Talk:Creativity/Archive 2

There are a few good sources of information and research on Malevolent Creativity. I suggest one source: "A New Tool to Measure Malevolent Creativity: The Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale" by Hao, Tang, Yang, Wang, & Runco (2016) in Frontiers in Psychology. Psychologist are developing ways to measure it as well as this source provides definitions and references about prior research on the topic.Klmay1029 (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klmay1029 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The seminal work would Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press. I'll have a look at it when I have time to see what can be added. OsFish (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Creativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/641OBVx0d?url=http://www.westga.edu/~stpp/JTPP_Aticles/26-2/THE1210.pdf to http://www.westga.edu/~stpp/JTPP_Aticles/26-2/THE1210.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016051449/http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/pdf/allourfutures.pdf to http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/pdf/allourfutures.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319130652/http://neurology.med.ohio-state.edu/cognitivelab/CreativityMechanisms.pdf to http://neurology.med.ohio-state.edu/cognitivelab/CreativityMechanisms.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710161255/http://www.e-metrixx.com/creativity-profit/me2-spec/ to http://www.e-metrixx.com/creativity-profit/me2-spec/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia's article on creativity, I noticed that the very basic mechanics of creativity aren't mentioned or at least, aren't underlined as much as they sould, COMPARING, COMBINING, ASSEMBLING. Everything else then in the article will complement the basic definition to give it the necessary depth, like who possess it and how, is it nature or nurture, the driving forces etc.

What in my opinion distinguishes creative thought, and defines it uniquely, is the manipulation of elemental units of information with comparisons and the subsequent combination of these for the assemblage of an entity that didn't exist before. Can one find such mental process that must not be labeled creative.Fay's unkle (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Why must something need to have value to be created? Value is highly subjective and you are essentially saying that some of the best artists technically were not creative, since their art was not appreciated or "valued" at its time of creation. Much better to say "something which can be perceived to have meaning" rather than treating art like a product in a supermarket. (regarding the 1st sentence of the article) J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This is from the creativity research literature, and it's there for a reason (and so absolutely should be in the article). The definition needs to cover creativity across all domains, not just art - science, mathematics, architecture, history etc. "Value" is one word used to describe the concept. Also "appropriacy", or "usefulness" and various other words are found in the literature to try and capture this idea. Basically, along with being "new" or "original" or "innovative", something is seen as being more creative the more "value" it has. If it's a work of art, it's how "good" the work is.

You're absolutely right that this can be a very subjective determination, but that doesn't mean it can't be part of the definition. It clearly is part of how we ascribe creativity to a person or a creative work. It just means that we don't always agree on what is or isn't (more or less) creative. As it happens, inter-rater reliability in judging how good artistic works are tends to be quite high - we tend to agree - so it's not all that crazy. It's also true that what we see as "good" can vary over time. Csikszentmihalyi writes about this in his book on the subject. It might sound odd that the creativity of a work of art can vary over time, but that's only weird if you think of creativity as something inherent and decontextualised.

As an example of how including value as well as novelty matters: It helps us to understand differences in understanding of creativity in western and far eastern cultures. Western (particularly American) culture has tended in the past century to emphasise newness and originality, whereas East Asian cultures have tended to emphasise value (particularly social value) more. As a result, tests of creative ability focussed on divergent thinking have suggested that westerners are more creative than those raised in East Asian countries. This is straightforwardy a cultural bias in the test, as there is little evidence of a comparative lack of creativity in these cultures when it comes to science and the arts. (This hasn't stopped writers - including some East Asian ones - claiming that confucian cultures suppress creativity.)

Does this help? OsFish (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The definition, as it stands, a phenomenon whereby something new and somehow valuable is formed, also really includes natural processes. Is nature creative, when oil is formed? Is an oyster creative when a pearl is formed? Is the sun creative, since it shines?

It seemed to me that the most simple solution was to add the qualifier: "through human activity". This was protested against, on the grounds that computers might be creative. I would object myself, since I believe in a creative God. So the question is: Who's got a better solution? St.nerol (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It was me that suggested that “through human activity” was inappropriate. Personally, I have a lot of sympathy with the view that creativity is a human activity, but in the lede, we have to stick to what the literature says is the central definition, and it’s very clearly the twofold definition that is standard. (There are variations in the words used (new/original and valuable/useful/appropriate, but these are recognisably trying to get at the same ideas.) There are writers who want to extend the definition to include intentionality, or that creativity is also non-algorithmic, to capture what St.nerol is getting at. However, the question of whether AI could be creative is genuinely a live question. I think it is better that disputes within the literature about extensions to the definition or alternative perspectives should go into the definition section, rather than the lede.OsFish (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718204043/http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.baas/bestanden/MBaas_mood-creativity.pdf to http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.baas/bestanden/MBaas_mood-creativity.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It was mentioned on the Radio 4 Today programme on Tuesday 15 October that creativity should be taught in schools. If any one can find a reliable source for this, it could be mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site, I don't see how this is notable.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Creativity is taught/encouraged in school systems around the world in various ways, and is an increasing priority in education policies. We have a section on it: Creativity#Education_policies. However, that section really does need some serious work. Btw, who was speaking on R4? OsFish (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @OsFish:! The unkown IP might be right. If one considers the book, it will be tangible. This is true. But the book is only the medium for the literary work. The literary work itself is not tangible as it emerges in the readers head during reading (or watching if it is played as a drama). Maybe "literary work" is misleading her. How about "...a musical composition, the plot of a literary work, or a joke"?--MorlocksAndEloi (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

After having a dig around some sources, it looks like literary works occupy an ambiguous position regarding tangible and intangible status, but not because they are an idea, or in someone's head (the tasting and enjoyment food is "in" the consumer), but because they can be in digital form. So I've been bold and inserted the word "printed" before "literary work" to avoid any confusion. Hope this clears matters up for all concerned.OsFish (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Two different (?) new users one after the other have tried to insert substantial material from a very new article on the sociology of creativity. While I agree with initial reversions of this material, in my opinion there should be a section on the sociology of creativity. As a direct focus for sociologists, it is a recent development, but review articles in a variety of publications identify this recent development as a thing. I therefore effectively replaced what was yet another attempt to promote this new article with a more thoroughly sourced couple of paragraphs on the currently developing subdiscipline of the sociology of creativity. That got reverted by the same editor who had been reverting the earlier attempts to promote the same very new article. I think that was a mistake given that the material I added was strikingly different. I reverted back to my additions and have invited that editor to talk about it here. OsFish (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a really well documented article. However, the Lead could be a bit more explanatory in what sections were coming up. What is the best way to do this?KMakely1 (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Powey 11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is creative thinking important for a business — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.230.178 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 October 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kpresident123 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Anyla2004 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Carnegie Mellon supported by Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I find it important to mention that actions of creativity do not need to be deemed, "valuable" in order to be considered creative. What of an unrevealed art piece hated by the artist? No one in the moment of it's creation values it, therefore its title of creative is ripped away? I believe almost all things created in creativity are valued by someone, but to make value and new-ness creativity's unflinching requirements does not seem to be an absolute in my mind. Cablamalam (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The short answer is: the definition of creativity as the production of new, useful/valuable/appropriate (etc) products is the stable one found in the research literature on creativity, so of course it should stay as it is in the article (that being how Wikipedia works: it summarises reliable sources). The longer answer is that the question you raise is one discussed in the literature. How is value determined? The artist may say "this is not creative, it's boring, it's unoriginal, I hate it", but of course, other people may disagree and say it is a good, original painting, so it is creative. More often than that, someone believes they are a great artist/writer/musician but the rest of the world disagrees and thinks they're derivative or talentless and so not particularly creative. What immediately comes to mind is Csikszentmihalyi's discussion of this in Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (1996) where, if I recall correctly, he argues that creativity is entirely dependent upon assessment in its field (the people who take part in that area of creativity - readers, listeners, art appreciators etc) and dependent over time. Thus a work can become more or less creative as public opinion changes. That sounds odd, but in practice, it's how it works. Every period in history thinks itself right.OsFish (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be only one source cited with Liane Gabora's honing theory from the "Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society". There are extensive claims made about the subject in this section that comprise three paragraphs. I feel that it would be important to add further sources related to the description of this theory.Pioneer25 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 April 2023 and 17 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pioneer25 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Pioneer25 (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eliharv52 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jskalski (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The "process theories" section is very filled out but has no context or organization for any of the theories provided. Most of them are sourced only to a few people advocating them and a few people criticizing them, and there's an enormous number of them. The section needs to get cut down a bit. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of the article is basically pet theories, and needs to be rewritten with secondary sources to emphasize which of them are relevant, I think. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this diff from 2023, it looks like a decent portion of the article was edited with ChatGPT. This could be a non-problem, but given the originator of that diff, @Moorlock, was the largest article contributor, it should be noted. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think such tinkering is to be avoided. LLMs aren't in command of the details of sources. As such, there's no assurance at all that any paraphrasing is appropriate. OsFish (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I see a few mistakes (e.g. changing (one work type is intra-sectoral (e.g. "general sponge") -> one work type is intra-sectoral, exemplified by terms like "general sponge"), which takes an accidental use of "e.g." instead of "i.e." and changes it into a claim that the term "general sponge" is an example of a kind of work), but nothing major that I can pick out. The author says the copy-editing was "assisted" rather than done by, so that might be a good sign. I can't find any of that diff in the article now so it's unclear if any of it survived, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it me or is artistic creativity largely absent from this article which has every theory about creativity most people reading this article probably would care little to nothing about? Drocj (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Artists will tell you they depend on inspiration to be creative. That's not even in here. Drocj (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The conceptual history section does talk a lot about the history of the concept of artistic creativity. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Creativity is something you employ to create things. Its not JUST an abstract concept, its a very tangible thing. Either you have the ability to create or you don't. Either you have the ability to shoot a basketball into a hoop or you don't. The history of something is not the same thing as the thing itself. Drocj (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an article on artistic inspiration if that's what you're looking for, or possibly Flow (psychology). The article this talkpage is attached to looks (should look) at creativity as it is studied in the scholarly literature. The question "how does creativity occur" turns out to be more complicated than a simple inspirational model or an innate creativity model. It's perhaps inevitable that some come away from this sort of material feeling that the goose that laid the golden eggs has been slaughtered, but I'm not sure how that can be helped. OsFish (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nutnutt12 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nutnutt12 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)