2 Comments
May 24Liked by Todd Kashdan

Thanks for writing this.

I actually beg to differ with you and agree with the creativity expert in Minnesota. Consider that if "Creativity is a process that results in novelty which is accepted as useful, tenable, or satisfying by a significant group of others at some point in time" then most people are, in actuality, creative and creating in making the choices that we do, creating the lives we choose to create, and impact those around us in our own unique way just as each and every fingerprint is unique as well.

Now, I grant you that as social human beings, we have patterns of behavior that follow social mores and conform with what is considered normal by our peers/families/communities of all kinds. So while on the one hand our need to belong does have us conform to said normal behaviors, we also day by day make choices and interact with each other in ways that affect them usefully, tenably and/or satisfyingly. The almost certain fact that most of us interact with each other in ways that are labelled kind or at least courteous is overlooked by the amount of press given to those who don't.

What does that have to do with anything? I just have a sense that every choice we make, every step we take, and every move we make is creating the life that we live, affecting those we interact with, and is mostly considered useful, tenable and satisfying. It is also novel, each and every time, because each action is a new action. It may be a repeat of a previous action, but every moment is an opportunity to approach ;life with the wonder and awe of presence, of the childlike sense of wonder that some of us hang onto even when habit and norms continue to deepen the mental and emotional grooves we build in our neuronal pathways.

I consider acknowledgment and appreciation to be creative acts, doing what it can/does to build confidence and resilience within the person or group being acknowledged. Similarly, I consider judgment and assessment to be creative acts that can cut more sharply than the edge of a perfectly cut and polished De Beers diamond. You are so on point about its impact on a young being's life and impulse to create when wielded thoughtlessly by those who consider themselves in the know.

Anyhow. I have recently transformed my view about creativity, and tied it to the distinction choice. How our choices create directions, actions, and lives that have an impact, unless one is a hermit.

Anyhow, thank you. Thank you for doing what you do. For writing what you write. For making the difference that you make, to your clients and your reader, your students and your fellow faculty. You make a difference that makes the difference.

Warmest regards,

Carmen L. Reynal

Expand full comment
author

Hey Carmen, thanks for the message and kind words.

Your insights fit with the 4C model of creativity by Ronald Beghetto and my collaborator, James Kaufman. They break creativity down into distinct types:

Big-C is legendary creativity. This is the creativity of individuals who have a major impact on culture and history. Think of innovators like Darwin, Shakespeare, and Montessori. Their creativity changed the world in some way.

Little-c is everyday creativity. This is the creativity you use when you come up with a new recipe, find a new route to work, or solve a problem in a scientific study. It's creativity that's useful and novel on a small scale.

Mini-c refers to the creativity involved in learning and personal insights - which is what you hit a great deal in your comment. It's the "aha" moments you have when you understand something new or see a problem in a different light. It's creativity on a personal level. New ways to pursue your life, for example. What I refer to as the principled rebel archetype of NIche Carver: https://toddkashdan.com/insubordination-quiz/

Pro-c is for professional creativity - people skilled and experienced in a certain domain. Think of a scientist making a new discovery, a writer crafting a novel, or a designer creating a new product. It's creativity that contributes to a field but doesn't necessarily redefine it.

It's a great model that unfortunately I didn't have enough space to get into. You raised great stuff. Hope this exchange sparks a great conversation. Which is the real purpose of these issues...

Expand full comment