Like with any other skill, I'd imagine most people could probably become "good at" being creative with practice. The very best creatives would be those who practiced and who had natural talent, but surely the ceiling is rather high even for those without much natural creativity.

Ideating is a muscle. When you intentionally spend time everyday writing down ideas, playing with old ideas, and looking at how others drew inspiration for their ideas, you become stronger at the skill. "Creative" people were not hindered by the fact that their early ideas were stupid, pointless and derivative. They kept at it.

As someone who is in the 'geyser' category, I'll split the difference. Much of what determines how creatively one feels about oneself depends on how they themselves define it. Often the lens is some musical/artistic pursuit where the measurement is somewhat arbitrarily tied to someone(s) famous, which can produce a bad relative sense of self.

I have friends who artistically really have fairly mundane tendencies, but as chefs/cooks, mechanical tinkerers, etc they have all manner of (insert proper cliche here, a la "out of box") creative thinking.

But often they don't see those skills as "creative" so the domain parameters and how they are expressly defined matters a lot.

>New study shows highly creative people’s brains work differently from others'

Ya think?

>"I believe that everybody has the capacity to be creative"

This has to be put in perspective.

Those are not the subjects they were trying to focus on in this study.

I think everybody has some kind of outstanding ability, and certain types of creativity are just one of the very rare things, it turns out.

>only some people do really have the potential to be good athletes.

This is a good example and it can still be worthwhile for each of us to improve ourselves anyway.

I think you're speaking of interest and motivation, without which you won't try to be creative or hit the gym. But I believe the capability still exists within you, even if you choose to ignore it. Nobody is unable to be an artist because of the way they were born.

Your comment reads a bit like this:

I am creative. If you are not, it is because you lack the willpower.

Funnily enough, it is the reverse expectation that is often placed. "If you can't concentrate, it's because you lack the willpower" etc.

I lived under this burden that something was wrong with me my whole life; that I had some character flaw that made me unsuccessful at things that other people find easy.

And then I was diagnosed with ADD. And then I was prescribed drugs. And then I discovered what it was like to be a normal human being. It turns out that it took just 35 milligrams of a single substance to allow me to focus just like other human beings can, and get through a normal work day like other human beings can.

The point of my story is this: people are wired differently. It is not a character flaw that someone doesn't have an attribute that you should think they have. It is not a lack of willpower or focus.

I have a highly creative brain. It is clear that there is something that causes my brain to make connections faster than most others. And, that thing also helps me make new and random connections in a way that most others will never experience.

This thing, this creative spark, is also my ADD. My brain is constantly taking me on weird and wonderful journeys. I don't choose it, it just happens. And the same thing in reverse. I don't choose to lose focus. It just happens. My brain is constantly making noise and interrupting me. It just happens.

May I ask how you know your new, medicated behavior is representative of how normal human beings think?

I don't consider myself to have ADD, but I have taken Adderall. It increased my ability to focus, focusing on tasks is rewarded in society, and I felt like the positive effects of it made me a better version of myself. I stopped because I didn't appreciate some of the negative side-effects.

It seems common for people who take stimulants to feel like they're a better version of themselves while experiencing the positive side-effects of the medication irrespective of an ADD diagnosis. If you agree, I wonder how you came to the conclusion you were at a competitive disadvantage compared to the norm rather than simply having a leg-up against the norm once medicated.

And sorry if probing is disrespectful. No ill intent here. Just idle curiosity.

'I wonder how you came to the conclusion you were at a competitive disadvantage compared to the norm'

Happy to answer. I've been fired four times, and have only narrowly avoided being fired a few other times. The only reason they didn't fire me in those circumstances was I had managers who didn't have the heart to let me go.

I nearly lost my marriage partly due to my undiagnosed ADD.

There is a look in people's eyes when they have utterly given up on you; when they just cannot comprehend how someone can be so incompetent at basic tasks and unable to function, yet so good at high level tasks. I've seen that look too many times.

Initially, they would love me for the creativity and strategic thinking. But then after causing fire after fire after fire through the most trivial errors from lack of concentration, you slowly, slowly see them lose faith in you.

I could go on, but you get me.

Obviously I can't know how a 'normie' sees and feels, but when I take my drug, all of a sudden I can sit down and work all day like my wife and (most of my) colleagues can, rather than being in a constant state of distraction-resistance.

With drugs, my ratio of good days to bad days has completely changed. I'm 37 years old and this is the first time I've ever gotten 18 months into a job and been in a situation where everyone still thinks I'm doing great. Normally by this time I'm getting the wooden stares.

Stimulants make you better than baseline on some tasks, but definitely not all of them, and not all creative ones. (Especially if you lose out on sleep or your teeth start falling out from abusing them.)

It's usually pretty obvious if you have ADD, and it's not "you're bad at your job", it's more like "everything outside your job is falling apart". Your job provides enough stress to concentrate on it most of the time.

Adderall also doesn't make you "more stimulated" like caffeine does - a regular psychiatric dose should make you a little calmer, since your life isn't falling apart anymore.

I am not sure if this is distinction without difference. A part of being an artist is, for me at least, the drive to do something.

Myself, I write quite a lot (in Czech), I have published 7 books so far. I am not claiming to be a big artist, merely a mediocre one, but I notice that I don't really have a choice. I have to write something almost every day, much like a full toilet bowl has to overflow.

There is difference between motivation and aptitude.

True, but practice makes, if not perfect, at least better.

I will say this is your gift, a lot of talent people can work hard than anyone

Maybe we're all capable of being a mediocre artist but artistic genius is another thing altogether.

Pursuing art as someone of mediocre skill can be extremely fulfilling and worthwhile endeavor. Fixating over whether you are a genius is probably not.

It's not about being the best.

It is for some people and that's probably a reasonable predictor of how well they'll do. Have you met people who excel at something who don't care about excelling? I can't think of one.

> But I believe the capability still exists within you

Maybe, but the thing about creative people is they create. Creativity isn't about potential, it's about an objective act of making something new.