3 ms·
As to his second paragraph on "preconditions to be creative": Again, no. Amabile (1983) in "The social psychology of creativity" postulated three components of
by funnyboyjazz 15y ago
As to his second paragraph on "preconditions to be creative": Again, no. Amabile (1983) in "The social psychology of creativity" postulated three components of creative performance: (a) domain-relevant skills, (b) creativity-relevant skills, and (c) task motivation. Yes, you may need sufficient knowledge in a specific domain to increase your chance of acheiving creative "eminence" within it, but it does not preclude you from doing so if you are not an expert. One must understand the science of creativity before they can say they have creativity-relevant skills, which this author unfortunately does not seem to have.
- 1point2 15y agoAre you baiting? One must understand the science of creativity before they can say they have creativity-relevant skills wow fella. Did Picaso (sp?) or Bob Marley have those 'well maybe they did', they were just doing what they do - bet they studied their domain - bet they did not study the science of creativity (whatever that is - is it a science?), they just were creative people - ya either got it or ya ain't - needing to understand the science of creativity means one ain't. Oh sorry I see what u did - I don't think Amabile said you had to understand it - I think she means you have to have it - having creativity and understanding it are (I imagine) quite different. But they are just words eh? The creative among us don't care - they just do. Refactor edit.
- 1point2 15y agoCan't help it - Kids (little grownups) can be very creative - what do they care of the science or even the process - they make it up as they go along. I think that maybe that's how some of the creative people in our times are creative. In their 'own little world' is a term often used.