others are less productive and do not build as far as investors expect. This creative investment theory sees creativity in a unique perspective compared to others, stating that creativity may rely to some extent on the proper investment of effort being added to the field in the right time in the right way..
Malicious creativity
Malevolent Creativity (MC) focuses on the "dark side" of creativity. This type of creativity is not usually accepted in society and is defined by the intention to harm others through genuine and innovative ways. MC should be distinguished from negative creativity in negative creativity that may inadvertently cause harm to others, while MC is explicitly evil. MC is often a major contributor to crime and in its most destructive form can even manifest as terrorism. However, MC can also be observed in ordinary everyday life such as lying, cheating, and treason. Although everyone shows some MC levels in certain circumstances, those who have a higher propensity for evil creativity have increased the tendency to deceive and manipulate others for their own benefit. Although the MC level seems to increase dramatically when an individual is placed in an unfair condition, personality is also a key predictor in anticipating the level of evil thinking. Harris and Reiter-Palmon studies investigate the role of aggression at the MC level, particularly the level of implicit aggression and the tendency to use aggressive action in response to problem solving. The personality traits of physical aggression, conscience, emotional intelligence and implicit aggression all seem to be related to the MC. Harris and Reiter-Palmon studies show that when subjects are confronted with problems that trigger evil creativity, high participants in implicit and low aggression in premeditation state a large number of desire-themed solutions. When presented with a more benign problem that triggers prosocial motives to help others and cooperate, those who are high in implicit aggression, even if they are high in impulsiveness, are much less damaging in the solution they imagine. They conclude premediation, more than implicit aggression controlling the individual expression of evil creativity.
The current measure for malevolent creativity is the 13 item test Scale of Evil Creativity Behavior (MCBS)
Creativity and evil crime
Evil creativity has a strong relationship with evil. Because creativity requires deviations from the conventional, there is a permanent tension between being creative and producing products that are too far and in some cases to break the law. Aggression is a key predictor of malevolent creativity, research has also shown that increased levels of aggression are also flawed
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments