[sklogic]

I suspect, there is no such a thing as an inherently "creative" person. I very closely followed the biographies of many of the greatest minds, and I'm yet to see a compelling evidence that creativity is some kind of a special trait which cannot be acquired.

There are just people who somehow know the creativity tricks (either deliberately learned or randomly discovered), and the "ordinary" people who happen to have a little gap in their education. Learning the formal approaches to creativity could help to close this gap.

[volaski]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm basically agreeing with you that there is no inherently creative person and you can acquire it. I'm just making a distinction between becoming actually creative vs. emulating creativity. I would rather "become a creative person" than "use techniques to come up with creative solutions" if I were to pick one.

[sklogic]

Firstly, as I said, all the post-TRIZ works by Altshuller were exactly about training the creativity as a personality trait, not about the formal invention methods.

Secondly, if simulating creativity is indistinguishable (by the outcome) from a "true" creativity, then the very existence of creativity is questionable, and it is likely that all forms of creativity can be explained by simply knowing (maybe subconsciously) a number of techniques of "simulating" the creativity.

[volaski]

I didn't say TRIZ is bad. I even said it's a good technique to learn. I just pointed out that anyone can be creative without "training". The concept of training is based on the assumption that people are not naturally creative. I think anyone has potential to come up with creative achievements in their lives but only small number of people get the opportunity or motivation to do so. I think in many cases it's just a matter of changing your mindset and putting yourself in the right environment. Anyway, if you haven't read that book I recommended above please take a look.