Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society

Review: An Emerging Paradigm for Research on Human Creativity

Reviewed Work(s): Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity Seen through the Lives of
Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi by Howard Gardner
Review by: David Henry Feldman
Source: American Scientist, Vol. 82, No. 5 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1994), pp. 472-473
Published by: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29775284
Accessed: 12-11-2016 20:37 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Scientist

This content downloaded from 148.220.166.193 on Sat, 12 Nov 2016 20:37:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Scientists' Bookshelf
An Emerging Paradigm for Research on Human Creativity
Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Cre?
ativity Seen through the Lives of
Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky,
Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. Howard
Gardner. 464 pp. Basic Books, 1993.
$30.
As science proceeds to render human
intelligence less and less exceptional, cre?
ativity would seem to be one of the last
hopes of a privileged place for the mind of
our species. Machines calculate more ac?
curately and faster than we ever will, and
certain chimp and ape species show star?
tling tendencies to use symbolic functions.
The great Swiss developmentalist Piaget
claimed that consciousness is not restrict?
ed to human experience except perhaps at
its highest and most abstract levels. Even
intuition, that most ineluctable, inexpress?
ible human tendency, is under investiga?
tion by practitioners of the new discipline
of artificial intelligence. Scientific discov?
ery itself has recently been simulated by
these same intrepid pioneers; Kepler's
third law has been "discovered" by a pro?
gram called bacon produced at Carnegie
Mellon University.
For 2,000 years and more, creativity has
been the subject of interpretation and
speculation by some of history's greatest
minds, from Plato to Kant to Freud. But
until the midpoint of this century it is fair
to say that the scientific study of creativity
had hardly begun. Once begun, however,
it appeared that creativity would fall, as
have so many other human conceits, to
the systematic efforts of the research com?
munity. After all, some of the same scien?
tists who undertook to study creativity, j.
P. Guilford of the University of Southern
California foremost among them, had pro?
duced a testing program for the military
that was widely (if, it turns out, inaccu?
rately) perceived to have made an impor?
tant difference in the success of the Allied
effort. When, with substantial military
support, a major effort to produce a cre?
ativity test was launched in the early
1950s, it seemed as though it would be
only a matter of time before creative po
472 American Scientist, Volume 82
This content downloaded from 148.220.166.193 on Sat, 12 Nov 2016 20:37:59 UTC
tential could be measured as accurately as
we could measure intellectual potential.
Time has proven that creativity may not
yield up its secrets so willingly as the post?
war enthusiasts had hoped. Indeed, it now
appears (in large measure through the ef?
forts of Howard Gardner, the author of the
work under review) that we may have
been naive in thinking that intelligence it?
self is a known scientific entity. Even if it
were, the 25-year campaign to produce a
creativity test to complement the IQ test
has proven to be (largely) a bust. Even the
most devoted fan of currently available
creativity tests recognizes that there have
been validity problems with them. Basical?
ly this means that there is not much reason
to believe that the tests measure what they
are purported to measure or predict what
they are supposed to predict.
As of the mid-1970s, the field of scien?
tific research on creativity was moribund.
It appeared that creativity would once
again elude the best efforts of the scientif?
ic community. Still there continued to be
interest in the topic, and during the
decade between the mid-1970s and the
mid-1980s the field of scientific creativity
research was revolutionized and rejuve?
nated, in part because of Howard Gard?
ner. Clearly, then, when appraising his
newest book, Creating Minds, we are deal?
ing with one of the major figures of late
20th-century scientific psychology.
Although it must be acknowledged
that I have been a colleague and collabo?
rator of Gardner's, in my opinion Creating
Minds is his most mature and powerful
work. Gardner is best known for his 1983
classic Frames of Mind: The Theory of Mul?
tiple Intelligences, a book that has had
great influence on current theories of in?
telligence. It may remain his most widely
known book, and deservedly so, but the
present volume is the one that will, I be?
lieve, better stand the test of time. Its im?
portance lies in the fact that it marks a
turning point in the scientific study of cre?
ativity that is at once more dramatic and
of greater long-term significance than a
change in theories of intelligence.
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Creating Minds sets out an ambitious
agenda: to shed light on how major
breakthroughs are made in a wide array
of disciplines, including the case of .creat?
ing a new discipline itself. As Gardner
writes, "...I seek conclusions about the
nature of the Creative Enterprise writ
large"; and "The book may be regarded
as one effort to proceed at least the first
step away from findings rooted in indi?
vidual cases to generalizations that eluci?
date creativity within and across do?
mains." Using his theory of multiple
intelligences as a guide, Gardner chooses
seven individuals (one representing each
of the seven known intelligences identi?
fied in his theory), limits himself to a brief
period in recent history (the turn of the
last century), and proceeds to search for
patterns that might generalize across the
seven cases. Contrasts between and
among the cases are also noted.
The cases represent some of the most
noted figures of recent history. Only one
(Albert Einstein) was a physical scientist
(Sigmund Freud, a neurologist by train?
ing, might arguably also be labeled a sci?
entist). The other five cases analyzed are
Pablo Picasso, Igor Stravinsky, T. S. Eliot,
Martha Graham and Mahatma Gandhi.
The subjects reflect, in turn, the logi?
cal/mathematical, interpersonal, spatial,
musical, linguistic, bodily and interper?
sonal intelligences of Gardner's theory.
The selection of subjects was thus guided
by theory as well as by Gardner's judg?
ment of the power and quality of each
subject's contribution to his or her field.
Note once again that the kind of cre?
ativity studied in the present work is
at the extreme of what might be meant
by creativity; following our colleague
Howard Gruber, whose studies of Charles
Darwin demonstrated the value of re?
search on unequivocally creative cases,
the present work represents a reversal of
the tradition in research on creativity,
which has tended to study it as if it were
the same in all individuals and, therefore,
could be studied equally productively in
any sample.
 Methodologically, Creating Minds is nei?
ther conventional biography nor conven?
tional group research; we have rather an
ensemble of subjects, chosen for quite spe?
cific reasons, whose lives are compared
and contrasted within a framework for the
study of creativity that is itself evolving.
"... [M]y approach to the study of creativi?
ty begins in focused biography?in an in?
tensive examination of the periods in the
life of a creative individual when a break?
through was conceptualized, realized, and
reacted to by knowledgeable individuals
and relevant institutions. I seek to tran?
scend a concatenation of specific biogra?
phies by searching for common properties
and illuminating distinctions across a
small set of instructive cases." The research
beautifully exemplifies the emerging para?
digm in creativity research at the level of Picasso's Horse and Mother with Dead Child"May 8, 1937 (2)/' pencil on paper. From Creating Minds.
the individual or the small group that
Gardner and a few others pioneered. One of the most interesting is the fact that the possibility that its findings are limited
Some remarkable findings are reported: at crucial moments each one of the seven to its small and idiosyncratically selected
There are more common patterns in the creators worked closely and collabora sample, but if one were to read one book
creative lives of these widely diverse indi? tively with someone whose work was not by the author, particularly one book of in?
viduals than one might have imagined. as widely recognized as was their own. terest to the broad scientific community,
For example, a "10-year" rule seemed to Examples include Picasso's collaboration this is the book. I will go further; if one
apply in each case. It took about 10 years with Georges Bracque at the most forma? were to read one book on the study of cre?
for each subject to achieve a first break? tive period of what we now call Cubism, ativity by any author, this is the book. So
through or a pivotal work, and another 10 and Einstein's 15-year collaboration with long as one recognizes that, of necessity,
years or so to reach a second major turning his first wife, Mileva Marie. Generally, this is a study that stakes out largely un?
point. "We see at work what I have these collaborations ended when a major explored territory, the reader will find
dubbed the ten-year rule, with significant breakthrough or reorganization was ac? Creating Minds a work of great merit.
innovations or reorientations happening at complished and consolidated. The usefulness of the author's approach
approximately decade-long intervals after Gardner does not claim that the pat? to the study of creativity is more than am?
an initial decade in which the skills of terns revealed in his analysis would hold ply demonstrated in this remarkable and
one's trade have been mastered. In for all subjects, not even among subjects elegant work of scholarship and imagina?
Stravinsky's case, the situation is compli? as preeminent as these seven, nor for sub? tion. Whether the book represents a break?
cated by the fact that... two compositions jects from different cultures or different through of the sort studied in Frames of
were begun at almost the same time, with historical periods. The peculiar genius of Mind remains to be seen (it would conform
Les noces having an extraordinarily long the modern era, Gardner believes, has to the 10-year rule if it did); one of the
gestation period." been its ability to integrate the childlike lessons learned from reading the book is
Another common feature of the seven with the mature, a quality unlikely to per? that it is for the field to judge such matters
lives is that a kind of "Faustian bargain" sist into the next century. He is thus ex? over time. When the history of the scientif?
was struck (consciously or unconsciously) quisitely sensitive to both the limits of his ic study of creativity is written, however, it
between the individual and his or her data and the contextual constraints im? is my opinion that the present work will
craft such that normal interpersonal rela? posed when a Western-trained develop? have secured a prominent place in the sto?
tions are compromised, often severely, to mental psychologist studies modem West ry. It is the story that is likely to reveal the
better serve the creator's gift. em instances of creative accomplishment. uniqueness of our species, for better or for
There are other fascinating patterns The book does have its limitations and worse.?David Henry Feldman, Eliot-Pearson
found and discussed in Creating Minds. problems, the most important of which is Child Study Center, Tufts University

How Do Physicists Come to Ask the Questions They Ask?

What Makes Nature Tick? Roger G. number of talks given... to a group of col? effectiveness of mathematics in the nat?
Newton. 257 pp. Harvard University leagues from various disciplines who have ural sciences," the author suggests that
Press, 1993. $27.95. been meeting... to discuss our disparate in? it "is no more than a very powerful cod?
tellectual interests." We are therefore of? ification of logical short cuts." He calls
Could you resist Newton's thoughts on fered a series of 10 essays that do not, of on great thinkers to help make his
What Makes Nature Tick? In this case the course, answer the title question, but rather points, and his ingenious use of quotes,
Newton is Roger G. Newton, Distin? discuss how physicists came to ask some of often from unexpected sources, is an en?
guished Professor of Physics at Indiana the questions they are now asking. chanting aspect of this challenging text.
University, and his insights into the histo? Newton opens with a lucid discus? For example, the opening chapter fea?
ry, development and current models sion of what science is, why it is a tures quotes from Albert Einstein,
physicists use to probe our universe unique and effective way of looking at Michael Faraday, Hermann Bondi, Eu?
would fascinate Sir Isaac. In the preface, the universe, and the roles of mathemat? gene Wigner, Peter Medawar, Charles
the author explains: "This book had its ori? ics, imagination and beauty in its devel? Dickens, John Maynard Keynes, Free?
gin in a Phi Beta Kappa address and in a opment. In analyzing "the unreasonable man Dyson and Hippocrates.

1994 September-October 473

This content downloaded from 148.220.166.193 on Sat, 12 Nov 2016 20:37:59 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms