Dear Gunnar and Carma,
Interesting. By broadening the scope of Rob's question, you both suggest
the answer lies elsewhere.
Thinking about your comments, I'm left with a question. I can see that the
factors you raise are of central importance to how we perceive what is
'creative' output. They seem however more like 'the attributes that enable
the outputs of creative thoughts to be taken up by others and realized
publicly'?
This may be the essence of the creativity situation. I remember as a
student being reminded not to be overproud about a design on the grounds
that 'creative thoughts are two a penny' and that the real processes that
result in what people see as creative ('novel' was the term used then) lie
elsewhere .
It may be that individual 'creativity' is over egged and while needed is
not particularly central.
For example, was Henry Ford's success a matter of his 'creativity' or
because of his strong rational skills in marketing, business process
analysis, industrial economics and Taylorian work study?
Also layered over Rob's initial question is the issue of epigenetic
influence. Does 'creative' families behaviour affect the next generation in
utero to predispose them to the biases that result in 'creative' thoughts
and behaviours? This places the matter in relation to the control of
expression of gene structure rather the genetic structure itself.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FRDS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Founder member Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research
Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Swanson,
Gunnar
Sent: Tuesday, 17 February 2009 9:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fw: Creativity and Nature vs Nuture
Rob,
I second Carma's suggestion that Gladwell's -Outliers- has some good
insights.
> Would you conclude that social class, race, sex, educational level
> have more to do with general intelligence than genetic inheritance?
He makes a good case that
1) general intelligence is less important than many people think; while
being smart enough is important, being much smarter than smart enough
doesn't pay out in the form of real world accomplishment
2) social class has a lot to do with the capability to move up in the world
(not in the sense of external barriers to movement but in the sense of the
development of the world view that allows personal achievement)
3) luck--in the sense of being born at the right time in the right social
and physical situation--has a bigger role in "genius" than we realize.
He does seem to imply that some sorts of "creativity" (I agree with people
who caution against using the term broadly as a singular trait) are as
innate as intelligence (in the "IQ" sense.)
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Carma R. Gorman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
[snip]
>> Despite the many fascinating genetic explanations/revelations that
>> have been in the news in the last five years, I still find
>> explanatory models like the one in Malcolm Gladwell's book *Outliers*
>> to be a lot more
>> persuasive: I suspect that social class, race, sex, educational level,
etc.
>> (and the opportunities these characteristics offer or preclude) have
>> a lot more to do with individual and familial creativity than genetic
inheritance.
I hope Topanga isn't washing down around you.
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006
at East Carolina University:
+1 252 328 2839
[log in to unmask]
|