Imagine being rejected from taking an interesting course because you have been told you are not creative enough. What does that even mean? The recent deliberations regarding the Creativity Crisis never seemed real to me: I thought everyone had a creative mind. Is creativity even measurable? It was not until my junior year of high school that I truly noticed a creativity gap. Those who scored well on an exam that supposedly measured creativity were eligible to take AP English Language and AP US History combined in a creative course named “American Studies.” I qualified for the special course; however, my group of 15+ friends was required to take English and History separately. Some requested to take the creative class, but were rejected by the department head. The fact that my school offered separate classes for creative individuals sparked my inquisitive mind. I decided to examine how crucial creativity is and if it is quantifiable.
It would not make sense to judge someone’s creativity if it cannot be measured, so this was the first notion I wished to explore. James C. Kaufman is a psychologist with a reputable background in creativity research. He is currently a professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut and recently published an article in the Journal of Intelligence. His article “Why Creativity Isn’t in IQ Tests, Why it Matters, and Why it Won’t Change Anytime Soon Probably” highlights the obstacles faced when measuring creativity. Kaufman’s research demonstrates that there are several challenges with regards to testing, and that it is difficult to solely measure creativity. He explains that, “in some ways, it is unfair to expect one test—whether we mean an IQ test, an academic achievement test, or an admissions test such as the SATs or GREs—to account for everything” (Kaufman para. 2). Some college admissions tests determine course placement once admitted, but this is not fair for the applicant because each exam tests different intellectual categories. In addition, Kaufman finds that today’s standardized examinations do not correspond with the advancement of technology. Several exams are still on paper while research has demonstrated that video games can be used to test creativity through each player’s strategies. I wondered what this meant with respect to the creativity crisis. If we are using improper methods to assess creativity, how can we judge a crisis? I was able to relate to Kaufman’s argument through my experience in high school. The exam I had taken that placed me in American Studies was also used to determine my math and science eligibility. I praised Kaufman’s point because of my direct involvement with the issue.
Kaufman continues to examine creativity assessments, and concludes that the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) is an appropriate approach to measure divergent thinking: a thought process used to generate several creative ideas on one topic. He suggests that adding TTCT to non-creativity driven exams, such as the IQ test would provide reasonable measures of creativity. While testing divergent thinking is a practical way to measure creativity, “there are criticisms of divergent thinking of course. Even its supporters agree that it is only one aspect of creativity” (Kaufman para. 75). Some claim that since only one form of creativity is being assessed, it cannot be called a “creativity test” and therefore cannot measure creativity entirely. If there is not enough data on creativity testing, why was it such a large factor in course placement at my school? I am still not entirely sure if creativity is important, especially since there is not a clear way of calculating it. Kaufman’s study inclined me to expand my research on the importance of creativity.
To further evaluate the importance of this subject, I turned to an article in Elite Daily. David Arabov, who writes under the pseudonym of Preston Waters, is the CEO of this online news source. His work is catered towards the younger generation, which gives me a whole new perspective for my inquiry. The article “Why Creativity Is the Most Important Quality You Have” stresses that creativity is a critical characteristic that is not applied to our daily lives to the extent that it should be. Waters argues that the lack of creativity in our society “is the exact reason why so many become miserable before their 30s and feel like they have gone no where in life” (para. 7). This essentially suggests that creativity plays a significant role in one’s emotions. Kaufman’s example of measuring creativity through video games relates to this subject. In times of panic, a gamer will do everything in his or her power to ensure a win. The adrenaline rush and use of creative thinking brings a surge of happiness once the gamer’s goal has been achieved. Kaufman’s idea of using video games to test creativity could be one way to demonstrate Water’s observation that creativity and emotions are directly correlated.
Waters expands on his claim by examining society’s role in our decisions. He finds that we tend to sway our ideas in the same direction as the majority even if we have differing thoughts. This is why people are miserable; they never get to truly express what is on their mind. Creativity is supposed to be stimulating and fun, but “many times in today’s world there is little time to no time allocated towards real thinking and brainstorming, or even experimentation without judgment” (Waters para. 15). Creativity is becoming socially unacceptable and branching out intellectually is somewhat viewed with discernment. Waters motivates his readers to continue to be creative and to incorporate imaginativeness into their jobs, so they can be productive leaders. I could relate to Waters’ argument about creativity being a lively task with my special class. I absolutely loved the “free” aspect of the course, and being able to expand my analytical skills was much more exhilarating than the rote memorization I had been accustomed to in my other classes. I could agree with Waters that creativity is a quality we seem to be losing.
Waters’ article demonstrates that creativity is important for multiple reasons. To examine an opposing side to this argument, I explored the late Theodore Levitt’s article, “Creativity Is Not Enough.” Levitt was an economist and professor at Harvard University. He had an interesting perspective when it came to creativity. Levitt professed that we do not need creativity in order to be successful. His article continuously focuses on the idea that creative individuals are “those compulsive idea generators whose distaste for the mundane realities of organizational life renders them incapable of executing any real project” (Levitt para. 2). He emphasized that creative people are not suitable for projects because the ideas they create are inappropriate for certain tasks and unable to be implemented. Waters, however, would disagree with Levitt’s argument and advocate that we must be ambitious in order to complete tasks originally.
Levitt’s article goes on to address that creative individuals complain too much, which is why they never accomplish the task at hand. He stressed that they continuously create unrealistic work goals, which inhibits productivity. He wished for advocates of creativity to understand that it simply creates problems and useless ideas. Being a creative individual myself, I could see where Levitt was coming from. There are some creatives who purposely refuse to conform in order to challenge their peers, but Levitt seemed to undermine creativity all together. In order to truly understand the importance of creativity, I will need to further examine a perspective similar to Levitt’s before coming to a consensus.
Like Levitt, Barry M. Staw suggests that creativity is unimportant. Staw is a business professor at the University of California Berkley. His work regarding creativity is a part of his book, Psychological Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. The section labeled “Why No One Really Wants Creativity” gives the perspective of creativity in the organizational setting. Staw argues that creative people find the easy way out and are not careful in their choices. He insists that, “almost by definition, the organizational world is populated by followers rather than leaders” (Staw pg. 478). His assertion suggests that since we have more followers than leaders, there is not much logic to innovation. Similarly, Waters would agree with this statement about the lack of leadership, but he would assign creativity as the main culprit of this issue.
Staw continues to report that creativity is something that simply sounds good, but reality does not prove that it actually is good. He believes that creatives are always ruining organizations because they are non-conformists, and to managers this means doing everything wrong. This is where Staw agrees with Levitt. They both agree that by being stubborn and refusing to accept non-creative ideas, creatives hinder the progress of their tasks. Waters would disagree because he described creativity as stimulating and a substantial factor for society’s growth, especially in the workforce. I find it interesting that the two highly educated college professors see creativity as something unnecessary. In order to properly assess this topic, it is crucial that I review a source that lacks bias towards either side of the argument
Richard Florida is currently a professor and school of management director at the University of Toronto. He has written several books and articles regarding creativity and the creativity crisis. In addition, he is the founder of the Creative Class Group, which specializes in advising numerous organizations. In his article “America’s Looming Creativity Crisis,” Florida addresses the importance of creativity in our society, especially for its future. He believes that “at the core of the creative class are scientists, architects, designers, educators, whose economic function is to create new ideas, new technology, or new content” (Florida para. 7). Florida explains that creativity is important for every career field as each contributes advanced material to our society.
Florida challenges both Levitt and Staw not only because he sees creativity as significant, but also because he finds that it shapes our future. Florida reminds us that if we do not continue to create new ideas, we will not progress in our work. He stresses that, “in today’s economy, creativity and competitiveness go hand in hand” (Florida pg. 3). Those who are more creative have an advantage over those who are not, which is why we must continue to be original. This directly relates to my school example: students who proved to be creative were granted acceptance into the special course. Florida’s article also correlates to Waters’ since they both agree that creativity is becoming more and more crucial to our everyday tasks and being creative brings leadership opportunities. Since Levitt and Staw both see creativity as something unnecessary that slows down our work, they would disagree with Florida’s argument. Florida would likely respond with “How can one be innovative without creativity?”
I agree with Florida’s assertion regarding creativity and competitiveness. For example, Apple and Android compete everyday with the different features on their electronics. If Apple adds something new, such as the fingerprint, Android users find this useful and purchase the Apple product. This demonstrates that creativity is beneficial for society as it further expands existing ideas and formulates new ones.
Now that I have explored multiple perspectives regarding creativity, I am able to conclude that creativity is something critical for our society’s proper function. I began my journey unsure if we really need creativity because of my personal experience in school and the emphasis put on this subject. Florida’s argument on creativity with respect to competitiveness inspired my final decision, because he introduced creativity’s importance in every career field. I am no longer limited to thinking about creativity in solely the school setting. I endorse parts of the other arguments provided by all of the sources I analyzed; however, I cannot acknowledge one source more than Florida’s. Kaufman’s article peaked my interest in measuring creativity, but I am still hesitant to say that it is quantifiable. Could TTCT be combined with the video game approach to create an official creativity test? I will need to continue to research the topic in order to come to a full consensus. I admire Levitt and Staw for admitting that creativity is a lengthy process even though they seemed to completely undermine the subject. I find that creativity is not necessary in all situations, but should still be embraced. Since creativity is important for future ideas, products, and businesses, I believe we should focus our time on slowly repairing the creativity crisis, but not focusing on it too much. It is something significant for society’s future, but not to the point in which it should be exhausted.
