Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Creativity is at once our most precious resource and our most inexhaustible one. As anyone who has ever spent any time with children knows, every single human being is born creative; every human being is innately endowed with the ability to combine and recombine data, perceptions, materials and ideas, and devise new ways of thinking and doing. What fosters creativity? More than anything else: the presence of other creative people. The big myth is that creativity is the province of great individual geniuses. In fact creativity is a social process. Our biggest creative breakthroughs come when people learn from, compete with, and collaborate with other people.

Cities are the true fonts of creativity with their diverse populations, dense social networks, and public spaces where people can meet spontaneously and serendipitously, they spark and catalyze new ideas. With their infrastructure for finance, organization and trade, they allow those ideas to be swiftly actualized.

As for what staunches creativity, that's easy, if ironic. It's the very institutions that we build to manage, exploit and perpetuate the fruits of creativity our big bureaucracies, and sad to say, too many of our schools. Creativity is disruptive; schools and organizations are regimented, standardized and stultifying.

The education expert Sir Ken Robinson points to a 19681968 study reporting on a group of 1,6001,600 children who were tested over time for their ability to think in out of the box ways. When the children were between 33 and 55 years old, 9898 percent achieved positive scores. When they were 88 to 1010, only 3232 percent passed the same test, and only 1010 percent at 1313 to 1515. When 280,000280,000 2525 year olds took the test, just 22 percent passed. By the time we are adults, our creativity has been wrung out of us.

I once asked the great urbanist Jane Jacobs what makes some places more creative than others. She said, essentially, that the question was an easy one. All cities, she said, were filled with creative people; that's our default state as people. But some cities had more than their shares of leaders, people and institutions that blocked out that creativity. She called them "squelchers."

Creativity (or the lack of it) follows the same general contours of the great socio-economic divide our rising inequality that plagues us. According to my own estimates, roughly a third of us across the United States, and perhaps as much as half of us in our most creative cities are able to do work which engages our creative faculties to some extent, whether as artists, musicians, writers, techies, innovators, entrepreneurs, doctors, lawyers, journalists or educators those of us who work with our minds. That leaves a group that I term "the other 6666 percent," who toil in low wage rote and rotten jobs. if they have jobs at all in which their creativity is subjugated, ignored or wasted.

Creativity itself is not in danger. It's flourishing is all around us - in science and technology, arts and culture, in our rapidly revitalizing cities. But we still have a long way to go if we want to build a truly creative society that supports and rewards the creativity of each and every one of us.

The central idea of this passage is that

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 1

First, check what the author keeps coming back to -> The passage starts with "What fosters creativity? More than anything else: the presence of other creative people" and this theme appears everywhere.

From passage: "What fosters creativity? More than anything else: the presence of other creative people. The big myth is that creativity is the province of great individual geniuses. In fact creativity is a social process."

The author then gives examples -> cities work because of "diverse populations, dense social networks, and public spaces where people can meet" -> all about social interaction.

Even Jane Jacobs' quote supports this -> cities have creative people but some have "squelchers" that block creativity -> again about social environment.

So the central idea = social interaction nurtures creativity


Now let's eliminate wrong options by understanding what makes them wrong:

🟢 Option 1 -> correct -> captures the main theme that appears throughout - social interaction fosters creativity

🟠 Option 2 -> partial-truth -> the passage mentions creativity declining as kids grow up (98% to 2%) but says "Creativity itself is not in danger. It's flourishing" - so not declining in all societies

🟠 Option 3 -> partial-truth -> mentions the creativity divide correctly ("other 66 percent") but this is just one section of the passage, not the central idea that runs throughout

🟠 Option 4 -> scope-error -> this is a recommendation ("we want to build a truly creative society") mentioned at the end, not the central idea the author keeps returning to

The confusion students have: Options 2 and 3 seem important because they're mentioned prominently. But central idea means the theme that connects everything - which is social interaction fostering creativity.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question