Creative behavior often seems to be childlike. Indeed, there is a famous statement from picasso in which he claims to have become a good painter only after he learned to see like a child, and Gardner (1994) recently suggested that eminent creators are childlike in their behavior and thinking. Barron (1995) described how "innocence to experience runs the human course. And, with luck, back to innocence again. To see things as thoughfor thefirst time is a murk of the artist. Organized innocence. Innocence-in-experience. Something saved from the shock of g m w g up. Something given back in the artist's work."Innocence is indicative of youth or perhaps naivete, and in fact Abra (1989) tied creativity specifically to naivete. Henri Matisse reportedly claimed that "you study, you learn, but you guard the original naivete" (quoted in Charlton, 1994, p. 34). Does all this mean that creativity is a result of a kind of atypical development in which aspects of immaturity are retained? One thesis in the present article is that creativity is not entirely childlike, and in tact for the most part creative thinking is only childlike in a metaphorical wayThe primary objective of this chapter is to present a definition of creativity that recognizes both developmental continuities and discontinuities. This definition is predicated on the idea that creativity requirrs a special combination of skills; some of these reflect maturity and experience and some reflect behaviors that are found in early childhood. The combination of maturity and immaturity-and continuity and discontinuity-is possible because creativity is multifaceted it is a complac or syndrome and relies on a variety of traits, skills, I would like to express my gratitude to Stephanie Dudek. Howard Gruber, Lloyd Noppe, and Laurisa Shavinina for comments on an early draft of this article.