Intelligence or Creativity: Pick One.

[Mole]

The hallmark of creativity is flow where time stands still and where we do things for their own sake.

Whereas intelligence is tied to time and doing things for instrumental reasons.

So creativity is beautiful and intelligence is ugly.

Unfortunately they are married - beauty is married to the beast.

Beauty tries to get away from the beast as often as possible, but the beast pulls her back. The beast pulls her back with hunger and sleep and what people think. The beast wants her to go to the bank!

And the bank is the epitome of instrumental conformity and tempts us with money.

The beast holds beauty with silken threads. And beauty must wait until the beast is asleep before untangling the threads and going out to play.

But all the time she knows the beast will wake and want to eat and drink, think and plan, dress and impress.

And she is thinking of ways to put him to sleep - by singing to him, by feeding him dope, by seducing him with warm sheets.

And when he is asleep, she can do what she likes which is what she most likes to do.

 

[Contemptus]

High Intelligence.

 

[Valiant]

I consider high creativity to be high intelligence. But that's just my own definition of intelligence. For me, intelligence isn't about being logical, it's about coming up with ideas. In the case of creativity, I define it as the ability to envision and act on inspirations. I prefer the freedom that imagination brings as opposed to the constraints of logic.

I voted for Low Intelligence - High Creativity because I am more swayed by a creative idea than logical possibility (logic also has a way of changing). I believe that the most random, frivolous, and pointless inspirations at any given time could end up being useful in the future in one form or another.

Personally, it feels more rewarding to come up with a random idea than it does to uncover a truth through analysis.

+1

 

[Tamske]

I can't choose!
I'm intelligent (in patches - there are areas where I'm very intelligent and they are areas where I lack the most basic notion)
I'm creative, too.

And I'm totally convinced the two are linked (at least for me). If you take away my creativity, I probably would not be intelligent either. To understand things I always devise stories, create thought experiments,... Without creating 16 characters and letting them live some adventures, I would never understand MBTI. The same holds for physics. (Hello Mrs Kinetic Energy, nice to meet you. What are you doing now? Oh, you're going to borrow some joules from your neighbour Potential Energy.)

If you take away my intelligence, I would not be creative. I need some understanding of things before I can create new concepts. My new fantasy novel only took flight after I modelled the magic with the same laws as gravity.

So, pretty please, can I have both of them?

 

[Qre:us]

Isn't creativity a type of intelligence?

 

[Ginkgo]

Through intelligence, one might become creative.

Through creativity, one might become intelligent.

I chose the latter.

 

[forzen]

Intelligence, creativity has no foundation as it differs from person to person therefore has no benchmark to indicate its exact definition. However, many work that are considered innovative or creative are usually attributed to people with very high intelligence. The reason is creativity is the act of recognizing patterns and using those patterns to create useful or artistic thing. Furthermore, pattern recognition is one aspect of intelligence and use to indicate IQ. So in reality, there defination are one and the same. Maybe it would be more appropriate to use knowledgeable or intelligent.

 

[Synapse]

Yes this I thought was true to form that creativity as intelligence is intelligence as creativity.

There has been debate in the psychological literature about whether intelligence and creativity are part of the same process (the conjoint hypothesis) or represent distinct mental processes (the disjoint hypothesis). Evidence from attempts to look at correlations between intelligence and creativity from the 1950s onwards, by authors such as Barron, Guilford or Wallach and Kogan, regularly suggested that correlations between these concepts were low enough to justify treating them as distinct concepts.

Some researchers believe that creativity is the outcome of the same cognitive processes as intelligence, and is only judged as creativity in terms of its consequences, i.e. when the outcome of cognitive processes happens to produce something novel, a view which Perkins has termed the "nothing special" hypothesis.

A very popular model is what has come to be known as "the threshold hypothesis", proposed by Ellis Paul Torrance, which holds that a high degree of intelligence appears to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for high creativity. This means that, in a general sample, there will be a positive correlation between creativity and intelligence, but this correlation will not be found if only a sample of the most highly intelligent people are assessed. Research into the threshold hypothesis, however, has produced mixed results ranging from enthusiastic support to refutation and rejection.

An alternative perspective, Renzulli's three-rings hypothesis, sees giftedness as based on both intelligence and creativity.

ah wiki where would we be without ya.

 

[INTP]

i dont want to lose neither, so not picking one

 

[Pristinegirl]

I think that there are many kinds of intelligences. Apparently creativity and intelligence are correlated.

So in general I would say intelligence is not virtuous without creativity. For example, without creativity you cannot triumph and make something out of the intelligence. Yet creativity can manage without intelligence so I would go for 'Low intelligence - High creativity'.

 

[Gerbah]

Hmm, if I really had to choose (although I don't like the choice), I'd pick high intelligence. I'd lose out on producing anything memorable or inspiring but I would be able to figure out how to live happily and not get screwed over or starve while I was busy creating.

 

[forzen]

Hmm, if I really had to choose (although I don't like the choice), I'd pick high intelligence. I'd lose out on producing anything memorable or inspiring but I would be able to figure out how to live happily and not get screwed over or starve while I was busy creating.

I found your post funny, because its the very defination of the characteristic of ISTJ as describe by MBTI.

 

[Jaguar]

A highly intelligent person would know better than to choose high intelligence in the poll, and why.
Food for thought.

 

[paperoceans]

Intelligence and creativity are the same thing. You cannot have one without the other.

 

[Jaguar]

Intelligence and creativity are the same thing. You cannot have one without the other.

You weren't supposed to tell.

 

[paperoceans]

You weren't supposed to tell.

I don't know, creativity is based on: originality, fluency, and flexibility. And "intelligence" is the general capacity to profit from experience, acquire knowledge, and adapt to changes in the environment. They go hand-in-hand and it's utterly impossible to be highly creative without being even slightly intelligent.

Don't wanna be the Debbie downer... Or everyone can just ignore what I said and continue on :hi:

 

[Katsuni]

I don't get the point of the question.

Intelligence and creativity are both aspects of the same thing; pattern recognition.

One does not exist without the other in some fashion or form.

So... yeah... if yeu're completely braindead stupid, yeu don't have "real" creativity. Yeu may see something like someone who can make beautiful pictures, but they're little more than an idiot savant that just produces them mechanically, no better than a randomly generated fractal made by a computer. Pretty, but not really creative, as it lacks the capacity to put anything new into it other than whot was witnessed. A photocopier can do that just as well, or better.

The other side is also true, someone immensely "smart" but with no creativity is just as useless. They may be able to absorb large amounts of information, but if they have no capacity to see the patterns in new and creative ways, then they may as well be a dictionary, and nothing more.

It takes a blending of both to actually be able to DO anything with that knowledge; true intelligence *IS* creativity, as it all boils down to pattern recognition, regardless of which types of patterns yeu see easier.

Therefore, it's like asking do yeu want to be a photocopied piece of paper with pictures on it, or a photocopied piece of paper with words on it. Does it really matter when neither one of them are actually useful? We have machines, computers, and so on for this mindless stuff... I'd rather actually know how to make use of whot I do know. The capacity to learn and see patterns would be my answer, but that encompasses both and doesn't fit within the parameters of the question.

From the listed options... I dunno... neither makes any sense.

 

[Kenneth Almighty]

High creativity. Imagining the possibilities and exploring them is always more fundamentally rewarding than just simply playing around with mind puzzles that define the IQ tests of today.

Going off the general psychometric definition of intelligence, I'd rather be a dumbass who can paint than a calculator.

 

[Qre:us]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limiting. Imagination encircles the world."

- Einstein

 

[Litvyak]

If "intelligence = IQ" in the poll, note that the most (artistically) creative people score in the "higher than average" domain (more or less around 120-130), so highly intelligent people or people with average IQ are less likely to be "creative".