Let’s assume that Jon’s intention is to define “Creativity” as a human being’s ability to synthesise life experiences into something new. This something new has utility that is intrinsic, aesthetic, social and practical.
I disagree that we are not born “creative”. We don’t fully understand the workings of the human brain to definitely state this. Let’s not rule out genetics.
If we have the capacity to synthesise information, then we have a faculty that serves the very definition of creativity.
Even now, we are only discovering that the human brain sees the world in 11 dimensions. https://goo.gl/HN2LgX
Just imagine that for a few seconds.
I don’t believe that the effort of cultivating creativity, necessarily means that means that it won’t originate from from the genome — or that it’s a myth.
An infant, raised in a nurturing environment full of languages and art, perhaps mathematics and science, can synthesise this environment to become multilingual — we call this skill. And yet, the capacity of the brain to be “creative” in its own right, we have no current predictive measure for.
The arguments for nature/nurture are ready to pounce.
Why don’t we just state this proposition: We are all borne with the capacity for creativity (brain sees an 11 dimension world). Given a nurturing environment, the creative brain is actualised into skill and craft that can flow to profession and leadership.