No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Change in Reputation as an Index of Genius and Eminence
Abstract
Many previous investigations have relied on entries in encyclopedias or similar sources (e.g., Who's Who) to quantify eminence and achievement. The premises in these earlier studies have been that eminence is a function of reputation and that reputation is accurately captured by encyclopedias and the like. In this article, the authors examine reputational changes from era to era. They expected that a comparison of encyclopedias from different eras would show significant changes, with some eminent persons having reputations (or at least biographical entries) that increase, some having reputations that decrease, and others having stable reputations. Can such change (or stability) be reliably assessed and predicted? To address these questions, encyclopedia entry length from 1911 was compared to encyclopedia entry length from 2002, using 1,004 individuals selected in a previous biographical study. Regression analysis indicates that biographical entries did in fact change significantly. The authors also explore implications for definitions of eminence and for the quantification of reputation.
... Editorial policies are also involved, though if several sources all agree on who is most eminent and who is less eminent (or not eminent), there is a kind of convergent validity and editorial policy is probably less relevant than Zeitgeist. Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, and Cole (2010) demonstrated how reputations may change. Their findings, though preliminary, brought validity of encyclopedic reputations into question. ...
... It is a social attribution. Runco et al. (2010) were able to identify different reputational trajectories. Some individuals had reputations that increased, some were stable, and some decreased. ...
... Given the source of reputations and the judgments involved in selecting individuals for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it should come as no surprise that there are variations from era to era. Runco (1990;Runco et al., 2010) suggested that reputational changes raise serious questions about the reliability of these kinds of data, but it is also possible that are not so much indicative of error (and unreliability) but instead reflect cultural shifts. These shifts would in turn lead to fluctuations in how an individual's accomplishments fit with the values and Zeitgeist of a given era. ...
... In comparison, Roe (1953) used expert nominations to identify 64 highly eminent scientists, while Root-Bernstein, Allen, Beach, Bhadula, Fast, Hosey, Kremkow, Lapp, Lonc, Pawelec, Podufaly, Russ, Tennant, Vrtis, and Weinlander (2008) selected scientists who received the Nobel Prize, were elected to the National Academy of Sciences (USA), or became Fellows of the Royal Society of London (UK). It should be apparent that eminence, like intelligence, may be assessed as a quantitative rather than qualitative variable: (a) archival measures might use the amount of space devoted to each genius in standard reference works (e.g., Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, & Cole, 2010); (b) experts ratings might require ordinal or even interval evaluations (e.g., Annin, Boring, & Watson, 1968); and (c) awards might be scaled from the most to the least prestigious (e.g., international versus national honors; e.g., Cole & Cole, 1973). ...
... Stated more simply, eminence indicators feature impressive test-retest reliabilities (cf. Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, & Cole, 2010;Whipple, 2004). As a case in point, the differential eminence of the artistic geniuses active during the Italian Renaissance has been strikingly stable across the centuries (Ginsburgh & Weyers, 2006). ...
Genius first became the subject of scientific inquiry in the early 19th century, and it has continued to attract research interest to the present day. Although genius can be defined as either superlative intelligence or achieved eminence, this review is restricted to the latter definition, and is further confined to creative achievement. The article then describes the main methods for studying creative genius as a personality phenomenon. These methods entail three central dichotomous methodological decisions: single-case versus multiple-case samples, qualitative versus quantitative analyses, and direct versus indirect assessments. Next, the main empirical findings are presented with respect to both generic traits and domain-contingent traits. There follows a brief discussion of three major issues: genetic and environmental influences, additive and multiplicative effects, and individual and situational factors. Given the intrinsic importance of the phenomenon and the many questions still unanswered, creative genius certainly deserves future treatment in personality psychology.
... The most popular method of investigating a person's recognition in historiometric studies is to measure space devoted to that person in standard reference works, such as encyclopedias or dictionaries (Simonton, 2012). This method was applied, among other purposes, to establish changes in creators' reputation (Runco et al., 2016;Runco et al., 2010). We used it in this study because it allowed us to distinguish recognition of Nobel Prize winners among professionals from the recognition they enjoyed with the public. ...
... Weisberg is more critical, taking issue with Csikszentmihalyi's insistence that a product's social acceptance is necessary for it to be deemed creative. Instead, Runco et al. (2010) take exception to a related issue: the model's assumption (intellectually consistent with the rest of the model) that an individual's creativity can change over time (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014a). The model is used to support the argument that if the culture and a Domain are hospitable to the Person's idea or product, he or she is considered creative. ...
Creativity scholarship has largely centered on examining the psychological attributes and processes of the individual. Since the mid-1980s, systems approaches, of which there are several (Bunge 2004; Montuori 2011; Poutanen 2013), have emerged as an important lens for understanding creativity within broader contexts. Systems theories are experiencing a renaissance, represented by such approaches as nonlinear dynamical systems theory (chaos theory), dynamic systems theory, autopoietic systems theory, and complexity theory. This entry surveys the development of systems approaches and describes the common attributes and distinctions among major systems approaches creativity scholars have developed and applied since the 1980s.
... Empirical research shows signi cant discrepancies among di erent groups of judges (Runco, McCar- & Svensen, 1994;Runco & Smith, 1992). There are even more dramatic discrepancies when judgments from di erent eras are compared (Runco, 1993;Runco, Acar, Kaufman, & Halladay, 2016;Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, & Cole, 2010). ...
... Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, and Cole (2010) used a subsample from Ludwig's (1995) eminent people study. Runco et al. (2010) investigated the reputational change of eminent people over the time and identified a subset of 100 eminent people, from Ludwig's (1995) original list. Some of the eminent people whose writings used in this study are Mark Twain, Woodrow Wilson, Friedrich Nietzcsche, Joseph Conrad, Henry Brooks Adams, George Bernard Shaw, Grahamm Bell, George Curzon, Maxim Gorky, Emile Zola, Oscar Wilde, Arthur Conan Doyle Digital samples of their writings were found in different online sources. ...
This study investigated how creativity reveals itself in written language and showed that creative ideas can be identified in written works by discovering words and phrases (keywords) that are used to introduce new ideas. Additionally, this study sought to find a solution to alleviate creativity’s laborious scoring procedure. The sample included undergraduate level students from a large state university in the Southeastern United States majoring in various fields and the study utilized expert judges using the Consensual Assessment Technique. This keywords study found specific words and phrases that are used with regularity when people introduce a new idea. The study provided an understanding of how creativity is expressed in written works and the keywords were tested by using different sources of writing and transcribed speeches. Expert judges and resulting statistical analyses indicated that specific keywords successfully identified original ideas in written language samples. The findings of this keywords study brought an original and objective method to finding what words or phrases introduce original ideas.
... Rembrandt was not the most famous painter of his time, but today his reputation far exceeds his contemporaries. As a matter of fact, it may be that reputations vary more often than they remain stable [10,11] so there are questions about where and when something is creative. ...
Who decides what counts as creative? Although most creativity researchers would acknowledge that both individuals and broader social audiences can offer interpretations about creativity, the way in which researchers tend to conceptualize and study creativity typically focuses on either an individual or a social perspective. Those who focus on individual interpretations may treat the social superficially (if at all), whereas those who focus on social judgments risk minimizing or erasing the role of the individual. Consequently, the question of `Creativity for whom?’ too often divides creativity research. In this article, we briefly review recent work in the field of creativity studies that falls along the lines of personal and social judgments of creativity. We introduce an integrative framework that endeavors to reconcile the divide between the personal and the social. Specifically, we introduce a model of Primary and Secondary Creativity, which illustrates how the one process of creativity can explain both personal and social judgments of creativity.
... As time passes, older historical figures and events tend to become forgotten, an obsolescence process only enhanced by the acquisition of newer figures and events to replace them (cf. Ginsburgh & Weyers, 2014;Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, & Cole, 2010). When Pablo Picasso came to be rated second only to Michelangelo, then all pre-20th century artists, even including Raphael and Leonardo, were knocked down a notch (see Murray, 2003). ...
... Empirical research shows signi cant discrepancies among di erent groups of judges (Runco, McCarthy, & Svensen, 1994;Runco & Smith, 1992). There are even more dramatic discrepancies when judgments from di erent eras are compared (Runco, 1993;Runco, Acar, Kaufman, & Halladay, 2016;Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, & Cole, 2010). The theory of personal creativity acknowledges that social recognition is an important part of innovation, social change, and progress. ...
... He also developed the Creative Achievements Scale (CAS; Ludwig, 1992), which provided an index of level of eminence. A second index was later developed by Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, and Cole (2010) using a subsample from Ludwig (1995) in an investigation of reputational change. ...
Every paradigm shift begins with an idea. Not surprisingly, ideas are often investigated. Still, psychometric studies of the ideation of famous creators is scarce. This is in part because it is difficult, and often impossible, to bring famous creators into the laboratory for testing. Fortunately, there is an alternative. This is to examine the idea density of written products. As it happens, the idea density (ID) of narratives was operationalized by linguists and an objective method (and algorithm) developed. The present investigation used that method to test the possibility that ID (as defined and calculated in linguistics) would also be useful for quantifying the ideation and creativity of high-level performances. In Study 1, the ID of 138 published research articles was calculated and correlated with the citation impact (CI) of the same articles. CI was based on Web of Citation and Google Scholar web sites. Results indicated a small but statistically significant correlation: Articles that had higher ID scores were cited more in the research literature. Study 2 examined the relationship of the level of eminence of 100 historical figures (all writers) with the ID of their published works. Level of eminence had been calculated in previous archival research on reputation and creative achievement. Analyses indicated that ID was significantly correlated with level of creative achievement and with the biographical measure indicating level of eminence. Study 3 did not have high level creative products but was informative in that it demonstrated a significant correlation between ID and divergent thinking. In Study 4 one hundred TED Talks were converted into text and their ID calculated. Here, ID was significantly correlated with the number of online “hits” associated with each TED Talk. These four studies suggests that ID is far from redundant with creativity but represents a useful measure of ideation and creative potential, and one that can be used with high-level performances, including published research, citations, and TED Talks. Limitations of the method and the three studies are discussed, as are future research directions.
... As time passes, older historical figures and events tend to become forgotten, an obsolescence process only enhanced by the acquisition of newer figures and events to replace them (cf. Ginsburgh & Weyers, 2014;Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, & Cole, 2010). When Pablo Picasso came to be rated second only to Michelangelo, then all pre-20th century artists, even including Raphael and Leonardo, were knocked down a notch (see Murray, 2003). ...
This investigation continues a series of inquiries into why creative geniuses in world civilizations tend to cluster into Golden Ages separated by periods of relative creative inactivity. The specific focus is the hypothesis that the development of eminent creators depends on the intergenerational availability of domain-specific role-models, and thus, generational time series representing weighted counts of creative activity should exhibit positive autocorrelations. Where previous studies tested this hypothesis on Western, Chinese, and Japanese civilizations, the current study examines Islamic intellectual history. The inquiry began with a significant sample of 1,283 eminent thinkers who were active between AH 60 and 1119 (CE 679–1707) and who made major contributions to 17 achievement domains (mathematics-astronomy, physics, chemistry, natural history, medicine, geography, philosophy, mysticism, theology, jurisprudence, traditions, linguistics, scholarship, commentary, translation, history, and biography). These historic figures were aggregated into 53 consecutive 20-year periods and then subjected to generational time-series analysis, including trend, autocorrelational, and factor analyses. Using stationary series, some domains displayed the expected autocorrelations, but many other domains did not. In particular, where the expected clustering appeared for important mystics and for major contributors to the rational sciences, significant contributors to the religious sciences were randomly distributed across time. The latter result led to a discussion of what happens when certain key thinkers are considered foundational; thus, serving as influential role-models across extended periods of time rather than having their principal effect on the immediately succeeding generation. Illustrious theologians and jurisprudents apparently occupied this central role in Islamic intellectual history.
... Second, it has been shown recently that reputation is not static but rather can change over time. Specifically, Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, and Cole (2010) compared encyclopedia entry lengths from 1911 to encyclopedia entry lengths from 2002 for 100 eminent persons. Their results indicated that the encyclopedias contained quantitatively different records for the same set of eminent persons, leading the authors to conclude that "reputations within encyclopedias change and that they may not be the most reliable index in studies of genius, eminence, and creative accomplishment" (p. ...
Beginning in the 1950s, the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) began a program of research to study the psychology of effectively functioning persons. Among the most influential series of studies conducted by IPAR were the assessments of highly creative architects in 1957-1961, a sample that included some of the most eminent architects of the 20th century such as Eero Saarinen, Louis I. Kahn, I. M. Pei and Philip C. Johnson. In turn, in 2006-2007 the American Institute of Architects (AIA) conducted a survey to identify America’s favorite architecture, first among its 2,448 members and subsequently among 2,214 members of the general public. Creativity ratings of the architects (N = 40) by (a) journal editorial board members, (b) expert judges, and (c) the architects themselves collected in 1957-1961 predicted the popularity of their works fifty years later. Our results suggest that in the domain of architecture, expert assessments of individual-level creativity predict future product-level popularity.
... Second, notwithstanding this uniform range, the means for each field tell a different story. The average level of psychopathology is very low for the scientists and noticeably higher for the others, 2 Although Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, and Cole (2010) have challenged this claim, their study has some methodological limitations. For instance, change in level across time is conflated with the lack of stability in consensus. ...
Are creative people more likely to be mentally ill? This basic question has been debated for thousands of years, with the 'mad genius' concept advanced by such luminaries as Aristotle. There are many studies that argue the answer is 'yes', and several prominent scholars who argue strongly for a connection. There are also those who argue equally strongly that the core studies and scholarship underlying the mad genius myth are fundamentally flawed. This book re-examines the common view that a high level of individual creativity often correlates with a heightened risk of mental illness. It reverses conventional wisdom that links creativity with mental illness, arguing that the two traits are not associated. With contributions from some of the most exciting voices in the fields of psychology, neuroscience, physics, psychiatry, and management, this is a dynamic and cutting-edge volume that will inspire new ideas and studies on this fascinating topic.
... Second, notwithstanding this uniform range, the means for each field tell a different story. The average level of psychopathology is very low for the scientists and noticeably higher for the others, 2 Although Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, and Cole (2010) have challenged this claim, their study has some methodological limitations. For instance, change in level across time is conflated with the lack of stability in consensus. ...
Please allow me to begin this chapter with an autobiographical observation: I have been conducting scientific research on creativity and genius – and especially creative genius – since the early 1970s. During the first quarter century of my career, I was often hard pressed to justify my research program (Simonton, 2002). Although the subject had once attracted the attention of such great psychologists as Francis Galton, James McKeen Cattell, Lewis M. Terman, and Edward L. Thorndike, the topic had become marginalized relative to mainstream research in psychology. Toward the end of the twentieth century, though, an unexpected event altered the status of my endeavors: the positive psychology movement. Martin Seligman, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and others argued that it was time for psychologists to study human strengths and virtues rather than human weaknesses and vices (for instance, Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Besides suggesting new topics for psychological inquiry, the proponents of positive psychology also decided to co-opt already ongoing investigations as representative of the movement. Somewhat to my surprise, creativity, genius, and creative genius were added to the growing inventory of representative subjects for positive psychological studies. As a result, I began to receive invitations to give talks at positive psychology conferences and to write chapters for handbooks and anthologies devoted to the emerging field (for instance, Cassandro & Simonton, 2002). Now I probably should not complain about seeing my life’s work get enhanced attention. And I certainly relished the free trips to conferences and the additional publications in my curriculum vitae.
... Yet, another contribution to the conspicuous timewise curve can be ascribed not to growth but rather to decay, in a manner analogous to radioactive decay (cf.Cattell, 1903;Whipple, 2004). As time passes, older historical figures and events tend to become forgotten, an obsolescence process only enhanced by the acquisition of newer figures and events to replace them (cf.Ginsburgh & Weyers, 2014;Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, & Cole, 2010). When Pablo Picasso came to be rated second only to Michelangelo, then all pre-20th century artists, even including Raphael and Leonardo, were knocked down a notch (seeMurray, 2003). ...
Reviews the book, From So Simple a Beginning: The Four Great Books of Charles Darwin edited by Edward O. Wilson (see record 2005-15897-000 ). This book should catch the eye of any scientific psychologist. The volume contains Darwin's four most pathbreaking contributions: On the Origin of Species , The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex , The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals , and The Voyage of the Beagle . Besides Darwin's own words, the volume contains the thoughts of Edward O. Wilson, certainly one of the greatest living evolutionary thinkers. Wilson begins with a general introduction, then adds a specific introduction at the beginning of each of the four books, and then concludes the whole anthology with an afterword that devotes some thought to the relation between evolution and religion. Wilson clearly aimed the introductions and afterword at a general audience. For those who are already familiar with Darwin and evolutionary theory, the editor offers no novel insights. However, the book is attractively produced and priced. Hence, I strongly recommend the volume for anyone who does not already have the four works on his or her bookshelf. Few volumes published today contain so many great ideas in so little space and with such minimal cost. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
... Second, notwithstanding this uniform range, the means for each field tell a different story. The average level of psychopathology is very low for the scientists and noticeably higher for the others, 2 Although Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, and Cole (2010) have challenged this claim, their study has some methodological limitations. For instance, change in level across time is conflated with the lack of stability in consensus. ...
... Second, notwithstanding this uniform range, the means for each field tell a different story. The average level of psychopathology is very low for the scientists and noticeably higher for the others, 2 Although Runco, Kaufman, Halladay, and Cole (2010) have challenged this claim, their study has some methodological limitations. For instance, change in level across time is conflated with the lack of stability in consensus. ...
The so-called mad-genius controversy cannot be resolved without applying more sophisticated historiometric methods to the issue. It is especially important to recognize that (a) both eminence and psychopathology are quantitative rather than qualitative variables, (b) the two variables must be independently quantified, and (c) the relation between these two variables may assume either linear or curvilinear forms depending on the domain of creative achievement. These 3 points are then illustrated in a study of 204 eminent scientists, thinkers, writers, artists, and composers. Independent quantitative measures of psychopathology (Post, 1994) and eminence (Murray, 2003) were combined in a complex design that tested for multiplicative and nonlinear effects. Positive monotonic functions were found for writers and artists, whereas nonmonotonic single-peaked functions were found for scientists, composers, and thinkers. Moreover, the specific peaks for the latter 3 fields differed from each other, indicating that scientists exhibit the least psychopathology and the thinkers the most, with the composers falling approximately in the middle. Although this historiometric study makes a clear contribution to the debate, the article closes by recommending additional improvements in both measurement and analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)
... The more extensive and enduring the contribution, the more exceptional is the creativity." That last sentence may confuse creativity and reputation or fame [3,5]. ...
The creative achievements of eminent genius in Chinese history are of enormous interest. There is, however, uncertainty about the accurate measurement of eminence and creativity. The most tenable measurement approach is historiometric. Nearly all historiometric research on eminence and creative achievement has involved Western samples. The present investigation used historiometry to test two hypotheses about creative achievement with Eastern samples. These point to developmental adversity (DA) and the “madness‐to‐genius link” thought to facilitate unusual cognitive patterns and thus a creative capacity. Here, historiometric methods were applied to a sample of 55 eminent scientists in the Chinese Tang and Song dynasties. DA and mental illness did not significantly predict Chinese scientists' creative outcomes. Other diversifying experiences, such as religious beliefs, migration, and role model mentors, had a positive relationship with eminence and creative achievement. The Tang and Song dynasties had different religious structures, so religion had a different impact on the creative achievements of scientists. In the Tang Dynasty, religion could positively predict the creative achievements of scientists, while in the Song Dynasty it could not. These findings warrant further research using other eminent creators in Chinese history.
This chapter separates intelligent and/or stimulable materials from the 4D printing that uses them. In a prospective approach where it is the uncertain that is explored, generally over longer periods than those associated with European or national plans, there is the possibility of being a little original, without any major constraint apart from motivation and conviction, which makes it possible, faced with multiple and undetermined futures, to question the comfort of the mind, to try to awaken consciences that have fallen asleep on false or old certainties. The modeling of geometries, the determination of interactions at different scales for the states of change of shape and the calculation of energy must be undertaken. For professionals in the field, what has been envisioned is that 4D printing can fundamentally change the design and manufacture of objects through combination/association with other digital capabilities.
Creativity can range from commonplace “little-c” to eminent “Big-C” creativity. This chapter examines whether these forms of creativity represent a single quantitative continuum or else constitute qualitatively distinct phenomena. The examination begins with the very definition of creativity, a definition that must (a) include three criteria rather than the usual two and (b) distinguish carefully between personal and consensual assessments. Discussion then turns to the cognitive mechanisms involved, emphasizing the necessary distinction between domain-specific procedures and domain-generic processes. That leads to a treatment of developmental antecedents (expertise acquisition and diversifying experiences) and individual differences (motivation and personality). The overall conclusion is that a definite qualitative gap separates the two levels of creativity, imposing constraints on the generalizability of results across the two levels. Creativity researchers must then scrutinize the specifics of those constraints.KeywordsGeniusCreativity definitionCreative processDevelopmentIndividual differences
With the world rapidly changing, creativity has become more fundamental than ever before. We live in a society where those who do not creatively innovate risk failure in any of several domains of life. With the growth of computational power of machines and the development of Artificial Intelligent systems, the centrality of humans in the future will strongly rely on their creativity skills that are therefore transforming from a sort of scientific singularity reserved to a few talented individuals to an essential ability for the entire human species.
Creativity research and theories have much to offer to the study of sport. This chapter begins with a review of relevant theories of creativity, with an emphasis on the concepts and ideas that are directly tied to motor performance. It reviews sport‐specific literature and identifies the main cognitive, affective, and environmental resources allowing creative motor performance. The chapter highlights the impact of fostering performers’ creative potential. A conceptual model is presented and related to the empirical evidence that links the different resources to creative performance. The notion of creative potential is essential when measuring creativity because divergent thinking is not synonymous with creative thinking. Affective factors, including personality, motivation, and mood, are also highly influential to the fulfillment of creative potential. Creative potential in athletes encompasses three distinct, but interrelated, components, namely, divergent thinking, motor creativity, and tactical creativity.
This entire volume is intended to challenge static conceptions of creative action and thought. The present chapter introduces a particular dynamic definition of creativity. It also explores applications of that definition, primarily for education. The definition detailed herein is only one of several, as is evidenced by the other chapters in this same volume, and it may be that there is overlap. There may also be disagreement, the exploration of which will no doubt lead to further refinements and advance in our understanding of creativity. For obvious reasons the present chapter begins with a brief summary of previous definitions of creativity. The new dynamic definition will make the most sense after this summary (also see Corazza, GE. Creativity Research Journal, 28:258–267 (2016)).
Cambridge Core - Cognition - The Nature of Human Creativity - edited by Robert J. Sternberg
This Commentary examines where the creativity research has been and where it is going. They key points include evolving definitions of creativity, interdisciplinarity in the creativity research, divergent thinking as a reliable index of creative potential, improvements in testing, the impact of technology, the inclusion of political, moral, and everyday creativity in the research, the use of semantic networks and conceptual maps, the creative economy, and the need to extricate personal creativity from social recognition.
The Victorian writer Lafcadio Hearn has been credited with being one of the first Westerners to adopt “Eastern”, specifically Buddhist, ideas about reality. The effect of Hearn's neo-Buddhist, quasi-scientific vision is to deconstruct Victorian certainties and generate new ways of thinking – new metaphors for constructing an understanding of the world. Hearn's engagement with Buddhism and science caused him to revision his understanding of time and space – of our place in the universe. The effect of his meditations is to change the way he conceives of the self – and also the way he understands the very fabric of reality. This essay outlines the scientific and religious theories that interested Hearn and looks at Hearn's coming to terms with some of these ideas in selected Buddhist writings from his oeuvre. The new metaphors for describing reality apparent in them – though they are now commonplaces of both New Age and of scientific discourse – were radical at the time, and potentially played a part in the fundamental reconceptualisation of reality that took place in the early twentieth century, especially in the fields of physics and cosmology.
创造性是人类生存进步的基础，对人们获得幸福和财富起着重要作用，根据所创造出来的产品对社会价值的作用，把创造性的研究分为Little-c (Little-creativity)和Big-C (Big-Creativity)。本文用两个实验研究证明传统的常规教育和创造性(Little-c和Big-C)之间的关系并不是线性的关系，而是一个复杂的关系。对于卓越者而言，他所受的常规教育和突出成就之间的关系是负相关，而对于创造者而言，所接受的常规教育和突出成就之间的关系看起来更像一个单峰函数，并且其峰值出现在其结束本科教育前的最后一年。因此研究表明传统的常规教育并不总是有利于创造性的发展，甚至在一些情况下可能会阻碍创造性的发展。 Creativity is imperative to the progression of human civilization, prosperity, and well-being. Ac-cording to the social value of the creative product, creativity is divided into Little-c and Big-C. In this paper, two empirical investigations showed that the relationship between formal education and creativity (“Big-C” “Little-c”) is not a linear, but a complex one. For the leaders, their eminent achievement is negatively related to the formal education, whereas for the creators the relation-ship was best described as a single-peaked function, with the peak appearing somewhere in the last year of their undergraduate education. The results indicated that formal education cannot have a simple positive linear association with creativity, and under certain circumstances their association can become negative.
Two empirical investigations showed that achieved eminence as a creator can sometimes be a curvilinear, inverted-U function of the level of formal education attained by the individual. Typically, the peak falls approximately in the last year of undergraduate education. Because these findings suggest that formal education might not always be conducive to creative development, I examined the possibility that a complex and sometimes conflicting relation might ensue from the very definition of what it means to be creative. From there I introduced two formal definitions, one for personal (little-c) creativity and the other for consensual (Big-C) creativity. The implications of these definitions indeed supported the conclusion that formal education cannot have a simple positive linear association with creativity, and under certain circumstances that association can become negative.
Creativity does not have a dark side. Creative products and efforts can be malevolent, but that is apparent in their impact and is not an inherent quality of creativity nor a requisite trait in the creative personality. Claiming that there is a dark side to creativity is much like arguing that hammers are evil because they can be used to dismantle as well as construct things. Creativity is indeed in some ways a tool of humanity, but of course that is merely a metaphor and, as such, only imperfectly applicable. The important point is that the process that underlies all creative things is not moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, good or evil. It is essentially blind. Like a tool, it can be applied in many different ways, some of which are benevolent and some of which are unethical and immoral, but to understand creativity it is best to be parsimonious and leave out what is extraneous, and that includes all possible effects. This chapter develops this view of parsimonious creativity and describes the ostensible dark side as a function of values and decisions that are ancillary to actual creative work. There is no denying that creative talents have in the past been used in highly unfortunate ways. Many famous examples of this have been described by McLaren (1993), Stein (1993), and the authors of others chapters in this volume.
The Creative Achievement Scale (CAS) was designed to measure the creative accomplishments of deceased individuals based on information extracted from biographical sources (e.g., published biographies). The CAS contains 11 items which pertain to personal attributes, product qualities, and sociocultural factors. Statistical analyses conducted on one small (n = 12) and one larger sample (n = 50) of subjects revealed the CAS to be a reliable and valid instrument.
Preface 1. Introduction: scientific creativity 2. Creative products 3. Combinatorial processes 4. Scientific activity 5. Creative scientists 6. Scientific discovery 7. Consolidation: creativity in science References Index.
This study drew on biographical and bibliographical documentary material to investigate individual differences in productivity within a large sample of 20th-century British novelists. Length of literary career predicted the output of both fiction and nonfiction work. Judged literary eminence and gender predicted variation in nonfiction output but not fiction output. However, a substantial proportion of the variance in output could not be explained by career length or the other variables included. Age trends in productivity were similar to those predicted by Simonton 's (1984b) information processing model, but there were differences in the trends of the least and most prolific authors. Consideration of biographical information about individual authors revealed lengthy gaps in the literary careers of the least prolific novelists. The results suggest the need to include both intra-individual factors and social support factors in explaining variation in creative productivity.
describes two separate studies of productivity among psychology researchers (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
co-citation clustering / mapping (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Discusses some problems in defining genius. Emphasis is placed on the early history of the concept of genius, particularly on the theories of Freud and F. Galton. A definition of genius is proposed which makes continuous influential productivity the major criterion and the achievement of long-term eminence the central outcome of so-called "works of genius." Data is offered from several studies supporting this point, showing that eminent persons do in fact evidence an earlier, more continuous productivity than most of their peers. The socio-psychological implications of this finding are discussed. (72 ref)
Plain, honest men: The making of the American constitution
- R Beeman
Beeman, R. 2009. Plain, honest men: The making of the American constitution. New York: Random House.
Historiometric studies
- D K Simonton
Simonton, D. K. 1999. Historiometric studies. In Encyclopedia of creativity,
ed. M. A. Runco and S. Pritzker, 815-22. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
---. 2004. Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bully for brontosaurus
- S J Gould
Gould, S. J. 1991. Bully for brontosaurus. New York: Norton.
Using multivariate statistics
- B G Tabachnick
- L S Fidell
Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Using multivariate statistics, 4th
ed. New York: Harper Collins.
- Galton F.