# NF: What is your definition of creativity?



## matilda (May 21, 2009)

See above :happy:


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Doing/thinking ANYTHING outside of "the box" whatsoever, in any topic or field.


----------



## Sily (Oct 24, 2008)

Taking "No" and turning it on it's head.




About 12 hours later, a good nap and a fine Spring day -- I'm editing this message to add another definition I just thought of for creativity:

Creativity is looking into the eyes of The Creator and saying........... "Just watch what I do _next_!"


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

I think if there would be some form of measurement of creativity (similiar to IQ), I think most INFP's would skyrocket on it.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

ISFP's I'd go with more-so.

EDIT: I take that back. I phrased my definition the way I did for a reason. Artsy stuff I'd for sure hands down give it to an ISFP/INFP, but in any other sense of the definition I used, they probably wouldn't be too great. Creatively making a song or painting a picture is a very different kind of creativity than one involving connecting ideas and other things to solve a difficult solution, in which case (not to toot my own horn) I think INTP's are the most awesome at it (J's are a good second, but I think that J is somewhat a creativity-hinderer).

But. I don't wanna go through that with every type. But you see what I mean I'm sure


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

Kevinaswell said:


> ISFP's I'd go with more-so.
> 
> EDIT: I take that back. I phrased my definition the way I did for a reason. Artsy stuff I'd for sure hands down give it to an ISFP/INFP, but in any other sense of the definition I used, they probably wouldn't be too great. Creatively making a song or painting a picture is a very different kind of creativity than one involving connecting ideas and other things to solve a difficult solution, in which case (not to toot my own horn) I think INTP's are the most awesome at it (J's are a good second, but I think that J is somewhat a creativity-hinderer).
> 
> But. I don't wanna go through that with every type. But you see what I mean I'm sure


That F function contributes to a lot of creativity I would say. I have noticed that T's generally aren't that creative; just look at psychopaths for example they are intelligent as heck but they are seldom if never artistically creative.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Kysinor said:


> That F function contributes to a lot of creativity I would say. I have noticed that T's generally aren't that creative; just look at psychopaths for example they are intelligent as heck but they are seldom if never artistically creative.


I make music regularly and took a lot of art classes in HS as well as a sculpture course and a pottery course in college. There are a lot of aspects of art that are incredibly appealing to an NT.

There isn't much more satisfying than making sounds in oscillators that sound really sweet and then organizing them in interesting fun ways 

I'm no prodigy or anything, don't get me wrong. But creating is one of my favorite things to do, I'd say.

Also I play a lot of LittleBigPlanet and use the creator in that. It's probably the most creative thing a person can do. Haha. It's so crazy. And also INCREDIBLY appealing to an NT core. It's like being in the Matrix. What do you think and NT would do in the matrix? Some awesome shit.


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

Kevinaswell said:


> I make music regularly and took a lot of art classes in HS as well as a sculpture course and a pottery course in college. There are a lot of aspects of art that are incredibly appealing to an NT.
> 
> There isn't much more satisfying than making sounds in oscillators that sound really sweet and then organizing them in interesting fun ways
> 
> ...


Everybody can think; everybody can be creative. A matter of fact is *how* well you do that; and feelings aid that a lot since a lot of creative art is based upon feelings mostly in the first place in combination with intuition (since when would creative art be objective anyways?). I know many T's that are crap at creative arts and the likes; even though they are intelligent. The more intelligent they are; usually the less of a taste they have. T's are usually logical; and feelings are irrational. See: Lateralization of brain function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which is right-brain is usually refered to lateral thinking and not logical thinking even though it's a combination of both since is why I say is *how*. T's are logical and analytical; F's usually aren't. Music; paintings; poetry; most philosophy; all F's -- creative.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Nooooooo no no that's not what I'm saying. I completely agree with all that. I'm just saying that a T can totally do some badass creative shit even within art. This one time, I drew this one bitch in pastels that turned out damn good. 

Here is some flowers I made with watercolors in like 9th grade.








I couldn't find the bitch.

Iunno. I'm for sure that rational person that isn't meant for art, but I don't think it's healthy to think of things in that way. Because I really enjoy branching out of my element and seeing what I can do with it, and teachers as well as co-eds have never made me regret it. 

I'd post my music myspace...but that's embarrassing. And I doubt hardly anyone here would like it anyhow. Because. It's just fucked up experimental electronic music with not too great production.

But hey, I'm gettin' better!


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

Kevinaswell said:


> Nooooooo no no that's not what I'm saying. I completely agree with all that. I'm just saying that a T can totally do some badass creative shit even within art. This one time, I drew this one bitch in pastels that turned out damn good.
> 
> Here is some flowers I made with watercolors in like 9th grade.
> 
> ...


That's even better than I can draw (and I'm pretty heavy F, to be honest); perhaps I am wrong and a little biased about it but that's just what I did assume trough that theory which I refer to in combination of MBTI. Then again; both of these theories might have it's flaws and loopholes. 

And electronic music owns. But technical preference is I would say is more closely linked to sensor, so you might be right that ISFP's also would be very creative... good artists have technical skill too (hence; SF) and INTP's would be very creative on a sort of objective scale... and for finding real solutions but not for art. I don't know; but art is usually related to creative things and in turn is heavily related to feelings which is subjective.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Kysinor said:


> but art is usually related to creative things and in turn is heavily related to feelings which is subjective.


I think THIS is our problem. INTP's are very emotional, at least I'd say for sure. We just handle it differently. For example, when I draw it's more of like I'm just adding lines until the proper shape is there and I can work with it until it's right what what I want it to be/convey. But for SF/NF's, I'm sure it's much more direct feeling that influences the type of shape that comes out (ie I'm super angery, so I'm going to draw these sharp jaggy things because it's appropriate). If I was going for an angry picture, I'd just be like "shit, I need some red." Haha. See what I mean? 

Whenever I get into deep discussions like this about types, I seem to tend to find that a lot of the time the same destination is reached but by two completely different paths.


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

Kevinaswell said:


> I think THIS is our problem. INTP's are very emotional, at least I'd say for sure. We just handle it differently. For example, when I draw it's more of like I'm just adding lines until the proper shape is there and I can work with it until it's right what what I want it to be/convey. But for SF/NF's, *I'm sure it's much more direct feeling that influences the type of shape that comes out (ie I'm super angery, so I'm going to draw these sharp jaggy things because it's appropriate)*. If I was going for an angry picture, I'd just be like "shit, I need some red." Haha. See what I mean?
> 
> Whenever I get into deep discussions like this about types, I seem to tend to find that a lot of the time the same destination is reached but by two completely different paths.


That's a pretty good way to look at it actually; I notice that I'm angry and if I don't take advantage of that feeling for my creative things it's useless later without my feeling. I'm not angry all the time :laughing:. I feel much creative after a short time or close to I've experienced a sort of strong emotion. I need to channel it fast! It's like an art, Lol. Most have been impulses of emotions; often unpredictable such. I remember a few of the posts (if not, all Lol) I've written here are a cause of that actually.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Exactly! See for me, context doesn't have much of an influence on the "emotion"s of my "art"? Like back to that anger/red thing... There is no reason I wouldn't be able to utilize red in that same "anger" inducing way despite how at the time I may not even feel an ounce of anger. 

It's a trade off, I'd say. You don't get the raw emotional expression for sure, because it just doesn't exist in a raw form with me. Instead you get a type of creativity that flourishes from understanding. Which can do some creative shit, especially in the realm of art.

(A lot of classical composers as well as some really good IDM artists I'd say have NT cores).


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

Kevinaswell said:


> Exactly! See for me, context doesn't have much of an influence on the "emotion"s of my "art"? Like back to that anger/red thing... There is no reason I wouldn't be able to utilize red in that same "anger" inducing way despite how at the time I may not even feel an ounce of anger.
> 
> It's a trade off, I'd say. You don't get the raw emotional expression for sure, because it just doesn't exist in a raw form with me. Instead you get a type of creativity that flourishes from understanding. Which can do some creative shit, especially in the realm of art.
> 
> (A lot of classical composers as well as some really good IDM artists I'd say have NT cores).


I think a thing NT's might be good at is science fiction writing and the likes; since it involves heavily understanding of science fiction elements. Not much expression and feeling from NT creative stuff; but perhaps more *interesting* than the creative stuff that comes from F.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Kysinor said:


> I think a thing NT's might be good at is science fiction writing and the likes; since it involves heavily understanding of science fiction elements. Not much expression and feeling from NT creative stuff; but perhaps more *interesting* than the creative stuff that comes from F.


Agreed.

Yay for progress


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Kysinor said:


> I think if there would be some form of measurement of creativity (similiar to IQ), I think most INFP's would skyrocket on it.


Along with the NTs..


Creativity is (IMO) greatly influenced by intuition..

Creativity is... Seeing how things operate together, how they fit in the bigger picture and then making something new from all the pieces. A gestalt way of taking the parts and making something greater than the sum of the parts.. Whatever criterion are used to evaluate it is a matter of semantics.

If it is not a rehash of something old, or the old with a new face, then it is creative.


----------



## matilda (May 21, 2009)

Interesting definitions! So functions-wise I guess it's *N + F/T*?


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

matilda said:


> Interesting definitions! So functions-wise I guess it's *N + F/T*?


It's definitely N function somewhere; but what I think is that F/T are two different beasts of creative people if it would come down to that. I don't think there is just one form of creativity; but different such creativity (as in, just not one type). I think there's a crazy SF creativity out there as well, but I don't know how it would work in such case -- technical madness of skills or something :laughing: 

Creativity to to express complex feelings (trough a art form) in an unique fashion and style trough intuition would be NF; while NT is more about unique problem solving trough intuition (neph gives a good example of that); but I still have that feeling to define intelligence as NT while NF as creative... for some strange reason one might say, but I've given sufficient reasons in my past posts in this thread why I think so. 

I know one thing for sure though; not to boast or anything; but I'm *very* creative but I am not that intelligent -- I can't have both; just in the same way as I can't have both technical skill as intuition as I'm not a Renaissance man and I doubt that many are; but it's a matter of degrees. Both creativity and intelligence is in the "head"; technically but I don't think they are a part of the same process and I think that creativity might have a connection to a persons aptitude of feelings (hypothethis). Do I have proof for this? No; in fact I haven't so I guess that becomes my opinion about the subject matter even though I have multiple reasons why I think so -- I could give more I think; I'm not sure if this is any validity to my claim: Creativity and mental illness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 

I'm still not sure though; creativity is very hard to define but I guess in relation to the MBTI these are cognitive functions so I suppose they would influence a person's possible creativity. I'd say that the drive to be creative is higher with people that are NF due to the emotions; but that doesn't necessarily mean that people that are NT could be less creative.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

> I'm very creative but I am not that intelligent -- I can't have both


I beg to differ, I can see from your posts that you are indeed rather intelligent. I would assume you find it difficult however to distinguish the concepts of creativity, productivity and aptitude..

All of which hold their own distinctive features.. I say that your creativity is indeed just as viable under intelligence. As intellect and intelligence are not the same.. I would recommend you look up the IQs of Howard Gardner, his multiple intelligences theory is gaining ground in terms of psychological research. He was of course erroneous in a few core issues, in particular, the differentiation of tactile and cerebral aptitudes, but it all relates to the differences in intelligence.


----------



## Nightriser (Nov 8, 2008)

Why is it that when "creativity" is brought up, many people automatically assume it deals with artistic talent? Why is it that when artistry is brought up, many people automatically assume Fs are inherently better at it? Creativity is simply taking a new, insightful perspective. I don't see how that definition favors Ts or Fs, nor how it applies solely to artistic endeavors.


----------

