{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01804511278195489, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009022556390977444, 'mean_word_length': 5.338095238095238, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Usefulness of “Value” in the Definition of Creativity: A Commentary

From the mid-1950s to the present time, creativity researchers have typically adopted the view that any new piece of work must be statistically novel as well as non-trivially valuable to some group of people if it is to be considered creative. A few scholars have suggested that a new piece of work must also be surprising, non-obvious, or interesting if it is to be considered truly creative. The utility of these traditional definitions of creativity has recently been sharply questioned in an article published in a previous volume of this journal (Weisberg, 2015). The commentary presented here took issue with a suggestion presented in that article that creativity researchers replace their traditional definitions of creativity with a simpler definition according to which any statistically novel and intentionally generated product is considered creative “regardless of whether it is ever of value to anyone” and with a logically related suggestion that the creativity of any intentionally-generated product be assessed purely in terms of its statistical novelty (Weisberg, 2015). After carefully evaluating both of these suggestions on conceptual and practical grounds, it was recommended that creativity researchers not follow either suggestion.