Why is it easier to measure intelligence than creativity ?
The issue of creativity seems to be a complex one, because it
involves a number of conditions and definitions. It seems to fit
Pasteur's definition that "chance favours the prepared mind", i.e.
creativity suggests something novel and rare, but at the same time
involves some sort of preparation (learning, to achieve some sort of
VALUE relative to what is already known) in order to achieve "raw
materials" for an original contribution. Its outcome must be
unexpected.
Creativity therefore appears to be something rare and unusual
(take for example artistic creativity, not everyone possesses this
skill), and can be contrasted with intelligence. It would seem that
intelligence involves a right-wrong answer, because it examines
something specific and easily measurable. The most common form of
measurement of intelligence is IQ tests, that involve high scores
predicting a high level performance. It would seem however impossible
to measure creativity in the same way because of the more diverse and
rare nature of the matter. Because it is so hard to define, divergent
thinking tests of creativity would be open-ended ( as opposed to IQ
tests), and therefore would provide no correst answer.
It would seem that the element of subjectivity in creativity is
important aswell : because every individual is different and unique,
there is no way of measuring a creative performance objectively.
The predictiveness of objective tests such as IQ ones contrasts
with the unpredictable element in creativity.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:47 GMT