I disagree with you whole-heartedly. Certainly everyone has the capacity for some level of creativity, but I think the type that we're talking about here is the same sort of gift that artists have.
Similarly to how some people are simply born with a genetic predisposition towards athletics, some people are born with the same sort of genetic predisposition towards mathematics.
The idea that everyone has got the same abilities is exactly the problem that we're talking about here. Some people ARE born with an advantage (or have one nurtured into them), and those people need to be allowed to excel, not held back because of those around them.
Doesn't that contradict the rest of your statement?
I agree with what you're saying, but I think all people can excel, most just don't have the drive/desire to (or they used to, but lost it). It seems we label people as "gifted" when they are simply interested in learning...
Yes, it does. I shouldn't have written that. I did because I was hoping to quell any "nature vs. nurture" debates.
My argument assumes nature, then goes on to argue that those born with an advantage shouldn't be forced to suppress it due to some sort of self-defeating attempt to make children succeed.
My point (sorry, I'm rambling) is that I don't want to debate nature vs. nurture, I want to debate the idea that kids that aren't excelling in a field should be encouraged to regardless of their natural talents.
There are a lot of them. You could be informing yourself. But instead, you are just making it up as you go.
Creativity is a universal human trait. And it's one that has been extensively studied - and, with the exception of extremely edge case individuals (e.g. Isaac Newton), your theory above has been disproven.
