Someone Doesn't Have to Be Smart to Be Creative

In a previous post, the tenuous relationship between creativity and intelligence was explored. One of the studies cited demonstrated that an IQ score of around 100 was a necessary “threshold” for creative potential. Even more significant was this statement from the investigators: “We obtained evidence that once the intelligence threshold is met, personality factors become more predictive for creativity.”

Robert Sternberg, one of the foremost researchers on the intersection of creativity and intelligence, postulates the Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. One leg of that theory, creative intelligence, helps us to generalize from old to new situations and to find our way through the novel and unexpected environments. Interestingly, scores on an IQ test are not part of that dynamic. Sternberg’s theory is based on the notion that creativity and intelligence are correlated to some degree; however, a high level of intelligence may actually interfere with the development of creativity.

An alternate interpretation of the creativity-intelligence relationship postulates two distinct levels of creativity: “Little c creativity” refers to the everyday creativity we use to solve problems and make adaptions in our work. “Big C” creativity, on the other hand, refers to groundbreaking creativity that produces events such as a cure for polio, a Mars rover, or the Mona Lisa. Although these theories (among others) try to explain the intersection of intelligence and creativity, it is unclear where one ends, and the other begins. In general, there seems to be an element of “weaving”—an inability (to date, at least) to cleanly separate intelligence and creativity because of an apparent overlapping of these two constructs.

While we may have a tendency to characterize creativity as a singular trait, there is considerable evidence to support the notion that creativity is more a system of interlocking characteristics. In essence, creativity is multidimensional and multifaceted—a complex amalgam of personality factors and psychological constructs that interact in dynamic ways.

In one classic study out of the University of California, Berkeley, researchers found that creativity is not merely expertise or knowledge, but is informed by a whole suite of intellectual, emotional, motivational, and ethical characteristics. In short, creative-minded people establish a personal mindset of openness, curiosity, and individual outreach bolstered by select personality factors.

Habits of mind

Authors Kaufman and Gregoire offer insights on the habits of mind that promote creative thinking.

Their list includes 10 separate traits such as imaginative play, passion, daydreaming, solitude, mindfulness, and sensitivity. Another author, Craig Wright, proposes a complementary list that encompasses habits such as childlike thinking, a passion for learning, thinking in opposites, breaking things, and relaxation, among others.

There are several conclusions to be drawn from these lists. First, intelligence is nowhere to be found, nor is it even implied as an essential feature of creativity. This conclusively answers the universal query: “Do you have to be smart in order to be creative?” It is clear that creativity is less dependent on “smartness” and more related to a mix of personal habits and learned characteristics.

Second, all of the traits indicated on these lists are personal choices, rather than genetically determined factors. That is, we each have the capacity to select some or all of the identified features, making them part of our daily routines or personal views of the world. They are choices we make, rather than choices pre-determined by family history, ancestral lineage, or a unique mix of genetic factors.

Encouraging creativity

For example, let’s take a look at the concept of imaginative play. The overriding consensus from the research is that play—even in our adult years—is a balm to our creative spirit. It underscores the processes important in looking at the world with a different eye, examining possibilities not because they are right or wrong, but just because they are possibilities, and loosening up our thinking sufficiently to tackle myriad challenges. Companies known for their creativity and innovative thinking (like Google) have established play stations with ping pong, billiards, and foosball tables to encourage their employees to make play a regular activity of their workday.

An additional element of a creative lifestyle is daydreaming. According to psychologist Eric Klinger, it may be because the waking brain is never really at rest. Klinger posits that floating in unfocused mental states serves an evolutionary purpose. That is, when we are engaged with one task, mind wandering can trigger reminders of other concurrent goals so that we do not lose sight of them. Other researchers suggest that increasing the amount of imaginative daydreaming we do (or replaying variants of the millions of events we store in our brain) can be creatively beneficial simply because it allows our minds to wander across imaginative landscapes not normally a part of our logic or normal habits of convergent thinking. Daydreaming expands our horizons.

Finally, there is the idea that we all have the opportunity to choose the factors that can lead to increased levels of creativity. We can make those factors a lifelong habit, or we can dismiss them as too complicated or too time-consuming. We may have little choice over our inherent intelligence, but we have plenty of choices about our embrace of factors that can lead to a more creative lifestyle. The implication is that we should worry less about our native intelligence and, instead, focus our attention on the factors that will lead us to ignite, enhance, and promote our personal creativity.

Bottom line: Creativity is a choice, not a gift.