Intelligence
(This is an excerpt from a University Of Metaphysical Sciences course at www.umsonline.org, please feel free to visit the school website)
Another
aspect of creativity, as supposedly defined and measured by science, is
that of intelligence. Creative people are generally perceived as intelligent.
Even those who struggle with exhibiting the typical standards of success
(money, prestige, power) are excused as being “too” creative
to function normally. Remember all the anecdotal stories from school about
Einstein being “too smart to tie his shoes” or “having
trouble fathoming the function of a doorknob?”
Intelligence (as tested) ceases to have any discernible impact on creativity
after an approximate IQ of 115. At that point, factors of personality and
motivation take over. Mostly, these factors, along with both home and educational
environment, manifest a category of traits.
• the ability and motivation to work independently and autonomously
(rather than in a group or in a mundane manner)
• a high level of general energy (but particularly psychic energy)
• a drive to make sense of contradictory or divergent facts into a
single theory or perception
• flexibility of thought and action
Intelligence is not “fixed” at birth. In the journal Nature,
Bernard Devlin concluded that genes account for no more than 48% of IQ,
and the remaining percentage is a function of prenatal care, environment
and education. In the spirit of this paper, it would seem fair to follow
such thinkers as Einstein and Da Vince and challenge even that hard, scientific
fact. If science, which invented intelligence testing at the turn of the
century (Binet, circa 1900) could move in one hundred years from believing
that 100% of intelligence was predetermined to acknowledging that less than
half may be so, then it’s conceivable that in another hundred years
they may eliminate the notion of “built in limits” altogether.
So our job is to, as all great creative thinkers do, begin with the supposition
that this FACT is not, after all, a fixed truth. It is merely what is presently
perceived and agreed upon. If we were to conclude this line of reasoning,
one can assume that our ability to be “creative” is not limited
by any predetermined factors outside of our control and, in fact, are as
much within our control as our own determination to learn to be creative.
The other problem with Intelligence Testing is it is invariably tied into
Mathematical and Verbal reasoning skills. These skills would seem to test
not only the development of only a certain part of the brain, but a certain
predilection or experiential quality. An analogy would be to measure and
define overall strength only according to a specific muscle or muscle group.
The result might be that all people who could bench press a certain amount
would be considered “strong” while those who could squat or
curl substantial amounts of weight would be unaccounted for within the strength
measuring scale. Of course, farmers, steel workers or heavy laborers would
have the advantage, while all the rest, delivery cyclists, fishermen, endurance
runners etc…would be consistently mislabeled and unappreciated.
Measured intelligence plays a part, but not a big part in creativity. Some
problems just require a certain level of aptitude to understand the problem
even before creativity can come into play. It is important to remember that
there are many types of intelligence, and it is a many-sided quality and
ability. Intelligence testers say that “the structure of intellect
is multi-factorial.”
Colloquially then, it would seem that we measure and judge intelligence
only for “left brain” activities. The irony is that we generally
respect and reward those who manifest a preponderance of “right brain”
ability as the creative ones. An investor who can analyze the market at
a glance is included, because we translate his ability into the tangible
sphere of “number crunching” when he is more likely doing something
akin to reading complex patterns of behavior through visualization. A star
quarterback or point guard is actually intuiting tens of thousands of complex
physics problems within their “supercomputer” called a brain.
However, this ability translates into the intangible “talent,”
perhaps boosted by “hard work” and “practice.” More
readily do we ascribe the same abilities, when manifested through sculpture,
dance or the like, as “creative” when we also have tangible,
material explanation like strength training or mathematical ability to ascribe
to the creative ability.
While it is certainly predicate to include at least an aspect of these perspectives,
who’s to say that Shakespeare couldn’t have solved Trigonometry
problems? Or that Mozart could balance a checkbook?
As far as Science and intelligence testing go, they don’t go very
far. In terms of creativity and the brain, Science, at its best, is like
a child who has just learned their multiplication tables trying to determine
the relative trajectory of the sun and stars. The tools and knowledge are
simply too imperfect and limited to provide a satisfactory answer. The best
it can do is to speculate, while at the same time it forces that same speculation
into reality.
A
free IQ test testing can tell you your iq score, the average, the scale,
where a mensa genius is on the scale online. But for maximizing potential,
you need to go beyond short quiz for kid and tickle the air for the answer.