How far is creativity from intelligence?
We’re not going to explore this question with an example of a billionaire college dropout. We are definitely not starting with a quote by a bearded philosopher or scientist whose name you do not recognise (it’s coming though, eventually.)
Like obedient school children descending from British style of education, let’s go straight into the meaning of the words we’ll be frequently chancing upon through the rest of this essay.
I typed onto google, the words “,intelligence meaning and origin.”
And I found this:
Straight and simple. That’s why we love google.
When I typed the same for creativity, the first thing that popped up was this:
Well, maybe I didn’t look properly, but a part of me started to tell me that the universe was sending me a message. Maybe creativity cannot and has not been defined.
But I was wrong.
Google has attempted to define it, albeit quite poorly. The keyword “origin” seems to be lost on it. As per this information, the word creativity almost seems to be a part of recent linguistic advancement in the English Language. What does that tell you?
How recent is the creation of creativity? And has it come from intelligence?
Now, the let the scientists talk.
Albert Einstein (I hope you recognise him):
“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
But we all know that’s not how intelligence is measured. Intelligence is (normally) measured in IQ tests which give us quantitative results on every individual’s IQ.
Now, assuming that our IQ digits are sufficient, I shall move onto a slightly, more complicated part of this argument:
Creativity is measured subjectively.
Another popular Einstein Quote :
“ Creativity is intelligence having fun.”
If that is true, how can one measure the level of fun one’s intelligence is having? And does it also imply that in order to have a high level of creativity, we require high levels of intelligence?
After doing a fair bit of reading, I found many ways that scientists have tried to quantify and measure creativity. Amongst all the different ways, one experimental method particularly intrigued me.
A person’s creativity is measured in two parts:
Your creative potential and your creative achievement. (Need I define them?)
(Silvia et al. 2008)
To determine and quantify creative potential, the experiment had different creative tasks assigned to participants. For example, they were given certain objects and were asked to find different uses for them. Tasks like this helped them recognise one’s ideation fluency. Their creative potential was further confirmed when the participants evaluated themselves on the tasks. Thus arriving at an average originality score, with the mean creative ratings of all the tasks.
The process of determining a person’s creative achievement seemed a little less convincing to me. Most participants were asked about their professional experience, and monetary achievements in their respective creative fields, and were judged based on that. How effective do you think this could be?
The truth is neither creative potential nor creative achievement can ever be quantifiable. So intelligence plays as a tie-breaker. And this is where we come to discovering something called the threshold effect.
If intelligence is the ability to gather information and keep them stored at accessible locations, and creativity is the ability to connect the dots around this data and use it efficiently, then would a person with more data be necessarily more creative?
Maybe.
Many musicians, film-makers, authors, and the likes take pride in their vast exposure to multiple influences, names and facts, and knowledge of skill. However, some others emerge like a lotus out of a pond of dirt with no education or grounding. What of them?
The threshold effect is a psychological study which is based on the hypothesis that there is ,in fact, a minimum requirement of intelligence for a creative output.
This is still under debate (Kaufman & Plucker, 2011)as the threshold seemed to vary in experiments with varying fields of creative potential. So they brought in another tie-breaker:
Personality
There are several things about personality that a lay person like you and me would assume contributes to our creativity. However, there is a fundamental trait, if measured, found to also contribute largely to our intelligence. And that, is openness.
Openness is the ability to keep yourself open to new experiences, and new possibilities. Much like curiosity, this aids in gathering more knowledge. But openness also allows our brain to process data without bias, and helps expand the boundaries of imagination.
According to psychologist Catell, intelligence is of two kinds. Fluid intelligence is defined as the ability to solve new problems, use logic in new situations, and identify patterns. In contrast, crystallised intelligence is defined as the ability to use learned knowledge and experience.
Past research shows that openness influences crystallised intelligence via the path of fluid intelligence (Ziegler, Danay, Heene, Asendorpf, & Bühner, 2012.)
Which brings us to understand that if a person lacks the information, knowledge and experience to be creative, he/she has little to offer. Furthermore, if one does have it all, but doesn’t open oneself to new possibilities, their creative output could be quite mundane, unoriginal, and hence not quite creative at all.
Maybe with the subconscious awareness of the above information, many artists and creative professionals strive to work more on their personality than others do. They are aware that it contributes to their creativity. Much like their interests in travel, meeting new people, and observing the workings of life, their curiosity and openness leads them to maximise their creative potential. However, it is the creative achievement that is a trick many fail to quite understand.
As an artist, I questioned it too. But as a journalist, I refuse to pour my opinion into the conclusion of an unbiased essay. So I’ll leave you with something my friend John said to me after reading the first draft of this essay:
“Creativity as an expression of art requires a fair amount intelligence on the part of the viewer to discern, discover patterns, and derive meaning from them. Hence, it is not always the artist’s intelligence brought under the microscope, but that of the audience. It is the perception of an idea in the viewers’ minds that dictates its value. So in other words, the audience’s creative potential determine’s the artist’s creative achievement.”
Reference:
Barron F. D. Van Nostrand; Princeton: 1963. Creativity and psychological health.
Barron F. Holt, Rinehart & Winston; New York: 1969. Creative person and creative process.
Batey M., Chamorro-Premuzic T., Furnham A. Individual differences in ideational behavior: Can the big five and psychometric intelligence predict creativity scores? Creativity Research Journal. 2010;22:90–97.
Batey M., Furnham A. Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs. 2006;132:355–429. [PubMed]
