"But only a person with inborn creative ability can use that raw material to generate new insights."
Thank you. Now, I confess I was taught the same thing. But, I don't recall who taught me this. It was just 'there', being driven into my mind year after year. But, is it really the truth? Who taught you this?
Nobody taught me this, but I amalgamated this conclusion from several things I learned and some I realized on my own.
Is it really the truth? In a very large sense, it has to be. (If you doubt it, try teaching a cat to write sonnets.) But asserting that both innate ability and experience are involved in creativity is akin to saying that orange juice has both water and citric acid in it. It's clearly true, but doesn't say much about what the proportions are or what else might be in the mix.
I'm not attempting to dodge your question, though it's quite imprecise. If the question is formulated as "are innate factors more important than experience in creative ability", I believe it to be true. Some leftists have maintained that the environment is the only determining factor behind such things, but studies on twins have decisively abolished such nonsense. But exactly how much heredity vs environment play in creativity is a much more difficult question to answer.
I'm not sure if you are have a point or are just pursuing a pleasant philosophical discussion. But if you have a point, you need to get to it. I will not be checking FR much more today. (If you're just pursuing a philosophical discussion, that's fine too, but I have no more time for it today.)