Thought you’d enjoy this While creative self-efficacy explained 34% of the variance in creativity, and creative intention explained 24% of the variance, “only cautious personality, not creative personality, was a significant predictor of creative self efficacy (β = -.42, p = -.001, and β = .1, p = .095). (Choi, 2004, p. 197).

Mike,

Well said. Choi (2004) mediates creativity with both self-efficacy and intention: even if you can do something, if you have no desire to, you simply won’t!

Choi, J.N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16(2 & 3), 187-199.

I think you meant to say that invention = talent + training + profit motive. But I disagree. I believe in the old saying “necessity is the mother of invention”. I believe that the ingredient added to talent and training is a defined need (or specific problem). Or, as I’ve said in the When Bad Things Happen to Good Concepts posts, a clear context in which to apply a concept.

Mike

Interesting idea, because the assumption that expertise somehow precedes creativity underlies the concept of the “natural,” or the born expert, or worse (and more problematically feeding the narcissists), the “creative personality.”