When one thinks of “creativity” and “IQ”, certain associations congregate in consciousness, usually around the notion of “mental function”. However, it is not presently possible to define “creativity” and “IQ” (not even to a good approximation). Why? Because to define empirical concepts such as these, one has to accurately delineate both the functions in the brain that are being measured and their method of evaluation. There lies the rub, because the solution of a test question involves a parliament of interacting brain functions (e.g. memory, visual interpretation) and to successfully separate the contribution of each is presently beyond us. So for now, our definitions are destined to make inaccurate claims as to what is being measured (whatever these elementary brain functions are, we can be confident that for each one, the distribution of its power throughout the human population follows a normal distribution, simply because this is the case with other population characteristics that have been measured, for example, height and weight). So if concepts such as “creativity” and “IQ” cannot be accurately defined, do they have any value? Yes, because human communication operates successfully with only simple associations. For example, if I say to my friend Gerald “Sharon Stone, the actress, is creative”, I expect notions such as “thinks in the bath” and “draws cartoons in the soap suds” to gather together in Gerald’s brain. However, there is no notion of quantity in these associations, so to accurately measure the extent of Ms Stone’s creativity, I would need to observe more closely her bathtime activity!