Talk:Creativity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

1 Query about Focus and Definitions
2 Revised Neurology of creativity
3 New page for History of Creativity?
4 Pop psychology, lateral thinking?
5 Latin Roots of the word creativity?
6 Significant rework
7 Johnson attributions
8 Weasel Words?
9 removed also see Creativity Movement
10 Periods and Personalities
11 changes to Measuring Creativity
12 putting the cart before the horses.
13 Links
14 A candidate for Featured Article Status?
15 More on previous suggestion
16 Citation for threshold hypothesis
17 Creativity and intelligence

[edit] Query about Focus and Definitions

(This is my first contribution to the Wikipedia project, so please accept my apologies if I'm going about this incorrectly.)

Welcome! It's always good to see new editors, particularly those interested in creativity. This page could certainly do with some more attention - I encourage you to help and contribute as much as you can. The best advice I can give is to be bold. Wikipedia has some conventions (and copious help pages if you have the time), but 90% of it is common sense and normal human decency. --BrettRob 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While it's clear that a great deal of effort has gone into the Creativity article, the material does need more work. Part of this is due, no doubt, to the vastness of the subject and the intellectual controversy that surrounds it. That said, here are two items that caught my attention:

- Creativity as a "mental process." At this point in our understanding of the human psyche, defining a mental process is an impossibility. So, the definition of creativity is based on something for which we have no clear definition. Also, a generally accepted perspective of creativity is that it includes the full range of cognition, emotionality, body awareness, instinct, intuition, and so on. Creativity does not simply happen by way of thoughts in the head. I do not see that defining creativity using the phrase "mental process" serves the function of a definition. Perhaps more integrative and interdisciplinary material would be useful in the section dealing with the challenges of the term's definition.

I tend to agree. There are many things that are important to creativity other than what happens in the head. However, the scientific viewpoint seems to be that it is primarily a cognitive process (see the Neurology of creativity section for example). After all, although sight, hearing, touch, emotions and the brain are all important to creativity, a person could (presumably) still be creative without any one of those things - except, of course, their brain. So I would contend that it is primarily, but not exclusively, a cognitive process.

Having said that, I think the article at the moment over-emphasises the scientific viewpoint and hence over-emphasises the mental aspects of creativity. I suspect that this is partly due to the background of some of the contributors (myself included). But it is also partly due to the nature of an encyclopedia, which must always cite its sources. The scientific viewpoint is simply published more often and it is therefore easier to find sources to justify that viewpoint.

On a related point, I should add a word of caution about weasel words. You stated above that: "...a generally accepted perspective of creativity is that it...". It's fine to say this on a talk page (as you have), but if you added this statement to the article, they would be typical examples of weasel words. The reader is left asking "generally accepted by whom?" "where is the proof that they think that way?". The statement may or may not be true, but unless you can cite enough sources to show general concensus, or show the results of a survey on conceptions of creativity, you can't make that statement in an encyclopedia. It would be more correct to say: "Another perspective on creativity is that it includes the full range of cognition, emotionality, body awareness, instinct and intuition [insert citation]". That way, you are not presuming to speak for any kind of general concensus, just conveying an idea that is already published. --BrettRob 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

- The article seems oriented toward the novelty and utility of creativity. Within the philosophy of creativity, utility and novelty are typically used to denote aspects of craft, not of creativity itself. (One definition of the distinction between art and craft is that craft is necessarily useful, whereas art need not be.) The article might be improved by adding a section on these distinctions, and on the question of whether creativity has any necessary relationship at all to utility and novelty. Many would argue that it does not.

These are important ideas, and so far the article has suffered from the lack of them. The section on Creativity in Art and Literature comes closest to reflecting these ideas (although rather clumsily in my opinion). If you were looking for a way to ease into your editing while you are still getting a feel for it, this may be a good place to start (this is just a friendly suggestion - please do whatever you want). Don't be afraid to change or remove what's already there if you have a good reason. For example, the first paragraph contains an idea that is at least referenced, but you may know, from your reading, of ideas that dispute or expand on this simplistic statment. The second paragraph has a vague ring of truth about it, but definitely needs some work (in fact it is lucky to have escaped deletion). The phrase "one can postulate" is clearly original research, and "we conventionally expect" are classic weasel words. The last sentence in that section, apart from being pretty incomprehensible to me (or am I just stupid?) is very dubious - I know next to nothing about art theory, but I suspect that Dzalto is not a particularly important figure, and I have reason to believe that the sentence was inserted by the man himself as self-promotion - a definite no-no for wikipedia. In fact, I would have removed that whole section myself, except that it is so important (can you imagine an article on creativity that didn't mention art/craft/literature/music?). So you are more than welcome to rip into it, or add to it, when you feel ready. --BrettRob 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this is my first attempt at a contribution. I'm not prepared, at this point, to go in and change the work of others. But I am happy to start a conversation.

Rosslaird 19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helps. I've said more than I normally would here to help you get started - I know from experience that it can be daunting. But once you get going it becomes very easy (and rewarding!). --BrettRob 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Neurology of creativity

I have drastically cut down the neurology section into a much more concise summary. As pointed out several times by reviewers in the articles nomination for FA status (see here), the original section was very long, very technical, and inaccessible. Most of it was far too close in its wording to the original article, except for the last paragraph which appeared to be original research. Hopefully my edits have fixed these problems. I'm no neurologist, but I've done my best to distill the main points from the article (feel free to improve it if you can). I think the content is interesting and relevant enough to deserve a mention here. BrettRob 03:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New page for History of Creativity?

I would like to propose that we create a new page called History of Creativiy, and move the sections "History of the term and the concept" and "Periods and Personalities" into it. At the moment I find this article a bit long, and it may be daunting to the first-time reader. Does anyone have any opinions on this? If nodoby has responded after a week, I'll just do it. Please speak up if you think its a bad idea. --BrettRob 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection! I suggest you move the timeline (lower down) with it, and write a short summary to go on this page replace the two of them and also provide a link to the new history of creativity page. LMackinnon 12:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, AFAIK, the only person who would have an objection is logolist at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Logologist (see the creativity section). You might like to flag him directly on this. LMackinnon 12:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No objection. Thanks for inquiring. logologist|Talk 00:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your input. It's now done. The summary that I left in the article is mostly just an edited copy-paste of the important points from the original section (with a passing reference added to muses and a paragraph on scientific study). My knowledge on this topic is very limited, so I would welcome any other additions or edits. --BrettRob 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop psychology, lateral thinking?

The definitions section has

<< Pop psychology sometimes associates creativity with right or forehead brain activity or even specifically with lateral thinking. >>

I'm not sure that a reference to lateral thinking belongs in the 'definition of creativity' section.

I'm not strongly attached to either leaving it in or to deleting it or to moving it into a new section (e.g. 'popular concepts of creativity' that could discuss brainstorming etc as well).

Any suggestions / strong feelings?

In principle, having a section for 'popular concepts of creativity' is a good idea, but in practice it is difficult to implement in an encyclopedic way. It is difficult to fill such a section with either facts or referenced statements/concepts/ideas. The information would tend to be of the type "It is popularly believed that..." or "Many people think that...". These statements may or may not have some truth to them, but they are not encyclopedic - they are weasel words. Several months ago the article was full of such statements, and I have tried hard to replace, restate, find references for, or remove them (although a quick scan of the article will reveal that there is still work to be done on this front).

My suggestion is, if we can find enough non-weasel content to fill a 'popular conceptions' section, we should do it (perhaps as a subsection of Definitions?), and put the above quoted sentence in there. If not, we should delete it. As for brainstorming, I think it probably belongs on the Creativity Techniques page, and/or in the Fostering Creativity section. (Speaking of which - I notice that lateral thinking is already mentioned in Fostering Creativity, which is even more of a reason to remove it from Definitions) --BrettRob 07:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Roots of the word creativity?

In rejigging the definitions, I noticed it asserts the term creativity stems from the Latin Creatus.

I always thought it stemmed from the Latin verb 'Crearer'.

Apparently we have:

<< 1. Dictionary Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: create Pronunciation: krE-'At, 'krE-" Function: verb Inflected Form(s): cre?at?ed; cre?at?ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin creatus, past participle of creare; akin to Latin crescere to grow -- more at CRESCENT Date: 14th century >>

Anyone up on their Latin? Should we cite the root as Creatus, Creare or Crescere?

[edit] Significant rework

I've been doing a lot of rework over the last week. I've added some of my own content, quite a few references and rearranged the structure significantly. I haven't really removed much of the old content, just tried to add some references and put it into a more logical structure. There's still a few things I want to do - Fostering Creativity could do with a bit of work, and the Social Attitudes is still quite weasely. At this stage I would really appreciate any help/comments/suggestions anyone has.--BrettRob 11:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

- looks good to me (but I didn't see the page beforehand).

- I fixed the account of the Wallas model (and yes, I read the book, so I should know what Wallas said! Wallas followed Poincaré, Helmholtz and a Russian psychologist with a name beginning with 'V' (Vyosetsky?), whose name I dont remember, quite closely, and the Wallas model most definitely consists of the stages I indicated.

Thanks for the correction. I admit I haven't read the book. This was my reproduction of somebody else's interpretation - I should have gone to the source. --BrettRob 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

- I also don't recall anything about Wallas linking his model to an evolutionary perspective, and suspect that that is incorrect. It was certainly part of Simonton's agenda, and I suspect that Simpnton simply ascribed that interpretation to Wallas (if Simonton said anything along these lines at all). The major evolutionary contribution to the psychology of creativity came, of course, from Campbell.

Again, I haven't read Wallas. This statement was in the article before I started editing so I can't verify or dispute it. I'm not aware of Campbell's work, perhaps you could add something? --BrettRob 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

the reference was:

Campbell, D. (1960). 'Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes', Psychological Review, 67, pp. 380-400.

I might add something later.

[edit] Johnson attributions

The section attributed to Johnson:

<< According to Johnson (1972), creativity can be assessed on several dimensions:

Intellectual leadership. Creative thinkers are able to create new and promising theories or exciting trends which inspire others to follow up; in essence starting a movement, school of thought or trend.
Sensitivity to problems. Being able to identify problems that challenge others and open up a new field of thought is a mark of creative thinking.
Originality. Creative thinkers are able to find ideas or solutions with which no one else has been able to come up. Patents are (supposedly) given out only to original ideas.
Ingenuity. Ingenious solutions are able to solve problems in a neat and surprising way or which also reflect a new perspective at looking at the problem.
Unusualness. Creative thinkers are able to see the remote associations between ideas. When word association tests are given, people in highly creative literary fields like poets give a higher proportion of unique responses.
Usefulness. Solutions or ideas that are also practical are also considered more creative as the creator is able to meet the constraints of the problem while at the same time producing unusual and original solutions.
Appropriateness. Non sequitur ideas can be highly original and unusual, but are not as creative as ideas which are also appropriate to the situation. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings Trilogy is within the genre of fantasy writing, but has also shown itself to be both convincing and imaginative.

Is anyone sure Johnson said this? An earlier draft included this, but did not attribute this to Johnson. My reading of Johnson is limited - I do recall he had a stage model, but don't recall much more. He may or may not have said the above - it looks like it might have got attributed during editing. In which case perhaps it should be de-attributed from Johnson and moved to the definitions section?

This is a tough one. The section was in the article before I started editing it. I was annoyed that it was unreferenced, so I searched around until I eventually found the source (thank you scholar.google.com). I checked the book - Johnson did indeed list these "dimensions". However, they're a pretty minor part of the book (2 pages out of 450). He lists them as criteria for assessing the achievements of "great men and their works". Given that these ideas don't seem to be representative of a large body of knowledge, or even particularly representative of Johnson's work, I now think we should remove it. I kept it originally because it seemed to contain useful information, but on reflection I think it would be misrepresenting its importance to include it in the article. What do you think? --BrettRob 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it might still be useful in the 'definitions' section to highlight some of the dimensions of creativity, but certainly does not to be empohasised as it currently is in the psychology of/and creativity section. LMackinnon 08:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it to Definitions, and as a compromise cut out the wordy and perhaps unnecessary explainations of the dimensions. Feel free to change it if you don't like it. --BrettRob 02:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mind the explanations (except for the Lord of the Rings bit) but what you did was good too. I rewrote the Johnson description to make it less confusing, and tied it in with Rhodes etc. Hope it works for you! LMackinnon 09:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Definitions reads much better now. --BrettRob 07:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words?

"It is hypothesized that" sure contradicts the avoid weasel words guideline -- and there may be more like it. It's standard in academic prose, but it's not for Wikipedia. Can you (or others?) supply better support e.g. "so-and-so hypothesizes that" and so on? --David.alex.lamb 16:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are several weasel words. They can be un-weaseled by citing some work that says so (which generally also involved turning them into active voice from passive).

For some people
one can postulate
we conventionally expect
Since the time of ... some have considered
in some eyes
can convey
can be assessed
Creativity can be measured
may perhaps be due to

This paragraph is full of such stuff -- too many for me to copy:

'Creatitivity' is much praised in principle, but much derided in practice

There are also some that aren't exactly weasels but need some form of citation:

The ultimate test of a creativity is history.
In the modern art context, the notion of creativity derives from Marxism

There are some good bits -- "In The Act of Creation, Arthur Koestler (1964 and various imprints) lists three types of creative individual". Fostering creativity and Periods and Personalities are both good. The rest should be more like that. --David.alex.lamb 03:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"For some people, the word creativity conjures up associations..." how can one give a citation to this? Are we supposed to carry out opinion polls?

No -- that would be original research. You're supposed to cite a source that already did that research, e.g. "In XXX Fred Smith says ...". The policy article suggests a few 'rare exceptions' but I don't think that applies here. --David.alex.lamb 17:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Somehow the whole page vanished, so I'm reverting from the previous version. --David.alex.lamb 17:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

uh...could it be in need of a complete rewrite?--Acebrock 23:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Actually I think there are severals areas in this article that need significant work (no disrespect to the contributors, but personally I think it still deserves the cleanup tag). However as a novice contributor I am reluctant to make significant chages. I agree with David.alex.lamb that there is a desperate need for more citations (eg the whole Dimensions of Creativity section). I will try to help out where I can over the next few weeks. BrettRob 08:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

After several hours of searching, I finally found a reference for the material in the Dimensions section. Is this work important enough to the study of creativity that it deserves to be included? That's another question. For the moment I'm just happy its referenced. I really wish people would do that in the first place! Is that too much to ask? --BrettRob 08:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Weasel words identified by David.alex.lamb are now gone. The ones that remain are the ones in Creativity in art & literature and Social attitudes. For the others, I have either:

removed them if they carried redundant information that was referenced elsewhere
removed them if they contained opiniated statements
cited the sources of the statements
changed the wording to be statements of fact rather than views assigned to unnamed people.

The remaining ones I have left because they contain useful information, but I don't know enough (yet) about those specific topics to provide references. I would sure appreciate some help on this! That said, I propose that we remove the weasel words tag. Although the problem is not totally fixed, I think the quality of the article in this regard is as good as or better than many wikipedia articles. In short, it needs some work but doesn't deserve the tag. And its just plain ugly! Any thoughts? --BrettRob 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

no objections, so I'll remove it. Any objections, put it back up. I'll continue to make improvements.--BrettRob 23:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed also see Creativity Movement

Racial groups thrive on these sorts of linking. Alot of people know the word Creatitivity and i would say most. If somebody goes looking for a radical group in a well know word then they ar enot to bright(i would say a search would go like (Creativity White ..... the word "white" isnt even in this article)). Personally i have no problem with documenting them but sneeky stumble apon technics are deceitful.

The only policy I know of that's anything like this is removing spam links. Your reason seems political; do you want to ban Wikipedia entries for racist groups? (meant to be rhetorical). It seems to be standard to have such links (or links to disambiguation pages). I suppose I have to add that I despise racist groups myself, but that's not the issue. So I've restored the link for now, but we'll see how the discussion works out. --David.alex.lamb 13:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the conection between the topic of creativity that this article address and the Creativity Movement. The mere connection of a word doesn't seem sufficient. -Will Beback 21:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I recently edited an article about hive mind and saw that it referenced a software system called hivemind (software). I've often seen topic X say for the rock band X, see ... So what's the difference here? --David.alex.lamb 22:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I should have said spam, but the difference is that its not Creativity (Movement) its know as the creativity movement. If anything why arnt these pages at the top Creativity technique or Total creativity, i might create a Creativity (disambiguation) later.--Whywhywhy 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. There is a difference between disambiguating similar terms and referencing related articles. "See also" sections serve the latter purpose, while disambiguation pages and links do the former. -Will Beback 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

done--Whywhywhy 11:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Periods and Personalities

Contents moved to Main article: Creativity techniques#History because article is biased, but section was not. --AndriuZ 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. The fact that the article is baised is a reason to fix the article, not move content away from it. It is a useful timeline that contains descriptive/theoretical treatments of creativity as well as creativity techniques. As such it belongs in Creativity. Any thoughts?--BrettRob 02:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) but I did that merging so because earlear I created that timeline somehow in 2 places... IMHO description of cretivity here is very unencyclopedic... Here could be enouth timeline of definitions evolution by various authors...--AndriuZ 17:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not very encyclopedic - it needs a lot of work. The Periods & Personalities section was, in some ways, the most factual, verifyable and unbiased part of the article. You have improved that section further by merging it with the timeline in Creativity Techniques. The main reason I want to move it back is because it will improve the overall quality of the article. I think we should return it to Creativity, and link to it in Creativity Techniques. I will do so soon if no-one else objects. --BrettRob 06:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changes to Measuring Creativity

I have added some referenced material to Measuring Creativity. I have also re-arraged the section to give it a more logical flow, and moved the reference to creatology to the Sternberg page (it has nothing to do with measuring creativity and is not important to the overall study of creativity). Does anybody have a reference to the 'Creativity can be measured based on a response to a variety of test scenarios' paragraph? If not I will remove it as it is very similar to the (referenced, and widely used) Torrance Tests.--BrettRob 01:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

removed --BrettRob 06:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] putting the cart before the horses.

I have just revisited this page after quite a long gap to find that a noticeable bias has snuck in. It could be said that this is preferable to the mess that was before - so please don't take offence at the criticism that I'm about to offer, if it is your work I'm referring to. after all we are trying to be 'encyclopaedic aren't we.

The bias that I refer to is that of the psychological interest in this term. It starts right up front by claiming that creativity is a mental process, and proceeds to list the sciences that have studied it. I'm sure that in the eyes of a psychologist it is a mental phenomenon, but the truth of the matter is that creativity as a subject is central to many other disciplines as well, most of which use it rather than observe it, these often use the simple definition that creativity is the act of 'making' something. not at all a mental phenomenon, rather the point of translation between thought and act, internal and external.

The remnants of text on the page often refers to production and activity, but appears to have been massaged here and there to make the science seem dominant, for example; "creativity is regarded to have occurred when there takes place the production of a creative product (for example, a new work of art or a scientific hypothesis)". another from the opening para; "Unlike many phenomena in science, there is no single, authoritative perspective or definition of creativity." I could cite many examples.

The definition and the history of the term (and concept?) lightly skips over the actual meaning of the Latin 'creatus', the past participle of creare "to make, to produce." before it takes some fairly torturous turns to arrive at the sentence;

"there began to be discussion as well of creativity in the sciences (e.g., Jan Łukasiewicz) and in nature (e.g., Henri Bergson), this was generally taken as the transference, to the sciences and to nature, of concepts proper to art."

I'm glad that I now know that creativity was "transferred" to the sciences. but remain perplexed about the discussion in nature (unless it was between naturists - or birds?).

Though of course I realise that the scientific study of anything is crucial, it is not the whole story, so the passages that previously explained other perspectives really don't benefit from being bent to suit the science. which after all has developed its method to rule out the unexpected and divergent, that which creativity thrives on. Most of all, because scientists don't yet have a definitive answer to this "mysterious phenomenon" there is no need to mystify it. it is quite a simple, everyday activity that everyone partakes of, when getting dressed, arranging their furniture or making a meal. comments like this line:

"This mysterious phenomenon, though undeniably important and constantly visible, seems to lie tantalisingly beyond the grasp of most people."

are plainly insulting, or at least show a very poor opinion of "most people"

I get the impression that too many contributors have been to second rate "creativity" seminars and have lost sight of the fundamental nature of this activity. I could suggest a bit of recreation. (apologies for forgetting signature)DavidP

Thanks for your comments. I've changed the last sentence of the first section to make it less "plainly insulting" - you had a good point. It was just my feeble attempt to be grand and mysterious. As for your other comments, you have some interesting points, but I don't have the time anymore to put into making significant changes, so I will leave that up to you or anyone else who wants to contribute. The definitions and history sections are mostly not my work anyway and I don't feel able to do anything meaningful there. I agree that the history section could do with some work, and possibly some trimming down.

As for the "noticable bias" towards the scientific viewpoint, I think the reason for that is that we have to be encyclopaedic and cite our sources, and most of the sources that examine or attempt to explain creativity approach it from a scientific viewpoint (at least, most of the sources that I have access to). Feel free to prove me wrong on that one.

For the record, I have never been to any second rate creativity seminars, or any first rate creativity seminars for that matter. Nor do I claim to be an expert. If you can suggest improvements, go for it - better yet, do it yourself. There aren't really enough regular contributors to be able to rely on other people to implement your suggestions. But please remember to cite your sources :) --BrettRob 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Update- I've had some time lately and have tried to emphasise the "production" aspect of creativity by adding a bit to the lead section, contrasting it from the scientific view. I've also removed the reference to "nature" in the history section. This probably doesn't address the "noticeable bias" that you identified, but its a start. And I don't share your view that the bias is so extreme. --BrettRob 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I deleted some links to noninformational/poorly designed sites. But are there any other bad links now? I can't anything about that Swedish Morphological Society's site etc. Masahiko 10:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A candidate for Featured Article Status?

This is one of the better articles on psychology that I have seen in Wikipedia (and my job, incidentally, is to teach and research psychology, a subject in which I have three degrees). It is well-written, comprehensive, and factually accurate, so can I please nominate as a Featured Article? I shall be happy to hear objections. The only thing I can see against this at present is the article's lack of images, but since the criteria for FA status specify that FA candidates should have images where "appropriate", and this might not be a topic that lends itself to images, I think we can bypass that one. ACEO 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on previous suggestion

It seems that we did not quite manage Featured status this time. One of the problems voiced was whether this was comprehensive enough, focussing too much on psychological and especially on cognitive approaches to creativity. Looking at this article again, even if one were to view this purely as a psychology article, I can see how there are some areas which may require further coverage - I think especially of the question of the relationship between intelligence and creativity, and the so-called "threshold hypothesis" and how research into it has been ambiguous - but, when this article covers a wider range of topics, I think it could well stand a chance. ACEO 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for threshold hypothesis

I have just added something on the relationship between creativity and intelligence, mentioning the threshold hypothesis. Does any one know the source of this hypothesis? Or published papers assessing it? It would be good to back this section with published citations. ACEO 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read, Guilford was one of the early supporters. I have also referenced a chapter from my creativity "bible", Sternberg's Handbook of Creativity.BrettRob 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creativity and intelligence

ACEO - Thanks for your Creativity & intelligence contribution. This is clearly an important perspective. Do you, or anyone else, think it might fit better as a subheading under "Creativity in psychology & cognitive science"? To me it is a subset of the discussion of psychology rather than a main heading. --BrettRob 09:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/e/Talk%7ECreativity_e425.html"

Category: Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested)