Creativity is the ultimate measure of intelligence

The connection between intelligence and creativity

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2. Intelligence
2.1 Definition of terms
2.2 Intelligence measurement
2.2.1 Development of intelligence measurement
2.2.2 Intelligence tests
2.3 Theories of intelligence
2.3.1 Psychometric intelligence theories
2.3.2 Sternberg's triarchic intelligence theory
2.3.3 Gardner's Multiple Intelligence

3. Creativity
3.1 Definition of terms
3.2 Origins of creativity research
3.3 Capturing creativity
3.4 Theories of Creativity
3.4.1 Psychoanalytic Theory
3.4.2 Association psychological theory
3.4.3 Gestalt theory
3.4.4 Existentialist theory
3.4.5 Transfer theory
3.4.6 Cultural Theory

4. Intelligence and Creativity
4.1 Guilford's approach
4.2 Threshold model
4.3 Further results from research on the connections between intelligence and creativity

5. Summary

6. Bibliography

1 Introduction

“We are looking for an intelligent partner” or “We are looking for an intelligent manager”. These are just two examples of where intelligence is and is becoming increasingly important. Jobs in large companies rarely assign these without a prior employment or intelligence test. Friends and partners are selected, mostly indirectly, but still often based on how intelligent they appear. It has been observed that people in western society who are assessed as intelligent have better chances of social advancement than people of lower intelligence, which means, among other things, the chance of school instruction, a job and sexual partners improves (cf.Amelang & Bartussek 2001, 190). It can also be stated that “many people believe that there is a strong connection between intelligence and creativity” (Zimbardo 2004, p. 429). This should be investigated in the fourth point of the housework. Here the attempt is made to work out the connection between creativity and intelligence, with recourse to different models and studies.

At the beginning, however, the housework considers the two terms separately from one another. Because although they can be found in numerous life situations and are constantly used in everyday language, the questions remain open: What actually is intelligence? And how can creativity be defined? Neither is seen directly from a person. Nowadays there are measurement options for this, but these are not without problems either.

The term paper would like to pursue the questions about the definition of the two terms, or to start the experiment, since these questions have not yet received clear absolute answers even from scientists.

Furthermore, the already mentioned measurement and recording of intelligence and creativity will be discussed as well as different theories on the two constructs. There will also be a historical look at each of the two branches of research.

Of course, the housework can only ask for an insight into the complex topic of "intelligence and creativity" in order not to go beyond the scope of the work. Also, only a few theories and studies can be dealt with. Nevertheless, an attempt is made to give a good overview of the problem.

2. Intelligence

2.1 Definition of terms

"Intelligentia" literally means as much as insight, understanding, imagination. Derived from this, intelligence can be understood as the ability to show problem-solving and insightful behavior. (cf. Cruse, Dean & Ritter 1998, p. 9) Or, in other words, intelligence can be described as “the global ability to benefit from experience and to go beyond the information available in the environment” (Zimbardo & Gerrig 2004, p. 405). That is one of the many definitions of terms. Numerous scientists who have dealt with the problem offered a definition of the concept of intelligence, often similar but different (cf. Amelang & Bartussek 2001, p.190f). But intelligence cannot be captured in a single definition, because it is a very complex construct, which is characterized by a large number of cognitive sub-skills that is being developed further and further through research development. The breadth of the spectrum of meanings could not be captured by a single definition of intelligence as an open, that is, as an expandable construct. A disadvantage for definitions of intelligence is often the vague, because it is as extensive as possible, expression, which hardly enables an intersubjectively verifiable application. If science were to commit to a definition, it would need a new additional intelligence term for every theoretical further development of the meaning components, which in turn would lead to a confusing and development-inhibiting inflation of the term. For this reason, the construct requires the introduction of certain assignment rules, which are the links between situation, construct and behavior. This is possible because intelligence is a trait, which means that it represents a permanent disposition, whereby disposition is understood as the tendency of an individual to exhibit a certain behavior in certain situations or under certain conditions. By linking the non-observable fact, i.e. the construct, with the observable indicators, i.e. situation and behavior, the construct becomes intersubjectively comprehensible through allocation rules.

It follows that the meaning defined in this way always only applies to the situation type defined by the respective assignment rule. The set of assignment rules, which are also referred to as partial or conditional definitions as well as operationalizations, can be expanded while avoiding the loss of precision, which means that the construct becomes more and more efficient (cf. Brocke & Beauducel 2001, pp. 13-16)

2.2 Intelligence measurement

Intelligence is what the intelligence test in question measures (cf. Amelang & Bartussek 2001, p.191) or intelligence is the number of test points achieved in an intelligence test (cf. Brocke & Beauducel 2001, p. 14). Although it was already stated above that there can be no such definition of intelligence, these statements about intelligence are often also found. The problem, however, is that there are many different intelligence tests, which would mean that there are also different intelligences (cf. Amelang & Bartussek 2001, p.191). Due to the range of skills that are assigned to the construct of intelligence, there are also controversies about the manner in which intelligence is measured. Depending on the intelligence concept, the measurement approach is different. (Cf. Zimbardo 2004, p. 405) Based on the origins of the intelligence measurement and the consideration of the problems of the intelligence test, the problem should be approached.

2.2.1 Development of intelligence measurement

Francis Galton is considered to be the founder of science, which is now referred to with the word "intelligence research". It fascinated him to record all things in numbers, to calculate and to make them measurable and he dealt intensively with hereditary ingenuity. Galton was the first to summarize the properties of intelligence into one term and proved that there are different forms of intelligence. The bell-shaped distribution of the intelligence test results is based on his considerations. He assumed that the gifted rise just above the average as idiots are below him. He also invented the concept of correlation, which is important in intelligence research. He developed questionnaires which were supposed to give him statements about the imagination of the interviewees and in his laboratory he examined the sensory perceptions of various investigators. His research in the field of intelligence was fundamental to the further development of intelligence research, but it was not he who made the first intelligence test available to the public in 1905. The inventors of the first intelligence test were the two French doctors Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon. The trigger for this was a call from the French Ministry of Public Education, which called for the development of a procedure that could record pupils with learning difficulties (cf. Liungman 1973, pp. 15-21) Binet and his partner developed age-appropriate tasks. The children's answers could then be compared with one another. The mean results for normal children were calculated for each age and the results for the individual were compared with the mean. Depending on the average age in which the value of the child was, the measure of the intelligence age was obtained, which did not have to correspond to the age. During the investigation, however, Binet placed great emphasis on the fact that the results should only be interpreted as the current level of performance, and accordingly not as a measure of innate intelligence. Second, they shouldn't be stigmatizing the children. He also emphasized that disadvantaged children can be helped through exercise and certain learning programs (cf. Zimbardo 2004, p. 405f.)

In the USA in particular, these tests have now developed further. The revision of Lewis Terman in 1916 was considered to be one of the first and most important. (Cf. Liungman 1973, p. 23) The tests were used in the USA to deal with the upheaval caused by certain historical, social and political changes . More and more immigrants came to the country, which made a process necessary, especially for school education, to classify them with regard to their skills (cf. Zimbardo 2004, p. 406) The tests were also given particular importance by the military. In 1917, the first major group intelligence test was used, called Army-Alpha, and it was tested on several million soldiers. The Army General Classification Test during the Second World War, which more than 10 million soldiers underwent, was even larger (see Liungman 1973, p. 23) accepted by the American population, which resulted in widespread use, especially in schools and industry. The researchers' efforts were therefore primarily aimed at developing widely applicable test procedures to facilitate large-scale use.

American researchers, who became leaders in the standardized diagnostics of intellectual abilities, soon replaced the comparisons between age and intelligence age developed by Binet, which often posed problems, with the use of the intelligence quotient. This is a standardized, numerical measure of intelligence, which is derived from standardized intelligence tests. It used to be the result of dividing the intelligence age by age and then multiplying by 100. Today the calculation is made directly from the intelligence test result.

2.2.2 Intelligence tests

Two of the frequently used groups of intelligence tests are the Stanford-Binet scales and the Wechsler scales.

From the above-mentioned revision of the Binet test by the American Lewis Terman, the Stanford - Binet scale emerged, with which he laid the basis for the intelligence quotient in use as a deviation quotient. The Stanford-Binet test was used as a standard instrument in psychiatry, clinical psychology and school counseling. It also contains a number of sub-tests, each of which can be used according to age. These tests have been slightly revised over time in the interests of social change and to improve validity, but they are in use to this day. It is possible to use it to make an accurate intelligence quotient estimate for both average and highly and less gifted people.

In addition to the Stanford-Binet scales, the Wechsler intelligence scales are widely used. In 1939 David Wechsler published the Wechsler - Bellevue - Intelligence Scale, in which a combination of verbal and non-verbal, action-related sub-tests was carried out, which in addition to statements about the total intelligence quotient also allowed statements about the verbal and action intelligence quotient. In the intelligence diagnosis of adults, for example, the dependence on verbal items should be reduced. This test was also subject to some changes over the years, so that it was renamed the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale in 1955, which was later subject to another revision. The revised test has six verbal sub-tests. One test for general knowledge and one for general understanding, arithmetic reasoning, finding common ground, repeating numbers and a vocabulary test. The tasks must be solved orally. In addition, in the action part, there are five tests that must be mastered. They require the manipulation of objects, for example when arranging pictures, laying figures and adding pictures. The verbal part is minimal or nonexistent.

[...]

End of excerpt from 26 pages