Mittwoch, 14. März 2018

"Creativity implies a strong ego, a person who looks at a situation and comes up with something different because he believes it possible - even probable - that he knows better than other people, and is (to some extent) indifferent to the opinions of others on this matter."


  1. Ego is a affective factor that prevent not to kill creative thought in its birth but because I think creativity is just like "doing or trying yourself" version of "intelligence" so I believe when someone is attacking a question instead absorbing it via learning s/he is truly be real time intelligence. This is one factor many people believe is opposite of creativity: analytical approach/thinking. In my view it's otherwise this common sense, creativity is due hyper analysis and combined with a lot of incubatory and subconscious thinking or intuition due to obsessive feelings about given subject. Seems it's possible to have a insight (cognitive) but the affective prevent it to keep in this path.

    Human societies has been so absorbed with crystallized aspect of intelligence that often we despise the importance and imprescindibility of creativity. Creativity is the real solving problem while "intelligence" would be a type of cultural sustainability, solving, preventing or remediating known problems (or "problems"). But creativity without wisdom tends to become superfluous/excessive, dangerous, misguided...

    Creativity invent, discover and or expand the world we live. "Intelligence" sustain all these creative products. But most people tend to call the second as a central concept for intelligence. It's not completely wrong based on the fact that in nonhuman world this sustainable approach is universally present. As always just random and confused thoughts.

  2. Thanks for your interesting and readable comment, Santoculto! I've met some creative people in my life. And whether it's subconscious thinking or not, there is something that makes them different. They are wired differently or in German we would say "sie ticken anders als die meisten Menschen". Obviously most people don't really understand them. And what most people label as creative isn't that creative at all.

    1. I invented partial and total empathy and not only with people/being. My fantasistic approach is that people tend to put themselves in another places but still as themselves =partial empathy. Total empathy is when we try to understand other perspective [people/being or thing] putting ourselves in their own ''skin''. Many people don't try to understand stuff they like in VERY honest and sincere ways, or in total empathetic approach. In the same way a typically normative boy try open his toys to figure out what or how it were buildt, ''creative'' people do the same but often with abstract material and in deeper way. I don't know if i can describe me like that but i always loved to play with my obsessive interests in very natural or in not rigid ways, it's just part of me.

  3. Your idea to distinguish between partial and total empathy sounds interesting.