In class on Tuesday, when, as a last class exercise, we re-visited the questions that incidentally BEGAN the class, I found that my attitude toward answering them had changed dramatically. Whereas during the initial question-asking period, I felt disconnected and almost disinterested in the topics, I felt very strongly about each of the questions when re-posed a second time after our experience with the research.  Clearly, a lot of that has to do with the whole pre/post-test distinction.  I've always viewed pretests as a kind of cruel joke on the part of the teacher.  It's like the message of pretests are "Haha!  Look at all of the knowledge that you do NOT have!  Let me PROVE to you that you know virtually nothing."  So it was not surprising that my attitude toward the whole process was standoffish and a bit disdainful.  But I would argue that, if anything, my experience in the class made me recognize the relevance of these questions such that I felt an actual need to be engaged.

The particular question that really hit home for me asked whether or not we thought that people were born with a certain amount of creative ability.  If one were to support the thought that creativity is an inborn trait, then creativity has to be considered an entity: a physical thing to which we can point.  I have problems with that thinking, because to me, creativity is a a totally social creation.  I think we believe that creativity is its own function because we lump different brain processes like memory, language us etc into one amalgam that fits a kind of social use.  Furthermore, that social use differs from place to place: thus the brain-definitions of creativity would have to change as well.  Creativity, the "force" is a social consideration.

I am pleased with the realization that now, with more information about creativity research and after having had a good amount of time to reflect on this information, I too am invested in dispelling creativity myths.