All originality is creativity, but not all creativity is originality. But then, what about two individuals who come to the same conclusion at different times? Are they to be treated the same? If we take originality as meaning the first, we can flesh out the definition as being something without direct inspiration. Second-order originality is attributed to anyone who devises the same notion, without direct prompting i.
But it is important to distinguish this individual from Fermat, Caley, Newton and the other greats who did come first; in this sense, being born in ages gone-by seems advantageous. There is a not-insignificant turmoil within me at this further distinction. I vehemently want to brand all non-first creativity as that and that alone. Now, I am fully aware that this is a nit-picky look at an esoteric distinction, but I believe that these definitions enrich the words by adding layers of precision and meaning.
Unfortunately I find a significant appeal in the elegance that distinctions like these provide. To all of my Torontonian friends who are caught in the rain or flooded out of house and home, I wish you the best of luck and would happily house you for a night or to.
Just reach out to me. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Remember the golden rule of brainstorming though: no idea is a bad idea. Just keep them coming and write them all down, review and analysis can come later. Van Gogh — troubled but creative.
We tested this in class once, half of the class left to another room and watched a sad youtube clip, and the rest of us watched a happy one. Well, while originality is judged by the sheer number of ideas one can come up with, creativity places a more stringent criteria on these ideas — they not only have to be original, they have to be worthwhile or useful. This is how creativity and originality are defined in psychology.
For whom? American Psychologist. This is an interesting distinction. I can see how this would be true. After all there are plenty of novelty goods out there that are extremely original, well designed, and engineered…but the value level is low.
Totally, sometimes simple originality seems to be enough to sell a novelty product, regardless of whether it has any use value whatsoever.
Are you saying by that that you were once quite emotion, and are now rational and logical? In understanding innovativeness, we look at novelty - Does the innovative idea represent a leap of creativity? Effectiveness - Is there evidence of tangible results?
Significance: Does the innovation address a problem of public concern? Transferability: Can the innovation, or elements of it, be adopted by others?
Applying these ideas to the level of a community - in enabling the community to develop innovative ideas for its survival - whether to conserve the environment or to prepare for a disaster or to survive economically - is an innovation in itself!
0コメント