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 1968 study reporting on a group of 1,600 children who were tested over time for their ability to think in out-of-the-box ways. When the children were between 3 and 5 years old, 98 percent achieved positive scores. When they were 8 to 10, only 32 percent passed the same test, and only 10 percent at 13 to 15. When 280,000 25-year-olds took the test, just 2 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 66 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 (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 66 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.

Question

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 &mdash; 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 1968 study reporting on a group of 1,600 children who were tested over time for their ability to think in out-of-the-box ways. When the children were between 3 and 5 years old, 98 percent achieved positive scores. When they were 8 to 10, only 32 percent passed the same test, and only 10 percent at 13 to 15. When 280,000 25-year-olds took the test, just 2 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 66 percent," who toil in low-wage rote and rotten jobs &mdash; if they have jobs at all &mdash; in which their creativity is subjugated, ignored or wasted. 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 66 percent," who toil in low-wage rote and rotten jobs &mdash; if they have jobs at all &mdash; 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.

cdquestions Admin · Accepted Answer

""

\(\text{The Politics of Change}\)	\(\text{The Change in Politics}\)	\(\text{Politics and Change:}\) A Global Perspective}
In "The Politics of Change," political analyst Dr. Emily Harper examines the dynamics of social movements and their impact on policy reform. Through detailed case studies, she explores how grassroots organizations, protests, and advocacy campaigns shape public opinion and influence lawmakers. Dr. Harper provides insights into the strategies that successful movements employ and discusses the challenges they face in a complex political landscape. She discusses key strategies, such as coalition-building, media engagement, and the use of digital platforms to amplify voices.	This book by veteran journalist Mark Stevens investigates the shifting political landscape in the 21st century. Focusing on major elections, emerging political parties, and the role of social media, Stevens analyzes how technology and demographics are transforming political engagement and voter behaviour. Through interviews with political leaders, campaign strategists, and everyday voters, Stevens uncovers how demographic shifts and technological advancements are reshaping political discourse in urban areas. He analyzes the implications of these changes for traditional political institutions and explores how movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have disrupted conventional narratives.	In this insightful work, international relations scholar Dr. Anika Patel presents a global analysis of political change across various regions. She explores the factors that drive political transitions, including economic shifts, cultural movements, and international influences. Dr. Patel emphasizes the interconnectedness of global politics and how local changes can have far-reaching implications. She analyzes various factors driving political transitions, including economic upheaval, cultural shifts, and the impact of globalization. She provides case studies from diverse regions, such as the Arab Spring, democratic movements in Latin America, and shifts in power in Asia. The book serves as a vital resource for understanding the complexities of political evolution in a rapidly changing world.

In the author's view, cities promote human creativity for all the following reasons EXCEPT that the

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

The author uses 'ironic' in the third paragraph to point out that

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

The central idea of this passage is that

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Jane Jacobs believed that cities that are more creative

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The 1968 study is used here to show that

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

The author's conclusions about the most 'creative cities' in the US (paragraph 6) are based on his assumption that

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

Questions Asked in CAT exam