~ ~
|
The Creative Personality:
Ten paradoxical traits of the creative personality By
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
What
makes us different from apes--our language, values, artistic
expression, scientific understanding, and technology--is the result of
individual ingenuity that was recognized, rewarded, and transmitted
through learning. Perhaps
only sex, sports, music, and religious ecstasy--even when these
experiences remain fleeting and leave no trace--provide a profound
sense of being part of an entity greater than ourselves. But
creativity also leaves an outcome that adds to the richness and
complexity of the future. Creative
individuals are remarkable for their ability to adapt to almost any
situation and to make do with whatever is at hand to reach their goals.
If I
had to express in one word what makes their personalities different
from others, it's complexity. They
show tendencies of thought and action that in most people are
segregated. They contain contradictory extremes; instead of being an
"individual," each of them is a "multitude." They
work long hours, with great concentration, while projecting an aura of
freshness and enthusiasm. This
suggests a superior physical endowment, a genetic advantage. Yet it is
surprising how often individuals who in their seventies and eighties
exude energy and health remember childhoods plagued by illness. It
seems that their energy is internally generated, due more to their
focused minds than to the superiority of their genes. The
important thing is that they control their energy; it's not ruled by
the calendar, the dock, an external schedule. When necessary, they can
focus it like a laser beam; when not, creative types immediately
recharge their batteries. They
consider the rhythm of activity followed by idleness or reflection very
important for the success of their work. This is not a bio-rhythm
inherited with their genes; it was learned by trial and error as a
strategy for achieving their goals. At the
same time, a certain spartan celibacy is also a part of their makeup;
continence tends to accompany superior achievement. Without eros, it
would be difficult to take life on with vigor; without restraint, the
energy could easily dissipate. How
smart they actually are is open to question. It is probably true that
what psychologists call the "g factor," meaning a core of general
intelligence, is high among people who make important creative
contributions. Later
studies suggest that the cutoff point is around 120; it might be
difficult to do creative work with a lower IQ, but an IQ beyond 120
does not necessarily imply higher creativity Convergent
thinking is measured by IQ tests, and it involves solving well-defined,
rational problems that have one correct answer. Divergent
thinking leads to no agreed-upon solution. It involves fluency, or the
ability to generate a great quantity of ideas; flexibility, or the
ability to switch from one perspective to another; and originality in
picking unusual associations of ideas. These
are the dimensions of thinking that most creativity tests measure and
that most workshops try to enhance. People
often claimed to have had only two or three good ideas in their entire
career, but each idea was so generative that it kept them busy for a
lifetime of testing, filling out, elaborating, and applying. There
is no question that a playfully light attitude is typical of creative
individuals. But this playfulness doesn't go very far without its
antithesis, a quality of doggedness, endurance, perseverance. "But
they don't wish to hear that because they really only imagine the first
part, the exciting part. But, as Khrushchev once said, that doesn't fry
pancakes, you see. "That
germ of an idea does not make a sculpture which stands up. It just sits
there. So the next stage is the hard work. Can you really translate it
into a piece of sculpture?" "In
other words, if it takes a week to cut this, it'll take a week. What
else have I got to do? I'm going to be here for twenty years. See? This
is a kind of mental trick. Otherwise you say, 'My God, it's not
working,' and then you make mistakes. My way, you say time is of
absolutely no consequence." Vasari
wrote in 1550 that when Renaissance painter Paolo Uccello was working
out the laws of visual perspective, he would walk back and forth all
night, muttering to himself: "What a beautiful thing is this
perspective!" while his wife called him back to bed with no success. Great
art and great science involve a leap of imagination into a world that
is different from the present. The rest of society often views these
new ideas. as fantasies without relevance to current reality. And
they are right. But the whole point of art and science is to go beyond
what we now consider real and create a new reality At the same time,
this "escape" is not into a never-never land. What
makes a novel idea creative is that once we see it, sooner or later we
recognize that, strange as it is, it is true. This
may be true in terms of day-to-day routine activities. But when a
person begins to work creatively, all bets are off. We're
usually one or the other, either preferring to be in the thick of
crowds or sitting on the sidelines and observing the passing show. In
fact, in current psychological research, extroversion and introversion
are considered the most stable personality traits that differentiate
people from each other and that can be reliably measured. Creative
individuals, on the other hand, seem to exhibit both traits
simultaneously. It is
remarkable to meet a famous person who you expect to be arrogant or
supercilious, only to encounter self-deprecation and shyness instead.
Yet there are good reasons why this should be so. These
individuals are well aware that they stand, in Newton's words, "on the
shoulders of giants." Their respect for the area in which they work
makes them aware of the long line of previous contributions to it,
putting their own in perspective. They're
also aware of the role that luck played in their own achievements. And
they're usually so focused on future projects and current challenges
that past accomplishments, no matter how outstanding, are no longer
very interesting to them. At the
same time, they know that in comparison with others, they have
accomplished a great deal. And this knowledge provides a sense of
security, even pride. When
tests of masculinity/femininity are given to young people, over and
over one finds that creative and talented girls are more dominant and
tough than other girls, and creative boys are more sensitive and less
aggressive than their male peers. A
psychologically androgynous person in effect doubles his or her
repertoire of responses. Creative individuals are more likely to have
not only the strengths of their own gender but those of the other one,
too. It is
impossible to be creative without having first internalized an area of
culture. So it's difficult to see how a person can be creative without
being both traditional and conservative and at the same time rebellious
and iconoclastic. Being
only traditional leaves an area unchanged; constantly taking chances
without regard to what has been valued in the past rarely leads to
novelty that is accepted as an improvement. The
artist Eva Zeisel, who says that the folk tradition in which she works
is "her home," nevertheless produces ceramics that were recognized by
the Museum of Modern Art as masterpieces of contemporary design. This
is what she says about innovation for its own sake: "And
to be different means 'not like this' and 'not like that.' And the 'not
like'--that's why postmodernism, with the prefix of 'post,' couldn't
work. No negative impulse can work, can produce any happy creation.
Only a positive one." The
economist George Stigler is very emphatic in this regard: "I'd say one
of the most common failures of able people is a lack of nerve. They'll
play safe games. In innovation, you have to play a less safe game, if
it's going to be interesting. It's not predictable that it'll go well." Without
the passion, we soon lose interest in a difficult task. Yet without
being objective about it, our work is not very good and lacks
credibility. Here is how the historian Natalie Davis puts it: "But I
am aware of that and of when I think it is particularly important to
detach oneself from the work, and that is something where age really
does help." Most
would agree with Rabinow's words: "Inventors have a low threshold of
pain. Things bother them." A badly designed machine causes pain to an
inventive engineer, just as the creative writer is hurt when reading
bad prose. Perhaps
the most important quality, the one that is most consistently present
in all creative individuals, is the ability to enjoy the process of
creation for its own sake. Without this trait, poets would give up striving for perfection and would write commercial jingles, economists would work for banks where they would earn at least twice as much as they do at universities, and physicists would stop doing basic research and join industrial laboratories where the conditions are better and the expectations more predictable. ~ ~ From
book: Creativity: The Work and Lives of 91 Eminent People, by Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi, published by HarperCollins, 1996. Retitled as Creativity:
Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. ~ ~ ~
Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi, PhD, (pronounced me-high chick-sent-me-high) is
a psychology professor at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont,
California and former head of the department of psychology at the
University of Chicago. He is noted for his work in the study of
creativity and subjective well-being, and is best known for his
research and writing on the notion of flow. [From Wikipedia bio.] The photo is psychologist Jeanne Nakamura appreciating the joking scowling of her colleague Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi of Claremont Graduate University. They are co-leaders of the world’s first positive psychology doctoral program. Also
see more articles
by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. ~ ~ ~ Related
Talent Development Resources pages:Creativity
enhancement
articles Books: creativity / innovation Also see site index ~ ~ ~ |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ~ ~ ~
|