Intelligence and Creativity
I read the following quote over on Anna L. Conti’s blog about intelligence and creativity:
Studies show that the IQ range of most creative people is surprisingly narrow, around 120 to 130. Higher IQs can perform certain kinds of tasks better - logic, feats of memory, and so on. but if the IQ is much higher or lower than that, the window of creativity closes.
This is from the book Alchemy of Mind: the Marvel and Mystery of the Brain, by Diane Ackerman.
I think this is utterly ridiculous. I’m not sure what kind of studies she is quoting in her book but my IQ doesn’t fall within that range. While some folks might not think I’m creative, I certainly don’t feel that the door of creativity has been shut for me. I know a lot of higher IQ folks that are extremely creative. And I’m neither qualified nor feel compelled to make a judgment about the other end of the scale.
Based on the reviews over on amazon (most notably the one titled “A Beautiful Disappointment”) I suspect the validity of the sited studies are questionable.
I did a quick internet search on the topic and this was the best I could come up with:
A quality related to both intelligence and giftedness is creativity, which can be defined as the ability to produce valued outcomes in a novel way. Creativity is related to intelligence, but the correlation is far from perfect. In general, intelligence in a particular area seems to be a necessary condition for creativity but not a sufficient one. Individuals with IQs below 120 are less likely to display creative thinking than those with a higher IQ, but above 120, the correlation between intelligence and creativity is essentially zero.
from Psychology: Mind, Brain, & Culture, by Drew Westen. This quote supports the lower threshold but not the upper limit Ms. Ackerman mentions. I couldn’t find any references to support the upper number online but I’ve put her book on hold at the library and am curious to see her quote in context and hopefully with references.
On a related note (and really the main point of this post - to brag about my kids - I just need an intro): the past 2 weeks my kids were attending a camp at a college campus for gifted and talented kids. They lived in the dorms and took several classes in a wide variety of topics from music, to physics (my son built a hover craft with a leaf blower), to history, to social science, to art. It’s an amazing opportunity and while my kids also don’t fall within that narrow limit (nor do many of the kids attending this camp) they displayed a tremendous amount of creativity, which I got to enjoy friday afternoon at the parent showcase.
My daughter (10) took a landscape painting class as one of her 4 classes. This is her landscape - it’s a rain drop. She was the only one not to do a traditional landscape. Creative or not I think she’s awesome:
Raindrop 18" x 24"
One of my son’s classes (almost 14) was about brains. In addition to powerpoint presentations on some very intelligent (and generally creative!) folks and many other activities they also did the traditional exercise of coming up with a list of words that exemplify and spell out the words Creative and Critical. Again, I think he’s amazingly creative.
Critical:
Posted by Lisa in: Musings
barbara said,
July 24, 2006 @ 5:38 am
I think the problem is in using the word ‘creativity’ — it’s loaded, and a good study would look at the specific tasks involved in original thought and problem-solving.Did this study do that?
I’m sure it’s hard on parents to read studies like this — I’d just let the scientists duke it out and let the high/low IQ kids kids (not to mention ourselves) keep being spontaneous, original and (here it comes) creative !!!
Scott Leutenegger said,
July 24, 2006 @ 8:55 am
Consider Ackerman’s quote:
“Studies show that the IQ range of most creative people is surprisingly narrow, around 120 to 130. Higher IQs can perform certain kinds of tasks better - logic, feats of memory, and so on. but if the IQ is much higher or lower than that, the window of creativity closes.”
Without more context it is hard to know where Ackerman gets this. Only 2% of folk have an IQ greater than 130, whereas 13% of people have an IQ between 115 and 130. Hence, if you take a random person who you have classified as “creative”, they are 6 times more likely to have an IQ between 115 and 130 than over 130. So, the question is how was this study structured and how was the data obtained. From the quote alone there is now way to say.
I would conjecture, based on total gut feeling with nothing to back it up, that if you take a random sample of 1000 people in the greater than 130 IQ and compare with a sample of 1000 people in the 120-130 range, there will be an equal number, or possible even or greater number, of “creative” folk in the higher range. Again, nothing to back this up, other than my experience with friends and colleagues over the years, mostly “scientists”, many of whom are also creative, just not how they learn thier living. Note, I also know professional artists that are mathematical/scientific, it is just not something they do for a living.
Of course the whole IQ thing is suspect and culturally biased to start with, merely one way to assess peoples abilities, and one that is biased in favor of people with mathematical/logical abilities versus intuitive, creative, social intelligence. I think people get way to wrapped up in “a number” and that can be limiting. Granted, in some cases it can be freeing, especially as a parent, as having an objective measurement of our children’s abilities can make us stop doubting whether we are biased. No need to doubt, we as parents ARE biased. :)
Speacking of parental bias, let me add a link to a game our (Lisa’s and my) son recently creatied. I can assure you it requires logical thinking (often meaning high IQ) as well as I think creativity. The nuances of creating a “fun” game are subtle, and I think he mastered them:
http://www.cs.du.edu/~leut/campGames1/alex1.html
To brag about my daughter, I’ll simple reference the above painting, AND tell you her logic can be pretty impressive when she is trying to talk her way out of doing something she does not want to do….
—Scott
Omega said,
July 24, 2006 @ 9:05 am
What about all the brilliantly creative engineers, architects, scientists, mathematicians, composers, …. bah humbug! My IQ is not in that band, and I certainly was creative in my publishing career, both as an editor and a business person. I also used to teach children below the band, and when given the space and time they can be creative like the best of us.
Lisa Call said,
July 24, 2006 @ 9:23 am
Barbara - I disagree on so many levels.
The suggestion that scientists are above questioning by the general population is a dangerous thought to me. They are not above reproach.
I believe the first book I have quoted is just plain wrong (if you don’t understand the second quote it is saying that as IQ increases there is not an increase in creativity - it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist - it simply says there is no correlation). As Omega notes there are numerous examples of genius level creativity we all know about, such as Da Vinci.
I do not believe having an IQ over 130 in any way precludes someone from being creative (no matter how you want to define it). I believe the woman that wrote that probably misinterpreted the studies. If you read the reviews on Amazon for her book you will see she also misunderstands such basics as evolution, indicating that her analysis should be questioned.
I think the thing that is hard on parents (and should be hard for all humans) in reading things like this is that people don’t question what they read. And so this fallacy is then passed around as some kind of truth. That is frightening to me given the damage it can cause. “Oh I’m sorry - you don’t have the right IQ to do something creative”.
My choice of my son’s expansion of the word “critical” was deliberate. Critical analysis is extremely important. In my mind scientists and authors are not above such scrutiny.
Felicity said,
July 24, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
The first thing I check when reading about studies is how many people were involved. Usually it’s in the hundreds or even tens. This then gets projected to represent the human race. Complete nonsense and can be dangerous and misleading. And no, I don’t believe this either, creativity is in everyone in one form or another.
Stacey said,
July 24, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
I agree with you Lisa - the first quote is just plain wrong. I think a misconception is formed as soon as we try to define what creativity is. For example, I know a lot of artistic people who think that engineering is a profession that does not require creativity. But sit in a room with a bunch of engineers for an hour and observe their work process, and you can see that creative problem solving skills are the number one requirement for getting something to work on an engineering project. And I’d be willing to bet that some of the most creative engineers I work with have IQs that fall far above 130!
Claire said,
July 24, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
I do not understand the focus on Intelligence Quotient. I don’t know mine, I’ve never been tested and I am glad. I’m actually an engineer and a creative person (how do they measure creativity??)
I wonder if IQ is a measure which has really caught on in the US, but not so much elsewhere (I’m in Australia)
In our culture I suspect people labled as ’smart’ or ‘dumb’ are led in certain directions which exclude or devalue creativity.
Claire
Ed Maskevich said,
July 24, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
I know many people that do not fit into that range and they are very creative. What is also interesting to note is that the most highly successful people have average IQ’s and average intelligence in school but have high EQ’s, Emotional Quotient. In other words, they are successful because they have self confidence.
Cindra said,
July 24, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
I worked in a school for “gifted students.” An IQ of 125 would have been at the low end, most were 130+. These students were also very “gifted” artists, musicians and writers. Last time I checked you had to be creative to do well in these areas. I remember my son walking down the halls of the school looking at all the artwork that decorated the halls. He thought I worked at a school for gifted artists. I have to agree with you Lisa… I think putting an upper limit on creativity is ridiculous… but putting any limit on creativity is ridiculous.
Lisa Call said,
July 27, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Stacey - I work with highly intelligent engineers also. Some are extremely creative and I think it’s actually a fairly common trait among engineers as I agree - it is a very creative occupation.
Claire, I don’t think there is an obsession with IQ in the US. But when you have children that you don’t thrive in public schools but they are reading national geographic in the 2nd grade then it’s time to wonder if there isn’t a better solution. As my kids father pointed out above, the number helped verify that we weren’t just biased parents and that indeed our child was bored in a regular classroom. Instead of putting our kids into gifted and talented programs we moved them to a school that fosters creativity (among other things) as we feel this is a more valuable trait than rote learning.
And Ed - I completely agree. IQ to me is a measure of potential only. If you do nothing with it then it is meaningless. I think motivation will take someone further than intelligence. Although creativity doesn’t hurt.
And Cindra and Felicity - I agree - I believe that creativity needs to be fostered and supported. Some people don’t display very much creativity but I believe that if coached everyone has some form of creativity.