trait that creative geniuses often share

[Erthona]

So milo, I take it that you could write a metrically difficult poem in a bus station?

milo wrote: "The same exact article says all of those things."

Funny, I read back through the article and found none of those things

It said nothing about "creative geniuses," nor is there a reference to a particular percentage. It said "creative achievers," a type of "da vinci"esque sort of person, but spread over several people: from artist to inventor. You know, the basket weaving degrees.
__________________________________________________________________________
SunRay,

All "creative geniuses" have been bitten by a flea at least once.

[rayheinrich]

SunRay,
All "creative geniuses" have been bitten by a flea at least once.

Virginia Woolf, Ernest Hemingway, Vincent van Gogh, John Berryman, Hart Crane, Mark Rothko,
Diane Arbus, Anne Sexton, and Arshile Gorky were never bitten by fleas.
All were creative geniuses. People never bitten by a flea, besides being creative geniuses,
kill themselves.

This inevitably leads to the conclusion that the decision to sleep with a dog is a grave one.*


*Un-empirical is a state of mind. While large research grants aren't necessarily a remedy, they can provide a source of great comfort.  

[Erthona]

There is no doubt, it is for certain that Mercutio was correct, still as Cassius says, "So are they all, all grave men."
Yet,
whether slings or bows,
that nip our heels or toes,
and whether good or depraved,
will still see our grave,
for we are all honorable,
honorable women,
honorable men;
we honor death from
this life we live in.
The "creative geniuses"
can do no more,
but what's more, no less.
So all are blessed,
quote the Flea, "Evermore!"  

[milo]

So milo, I take it that you could write a metrically difficult poem in a bus station?

If I was filling out a questionnaire rating my success in 10 creative fields, I would rate myself pretty low.  The dancer at the strip club downtown would rate herself quite a bit higher (and rightly so).

[Erthona]

You evidently know little about standard measures. I suspect it was a personality assessment not too dissimilar to the MMPI, any other kind of assessment, especially self-reporting, would not even be considered for peer review. Considering this research is out of Northwestern University I tend to think the synopsis on the assessment is simply poor reporting. Self-reporting is never used as it generally must rely on the person's memory and perception, both of which are never accurate. Such things are never used in any type of legitimate study, not even in the social sciences.

dale

[rayheinrich]

You evidently know little about standard measures. I suspect it was a personality assessment not too dissimilar to the MMPI, any other kind of assessment, especially self-reporting, would not even be considered for peer review. Considering this research is out of Northwestern University I tend to think the synopsis on the assessment is simply poor reporting. Self-reporting is never used as it generally must rely on the person's memory and perception, both of which are never accurate. Such things are never used in any type of legitimate study, not even in the social sciences.

dale

I read a paper on the accuracy of self-reporting for mild depression that used self-reporting as a data
source. Of course, being good scientists and all, they used three different methods of self-reporting,
three professional assessment methods and three self-administered tests. When statistically compared,
the correlations for all the damn things (even the prof. assessments) varied all over the place.

The conclusion that could be drawn from the study, the researchers themselves said, was that the
definition of mild depression needed to be standardized.

[milo]

You evidently know little about standard measures. 

actually, that is an area i would report my success level to be quite above the average.

I suspect it was a personality assessment not too dissimilar to the MMPI, any other kind of assessment, especially self-reporting, would not even be considered for peer review. 

Perhaps that is what you suspect but there is absolutely /no/ evidence to back your suspicions up.  What we do have is the article that you posted which states

" . . . participants took a creative achievement questionnaire, in which they reported their levels of success in ten creative fields"

Considering this research is out of Northwestern University I tend to think the synopsis on the assessment is simply poor reporting. Self-reporting is never used as it generally must rely on the person's memory and perception, both of which are never accurate. Such things are never used in any type of legitimate study, not even in the social sciences.

dale

my experience is that such things are used frequently, one of the reasons I called this particular example out.

[Erthona]

Well it could be true, however as Northwestern is a research university as well as post-doc facility it seems unlikely it could keep it doors open resorting to such pop-psych methods. However I am generally unfamiliar with this college and in this day of feel good education methods I guess seeing a method that would be frowned upon in Jr. College could theoretically show up in a private University. The only two private Universities I am familiar with are Baylor (Baptist) University and Saint Edward's (Catholic) University, which was ranked #2 of all small private universities in the nation just a few years ago. Usually a university that has a post-doc program and is known as a research university is usually one of fairly high integrity, but I am willing to be wrong. Do you know something specific about this university that would make you leery?

Dale

[milo]

It is easy enough to find out:

In the study, approximately 100 participants reported their achievements in creative domains via Creative Achievement Questionnaire, as well as performed a test of divergent thinking, generally considered to be a laboratory test of creative cognition. On this test participants were asked to provide as many answers as they could to several unlikely scenarios, within a limited amount of time. The number and the novelty of participants’ responses comprised the divergent thinking score. As a result, the researchers had two different measures of creativity: a number of peoples’ real-world creative achievements and a laboratory measure of divergent thinking. - See more at: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/s...0zZE5.dpuf

Divergent thinking tests are timed laboratory measures of creative cognition, in which participants produce numerous responses within a limited time. In the study, divergent thinking correlated with academic test scores and selective sensory gating -- an increased ability to filter compared to lower divergent thinkers.  - See more at: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/s...0zZE5.dpuf


Abstract
Creativity has previously been linked with atypical attention, but it is not clear what aspects of attention, or what types of creativity are associated. Here we investigated specific neural markers of a very early form of attention, namely sensory gating, indexed by the P50 ERP, and how it relates to two measures of creativity: divergent thinking and real-world creative achievement. Data from 84 participants revealed that divergent thinking (assessed with the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking) was associated with selective sensory gating, whereas real-world creative achievement was associated with “leaky” sensory gating, both in zero-order correlations and when controlling for academic test scores in a regression. Thus both creativity measures related to sensory gating, but in opposite directions. Additionally, divergent thinking and real-world creative achievement did not interact in predicting P50 sensory gating, suggesting that these two creativity measures orthogonally relate to P50 sensory gating. Finally, the ERP effect was specific to the P50 – neither divergent thinking nor creative achievement were related to later components, such as the N100 and P200. Overall results suggest that leaky sensory gating may help people integrate ideas that are outside of focus of attention, leading to creativity in the real world; whereas divergent thinking, measured by divergent thinking tests which emphasize numerous responses within a limited time, may require selective sensory processing more than previously thought.


So, as it turns out, people who answered a questionnaire were more likely to score themselves higher in real world creative achievement /and/ have an inability to focus while people who took an actual test to measure divergent thinking had a much higher ability to focus as well as rank themselves lower on the questionnaire.

---

Here is the questionnaire participants filled out:

I. Place a check mark beside the areas in which you feel
you have more talent, ability, or training than the average
person.
__ visual arts (painting, sculpture)
__ music
__ dance
__ individual sports (tennis, golf)
__ team sports
__ architectural design
__ entrepreneurial ventures
__ creative writing
__ humor
__ inventions
__ scientific inquiry
__ theater and film
__ culinary arts

II. Place a check mark beside sentences that apply to
you. Next to sentences with an asterisk (*), write the
number of times this sentence applies to you.
A. Visual Arts (painting, sculpture)
__ 0. I have no training or recognized talent in this
area. (Skip to Music).
__1. I have taken lessons in this area.
__2. People have commented on my talent in this
area.
__3. I have won a prize or prizes at a juried art show.
__4. I have had a showing of my work in a gallery.
__5. I have sold a piece of my work.
__6. My work has been critiqued in local publications.
*__7. My work has been critiqued in national publications.

B. Music
__0. I have no training or recognized talent in this
area (Skip to Dance).
__1. I play one or more musical instruments proficiently.
__2. I have played with a recognized orchestra or
band.
__3. I have composed an original piece of music.
__4. My musical talent has been critiqued in a local
publication.
__5. My composition has been recorded.
__6. Recordings of my composition have been sold
publicly.
*__7. My compositions have been critiqued in a national
publication.

C. Dance
__0. I have no training or recognized talent in this
area (Skip to Architecture)
__1. I have danced with a recognized dance company.
__2. I have choreographed an original dance number.
__3. My choreography has been performed publicly.
__4. My dance abilities have been critiqued in a local
publication.
__5. I have choreographed dance professionally.
__6. My choreography has been recognized by a local
publication.

*__7. My choreography has been recognized by a national
publication.

D. Architectural Design
__0. I do not have training or recognized talent in
this area (Skip to Writing).
__1. I have designed an original structure.
__2. A structure designed by me has been constructed.
__3. I have sold an original architectural design.
__4. A structure that I have designed and sold has
been built professionally.
__5. My architectural design has won an award or
awards.
__ 6. My architectural design has been recognized in
a local publication.
*__7. My architectural design has been recognized in
a national publication.

E. Creative Writing
__0. I do not have training or recognized talent in
this area (Skip to Humor).
__1. I have written an original short work (poem or
short story).
__2. My work has won an award or prize.
__3. I have written an original long work (epic,
novel, or play).
__4. I have sold my work to a publisher.
__5. My work has been printed and sold publicly.
__6. My work has been reviewed in local publications.
*__7. My work has been reviewed in national publications.

F. Humor
__0. I do not have recognized talent in this area
(Skip to Inventions).
__1. People have often commented on my original
sense of humor.
__2. I have created jokes that are now regularly repeated
by others.
__3. I have written jokes for other people.
__ 4. I have written a joke or cartoon that has been
publihed.
__5. I have worked as a professional comedian.
__6. I have worked as a professional comedy writer.
__7. My humor has been recognized in a national
publication.

G. Inventions
__0. I do not have recognized talent in this area.
__1. I regularly find novel uses for household objects.
__2. I have sketched out an invention and worked on
its design flaws.
__3. I have created original software for a computer.
__4. I have built a prototype of one of my designed
inventions.
__5. I have sold one of my inventions to people I
know.
*__6. Ihavereceivedapatentforoneofmyinventions.
*__7. I have sold one of my inventions to a manufacturing
firm.

H. Scientific Discovery
__0. I do not have training or recognized ability in
this field (Skip to Theater
__1. I often think about ways that scientific problems
could be solved.
__2. I have won a prize at a science fair or other local
competition.
__3. I have received a scholarship based on my work
in science or medicine.
__4. I have been author or coauthor of a study published
in a scientific journal.
*__5. I have won a national prize in the field of science
or medicine.
*__6. I have received a grant to pursue my work in
science or medicine.
__7. My work has been cited by other scientists in
national publications.

I. Theater and Film
__0. I do not have training or recognized ability in
this field.
__1. I have performed in theater or film.
__2. My acting abilities have been recognized in a
local publication.
__3. I have directed or produced a theater or film
production.
__4. I have won an award or prize for acting in theater
or film.
__5. I have been paid to act in theater or film.
__6. I have been paid to direct a theater or film production.
*__7. My theatrical work has been recognized in a
national publication.

J. Culinary Arts
__0. I do not have training or experience in this field.
__1. I often experiment with recipes.
__2. My recipes have been published in a local
cookook.
__3. My recipes have been used in restaurants or
other public venues.
__4. I have been asked to prepare food for celebrities
or dignitaries.
__5. My recipes have won a prize or award.
__6. I have received a degree in culinary arts.
*__7. My recipes have been published nationally.
K. Please list other creative achievements not mentioned
above.


Scoring of the Creative Achievement
Questionnaire
1 Each checkmarked item receives the number of
points represented by the question number adjacent
to the checkmark.
2 If an item is marked by an asterisk, multiply the
number of times the item has been achieved by
the number of the question to determine points
for that item.
3 Sum the total number of points within each domain
to determine the domain score.
4 Sum all ten domain scores to determine the total
CAQ score.

---

Ugh - according to this, Kim Kardashian is 3x as creative as Emily Dickinson


Paula Abdul is 8x as creative as Albert Einstein??

[just mercedes]

Maybe it has something to do with your Neanderthal genes. No kidding. This is big!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/garret-lop...68455.html

[billy]

i scored 17 which i deem pretty low, while i had a few poems published , they were utter tripe, serious tripe, i'm talkin' real bad fuckin' tripe. most of my points were outside arts. i'm devastated.

[just mercedes]

I scored 101 so I must have done something wrong.

[Erthona]

OK milo, I concede, but as I said earlier, if any research involves self reporting as this does, it's outcome is already skewed. Not only that, but the mention of grades for determining anything, positive or negative is ludicrous, as grades do not reflect on the student so much as they do upon the institution or the teacher. The fallacy of self reporting can be seen in one example. People were asked to rate themselves as to their overall honesty, as compared to their peers. 99% plus rated themselves in the upper 50% of honesty when 0 was least honest and 100 was most honest. I think you can see the problem.
It's sad, I thought we were beyond this sort of voodoo practice.

Dale

[rayheinrich]

clicking fucking clicking where's this fucking clicking coming from you ever notice that your keyboard has an insert key

[Erthona]

I like to insert

[just mercedes]

Footnotes?

[Erthona]

Or other digits


dale

[Leanne]

Creative geniuses never share anyway. That's why nobody ever gets cake around here.

Bastards.

[milo]

OK milo, I concede, but as I said earlier, if any research involves self reporting as this does, it's outcome is already skewed. Not only that, but the mention of grades for determining anything, positive or negative is ludicrous, as grades do not reflect on the student so much as they do upon the institution or the teacher. The fallacy of self reporting can be seen in one example. People were asked to rate themselves as to their overall honesty, as compared to their peers. 99% plus rated themselves in the upper 50% of honesty when 0 was least honest and 100 was most honest. I think you can see the problem.  
It's sad, I thought we were beyond this sort of voodoo practice.

Dale

In many cases a questionnaire really is the only way to do research and there can be adjustments made to the math and to the questionnaire to account for such things but in this case, even if the participants are 100% honest, the results still aren't very good.  in addition, the entire study downplays the regression analysis of the actual recognized creativity test because it doesn't produce the results that go along with their thesis.  The reporter then took only the one side and reported it as pretty much a fact.  Pretty sloppy case over all.

[Erthona]

It gauged public approval over anything else, which is probably the worst way to judge creativity. We know from history, at least once past the nobility sponsored days, that people who would become known universally as great artist were passed over hundreds of times until someone with vision discovered them. The public in general and publications cater to the paying public, want what is familiar, they do not want anything that will make their brain hurt. To ask about winning awards is ludicrous. I've won every contest I've entered that was anonymous, that is the judges did not know who submitted the poem, and I have never won a contest where the person's name was known. I'm not complaining or tooting my own horn (the competition was not that daunting), I'm just saying that such things are generally judge from a political point of view. Any halfway intelligent person can win a contest by playing to the judges interests, basically the same is true about getting published. I don't care if you've written the best sonnet that has ever been written, if you try to enter it in a nationally prestigious poetry magazine that never accepts formal poetry, then you will not be accepted. If you are recognized in your community as a poet, then you're either a suck up, an over-praiser of the things of your community, or a sentimentalist, none of which requires much poetic talent, or knowledge of poetry. All you need be able to do is turn out some tripe on a moments notice praising your state, statehood and it's 2000ths birthday, or bring a tear to the eye because little Mary Sue, who was stricken with Polio (because her parents decided not to vaccinate her) just won the hog calling contest.
And you are right, the person reporting this, or maybe channeling this, did a piss poor job and it could not in any way be call journalism.
Anyway, thanks for doing the footwork that the writer evidently didn't. I make a promise never to post an article while under the influence of fever.  

Dale