In Claxton's essay, what would he say about the existence of innate creativity?

"And creativity is not innate.  Genius may have a small genetic elemebnt to it, but every day creativity is an acquired art" (Claxton).


Claxton clearly states that he doesn't put stock in the existence of innate imagination, but why exactly? This paragraph in particular doesn't really explain his thought process behind his conclusion.  After reading his other traits of creativity, I put together a few main reasons why I would think he backs up this statement.

1)  "Creativity is not one thing."  If creativity is not "one thing" than it would be hard for something, that is not a compartmentalized trait, to be innate in oneself.

2)  "Creativity does not have its own home in the brain."  When one discusses innate characteristics, they usually stipulate the preexisting cognitive ideas, hence, in the brain.

3)  "It [creativity] can be cultivated."  Creativity is not innate within some people, not does it simply grow with a the extra practice of certain things.  Creativity is a quality of the highest analytical learning, and with the efforts and work put into growing knowledge and ideas of fields of study, can be "cultivated" or grown as a quality of learning, not independent of itself, or inherent within certain people, although without a doubt, is more prevalent in some minds than others.