Creativity Clues

People like creativity less than they say, especially when they feel uncertain. (more)

Sex is near and love is far, logical analysis is near while “aha” creativity is far, and conventional art is near while unconventional art is far. These results seem to confirm my suggestion that near mode emphasizes practical action, while far mode emphasizes social image. … “When in love, people typically focus on a long-term perspective, which should enhance holistic thinking and thereby creative thought.” … Far mode does better at word creativity. (more)

I’ve argued “school functions in part to help folks accept workplace domination,” said modern workplaces don’t reward creativity, and cited evidence that schools discourage creativity. … So I’m not surprised to learn creativity has been falling for decades. (more)

Participants with creative personalities tended to cheat more than less creative individuals and that dispositional creativity is a better predictor of unethical behavior than intelligence. .. Participants who were primed to think creatively were more likely to behave dishonestly than those in a control condition and that greater ability to justify their dishonest behavior explained the link between creativity and increased dishonesty. (more)

Consistent with distrust’s social consequences, subliminal distrust (vs. trust) priming had detrimental effects on creative generation presumed to be public. Consistent with distrust’s cognitive consequences, though, an opposite tendency emerged in private. Study 2 confirmed a beneficial effect of distrust on private creative generation with a different priming method and pointed to cognitive flexibility as the mediating process. Studies 3 and 4 showed increased category inclusiveness versus increased remote semantic spread after distrust priming, consistent with enhanced cognitive flexibility as a consequence of distrust. (more)

We are more creative in far mode, and we are happier there too, but we are only more conformist and trustworthy on publicly visible acts. On private hidden acts we are more likely to cheat. This confirms far mode as more focused on managing social images. And it helps us appreciate why employers, and hence schools, aren’t so eager to encourage creativity.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,
Trackback URL:
  • http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~godfreym/ Godfrey Miller

    Thanks to this post, I have a newfound appreciation for the term “creative accounting.”

  • Michael Wengler

    That people who are more creative cheat more than people who are less creative makes eminent sense in terms of evolutionary psychology. The brain and communication don’t exist to find the truth and to communicate it to others. They exist to help the individual survive, to enhance his stature in the group, and to get him laid. Being creative, being able to imagine a bunch of possible hypothetical futures and work through some of the issues and implications of them, what use is it?

    People who are more creative lie and cheat more because they are better at it.

    • http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/ daedalus2u

      That is not always correct. It is specific to what the person is creative in.

      People who are more creative using their “theory of mind” that is in language, literary, social and political realms may also cheat more because cheating in those realms can be advantageous.

      People who are creative using their “theory of reality” gain nothing from “cheating”, because “cheating” interferes with the accurate perception of reality that is necessary to do good science and to invent and engineer products that actually work.

      http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2008/10/theory-of-mind-vs-theory-of-reality.html

      This is why people who are good liars are not good scientists. They have a hard time living in the reality based community.

      Good scientists may “cheat” by breaking social conventions and not obeying the “leaders” of the field the way that social convention requires. But when the Emperor has no clothes, who is going to point that out?

      The problem is that good liars (i.e. people with a good “theory of mind”, and the ability and will to lie and cheat) are not good at perceiving reality. They are too good at lying to themselves, in pretending to themselves that reality is actually what they wish it was and not what it actually is. They can’t handle reality, and so they don’t.

      Unfortunately, reality doesn’t care what reality deniers think, and AGW is going to really hammer the human race unless the denialists can be bypassed.

      • carl213

        Nonsense. Also, use of ignorant, base-stealing words like “denialists” is nothing more here than a blatantly pathetic attempt to build up your own self-image as some righteous crusader.

        Your quick resort to absolutist thinking and emotionally-charged attack language is pretty funny considering the nature of a site like OvercomingBias.

      • http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/ daedalus2u

        Nothing ignorant about the term denialist. Sorry if it hit a nerve. There is a new book out that discusses it in the context of AGW denialism.

        The Inquisition of Climate Science

      • Michael Wengler

        Science is not particularly more tied to “theory of reality” than are most other businesses. Science requires a bunch of resources, including access to other brilliant scientists. In this sense it is like business. You get those resources by succeeding socially and politically. The system is not particularly corrupt, so a significant factor in your success is the amount of apparently honest high quality science you actually do. But this is far from the only thing that matters. I am significantly more successful than some people with more raw science power than me because I am willing to play the social game, asskiss people who can help me, help others strategically and set myself up as apparently very helpful, like that. This keeps me in jobs which means it keeps me in resources and in contact with the other brilliant minds.

        Further, championing a hypothesis before it is proved is a form of lying. “I know if you give me this grant I will be the one who sorts out the two photon flogiston effect because my theory of it is the right one.” It is not lying in the sense that we all in some real sense believe our own hypotheses. But contrary to some rationalist wet dream, science is not done by highly rational unemotional minds who know that a negative result is as valuable as a positive one. It is done by people who are passionately involved at multiple levels, including jostling elbows, back stabbing, and shmoozing to acquire scarce resources.

        If there is an area of modern life where theory of mind is irrelevant, it certainly involves some pursuit that you do by yourself involving a not particularly impressive pile of resources. Maybe video gaming, but not the Multi Player ones? Maybe reading, but not writing. Without theory of mind creativity, there is no communication with the other minds.

        Even you write a blog and comments to posts and want your ideas read and considered and (presumably) respodned to. You can’t escape the human interaction if you want to use resources including the minds of others.

      • http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/ daedalus2u

        Michael, I agree with you that most of what passes for science these days is not done by hyper-rational individuals. I don’t dispute that a lot of what it takes to be “successful” as a scientist these days requires treating science as a business and like any business providing what ever it is that the customer wants. That can mean lying to get funding, and sucking up to the “leaders” of the field and following the fashionable hype to get funding and get stuff published, and whoring your integrity for money (no disrespect to waged sex workers). People doing that should not fool themselves that they are doing science.

        I agree that people who are poor at lying don’t do as well at getting funding as people who are better at lying. People who are good at lying also are not as good at doing science because they also are good at fooling themselves. This is a problem with how science funding is determined. Those who want to do good science should look to what Feynman said:

        The most important principle is to not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

        The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty.

        For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

        The “paradox” is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality “ought to be.”

        But if you don’t care about doing good science and only care about doing science as business, then it will be just like every other business. That is what “tobacco industry science” was, and what “AGW denialism science” is. It is propaganda trying to masquerade as science.

    • Steve the hyena

      Are you sure your causal arrow points the right way? What if it is not so much that creatives turn to cheating but cheats get creative?

  • SmoledMan

    Define “cheat”. If I don’t believe in your morality, then my action is not cheating.

  • Karl Hallowell

    After working at an aerospace non profit for half a decade, I’m now a fan of incremental creativity for complex projects. I guess that would be a sort of “near mode” creativity. The idea is that you think out some long term goals and then figure out a way to work towards those goals. The creativity is in trying different paths to see what works and figuring out ways to “pay your way” to the final goal.

  • Pingback: TheMoneyIllusion » Odds and ends

  • Pingback: Simoleon Sense » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup 157: A Curated Linkfest For The Smartest People On The Web!

  • http://www.gwern.net gwern
  • Pingback: Overcoming Bias : Who Gains From Grit?