WHY IS IT EASIER TO MEASURE INTELLIGENCE THAN CREATIVITY?
To be intelligent one has or shows understanding, is
clever and quick of mind, whereas to be creative is to bring
something into existence, to give rise to something or to
originate. It seems easier to assess levels of intelligence,
through the use of IQ tests than it is to assess levels of
creativity as there is no such equivalent test.
IQ tests usually select an activity or skill and then
design tests to measure individual performances in the
specified activity. A high score will indicate a high level
of performance and a low score will indicate a low level of
performance. However it is difficult to measure creativity
in such a way because the skills are harder to define as
they are usually unique and diverse.
"Divergent thinking" tests of "creativity" were
designed without any substantial validation. They differ
from "convergent" tests of "intelligence" in that they are
open ended and do not have right or wrong answers. There are
also problems in validating creativity because it is very
difficult to define what what terms such as "giftedness" and
"genius" mean.
There is an apparent contradiction between the
predictability of objective tests and the unpredictability
of creativity. Confusion arises with the measurement of
general and specific intellectual skills as there is no
clear idea about how they interact together in creativity.
The Life Cycle affects measurements too as IQ-related skills
and knowledge improve with age until adulthood, whereas
creativity seems to occur randomly at different ages. It
seems impossible to measure creativity unless it depends on
a non creative, intellectual skill. On the other hand
intelligence is relatively easy to assess through IQ tests,
which give clear indications of levels of performance.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:45 GMT