Discussion

I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity granted to me to discuss Dr. van den Haag's provocative essay on creativity. The paper is divided, as I see it, into two main sections, the first of which challenges some of the assumptions made by many regarding the typology of creative people, while the second presents the author's thesis regarding the psychological explanation of creativity.

In the first section of his paper, Van den Haag makes some very pertinent statements regarding the difficulty imposed upon us when we study creativity via sociological methods. For example, he points out what should be obvious but often is not—namely, that the creative person need not be an artist although an artist has to be creative. He also points out that students of creative personalities often make some unwarranted assumptions. Some of these assumptions are 1) that there is a general creativity, the characteristics of which do not differ among various occupational groups; 2) that there is a positive correlation between creative personalities and creative works; and 3) that there is an independent definition of creative works which should enable us to identify creative personalities. A bit of reflection will show that evaluation of creative people through identified works has severe limitations. We have only to recall that Beethoven's Eroica Symphony was very poorly received when first performed, that Brahms was severely vilified, and so on. Dr. van den Haag points out that Socrates never wrote anything—was he therefore not creative? We just don't have firm criteria for what is original or what is socially valuable to enable us to distinguish a creative person from the work he produces.

The second section of this essay is an exposition of Dr. van den Haag's major thesis, namely that a fruitful study of creativity entails a definition of the subject from a psychological or intrapersonal frame of reference. Furthermore, and this is crucial, the psychological factors which are basic