What makes some people more creative than many others? However, are creative folks just born this way? Or is imagination the end result of something else completely?
These are questions that psychologists and psychiatrists have now been pondering and attempting to reply for decades, and through extensive studies, they’ve developed five major theories, all of which tries to describe the creative character.
The Psychoanalytical Theory of Imagination
The principal proponents of the theory include Freud, Jung, Kris, Position, Adler, and Hammer; and the typical argument is the fact that individuals become creative in reaction to tough situation or repressed emotions.
The theory also argues the following:
Folks have the ability to illustrate ingenuity when they link the private unconscious mind together with the collective conscious. Regression precedes originality. Feelings of inferiority lead to originality.
Arguably, however, other theorists maintain the psychoanalytic theory lacks credence, primarily since it does not take into account that individuals are both biological and social beings (Harman & Rheingold, 1994).
The Mental Illness Theory of Imagination
The proponents of the theory comprise Briggs, Eisenman, Goodwin, Jamison, Richards, and Martindale; and the leading tenet is the fact that some form of mental illness is really needed in order for individuals to be creative, even though that sickness is exceedingly light.
Studies demonstrate the mental disorders most often related to increased imagination are bipolar and manic depressive syndromes, where sufferers experience extreme mood swings that maybe lead to enhanced creative expression.
Of course, its fascinating to notice that numerous other theorists assert that mental illness really interferes with and even keeps originality and while, allowed, some exceptionally creative people do suffer from some kind of mental disorder, almost all of exceptionally creative people don’t suffer with any kind of mental disorder in the slightest. (Harman & Rheingold, 1994)
Eysenck’s Theory of Psychoticism
The key proponent of the theory was the late Hans Eysenck, who asserted that exceptionally creative people possessed a quality termed “psychoticism”, meaning a predisposition for psychotic tendencies. Eysenck also maintained that these psychotic tendencies were the basis for creative characters, and he developed a word association test to quantify someone ‘s psychoticism, with consequences correlated to form a continuum, which range from psychotic through typical and from standard to highly societal to altruistic.
Other theorists, nevertheless, for instance, Rothenburg, differed with Eysenck and asserted that his theory counted too heavily upon the outcomes of the evaluation he himself developed and, more seriously, that Eysenck had designed the evaluation particularly to support his theory, which invalidated the results.
The Dependence Theory of Imagination
The primary proponents of the theory are Lapp, Collins, Izzo, Norlander, Gustafson, and Wallas; and its particular important tenet is the fact that dependency, by way of example, to drugs or booze, leads to and even causes ingenuity.
This theory, however, isn’t mainly supported by the mainstream research community, but rather by independent researchers, together with by some creative characters who themselves suffer from dependence issues. (Dacey & Lennon, 1998)
On the flip side, it’s intriguing to notice the members of the study who only believed they were intoxicated were the most creative of the whole group; and, in brief, although theorists have found there is frequently a correlation between addictive behaviour and originality, studies haven’t supported the argument that dependence either causes or leads to ingenuity. (Dacey &Lennon, 1998)
The Humanistic Theory of Imagination
The principal supporters of the theory contain Maslow, Rogers, and Fromm, although the theory is situated primarily upon Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, a theory he developed, which maintains that individuals have six basic needs that should be fulfilled in order to allow them to prosper and reach maximum potential.
Individuals’s lesser needs, nevertheless, has to be fulfilled in order to allow them to progress to the following highest amount, and just upon reaching the uppermost level, self-actualization, where needs are linked to goal and identify, are they at last free enough and comfortable enough to express themselves creatively.
The supporters of the theory assert that environment is unimportant because even the most challenging of environments cannot hinder imagination if a person possesses the capability to self-actualize and, consequently, get the best amount, where he/she is able to opt to be creative. Put simply, folks determine for themselves whether they’ll be creative.
It Is intriguing to notice the humanistic theory is the one theory with which few people find fault, possibly since it makes perfect sense a individual cannot concentrate upon creative attempts unless his or her most basic and primal needs have first been fulfilled. (Harman & Rheingold, 1994)
In conclusion, discussion over what just makes one person more creative than another continues and most probably will continue for decades to come because while you can find several credible theories, there are yet no conclusive solutions, and maybe never will be, to clarify the enigma referred to as the creative character.
Dacey, J., Lennon, K. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Harman, W. & Rheingold, H. New York: St. Martin Press