Dilbert and the flower pot
Yesterday’s Dilbert.com comic strip showed our hero at a party, drink in hand, trying to impress a young lady. When she asks why he’s wearing a flowerpot on his head, he announces that he’s creative. Hmmm…
Is wearing a flowerpot on your head, an act of creativity?
He then states that creativity is random. I guess he means that it just happens without a method or plan. I wonder about the colleges and universities that teach courses in creativity, and about the many scholarly articles published every year that aim to describe, understand, and test the theories (which Dilbert calls “the algorithm” ) that explain creative behavior.
What do you think? Is creativity random? Can it be planned, or encouraged with a method?
Please share your thoughts below, in a comment.
A Caution to Neophiles
After reading John Tierney’s article in the New York Times last month about people who are lovers of novelty (termed, by some, “neophiles”) I’ve been thinking more about novelty-seeking and creativity.
Novelty, of course, is a primary characteristic of creativity. Without it, that creative spark is missing from anything we make. In his article, Tierney links this passion for newness to human endeavors that benefit ourselves and society, such as human migration, coping with the changes that modern life imposes, and personality growth. He also quotes scholars who advance the more traditional view that novelty-seeking can be a characteristic of those who may abuse drugs or alcohol and pursue antisocial behaviors.
The idea that differentiates a negative form of neophilia from its positive form is that of balance. Novelty-seeking can be positive for an individual when it is balanced with two other aspects of personality: persistence and self-transcendence. Read more
Where to Find Information About Creativity Tests
Last week a reader asked “Where could one find information about reliable and updated creativity tests?” What a great question! Not an easy one to answer, but an important one.
The question brings up the basic issue of validity and reliability in testing, a topic about which many books have been written. Both are important issues in creativity testing, as well as any other kind of testing. In creativity testing, they are especially slippery.
First, the definitions of creativity seem to be as numerous as there are writers on the subject. If researchers cannot agree on what creativity is, then when using a test of creativity, test users will have a problem being sure that what they find or don’t find is actually creativity, or creative ability. Maybe the test maker’s definition of creativity is different from the user’s definition.
This is the issue of validity. Does the test measure what it purports to measure? It may measure some elements of the characteristic or behavior, or ability, but does it “work” (by identifying creativity) for all types of people (those of different ages, races, or genders)?
The validity of any measure is never perfectly resolved. It is a goal toward which test developers work. When they start to test a psychometric measure, they can make claims of validity only to the degree that the test has been used and found satisfactory with a particular group of users. As the testing continues, they may expand the claim of validity as the test makers use different groups, different situations, and still find that the measure is identifying the desired quality. Read more
5 Pitfalls to Avoid When Judging Creativity: Going with an outdated or untested measure of creativity
5. Going with an outdated or untested measure of creativity.
There are many old, “tried and true” creativity tests out there. Some of them are used even today to help select job applicants for the next step in their selection process. This can be a problem when you realize that these tests may have become familiar to prospective employees, giving them a “test-wise” bias. Also, realize that the work skills that were sought by these tests may have changed over the decades since they were first introduced.
In an effort to avoid these “war horses,” some organizations have made up their own creativity tests. These “quick and dirty” tests may be useful in identifying prospects, but their results may not prove valuable. They may fail to identify the qualities being sought, or they may be unreliable for general use in the company. Look instead for a measure that has stood the test of time, yet has been updated with improvements.
5 Pitfalls to Avoid When Judging Creativity: Looking for potential, rather than performance
4. Looking for potential, rather than performance.
If there is anything that the “genius studies” of Lewis Terman clearly demonstrated, it is that potential for greatness is often mistaken as evidence th
at the future will bring achievement and success. Terman spent decades at Stanford working the Stanford-Binet IQ test and on testing that thought would identify “geniuses” and track their success over the years. Terman hoped to be able to follow, test, and cultivate a generation of geniuses to show how to nurture special talent in children. His conception of giftedness was closely linked to academic talent, and he expected that the youngsters he identified would be successful in both school and life. His research was colored by his biased attitudes about the supposedly limited abilities of girls, many immigrants, and persons of any race but his own.
Over the decades of his studies, many of the students he followed did make impressive achievements. But, it must be admitted that many others, identified as having great potential, often did not manifest this talent through their achievements. What’s more, other children – not included in his studies — who didn’t appear to have that much going for them were able to achieve greatness, including for example, winning Nobel Prizes (which none of the “Termites” had achieved.) This gives hope to all of the rest of us “non-geniuses.”
If you want to find a creative person, look at what she has made, done, or built. If one has been creatively productive in the past, he or she will be likely to do it again. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that creative potential will imply creative productivity in the future.