Poetry Forum

Full Version: trait that creative geniuses often share
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
I found this compelling - Dale
__________________________________________________________________
 
Scientists discovered the personality trait that creative geniuses often share
Business Insider
By Drake Baer
 
Novelist Franz Kafka needed to be alone when he worked.
Really alone.
"I need solitude for my writing," the "Metamorphosis" author said, but "not 'like a hermit' — that wouldn't be enough — but like a dead man."
Kafka, often held up as the lonely, tortured artist, wasn't alone in his need for solitude. Maya Angelou checked herself into hotel rooms to get work done; "Freedom" author Jonathan Franzen stuffs his ears and blindfold his eyes to bang out a manuscript.
New research from Northwestern University provides an explanation for why artists need such solitude.
It's a matter of attention.
Specifically, a study lead by PhD candidate Darya Zabelina showed that creative achievers are worse at filtering out stimuli than other people.
Among other tests, participants took a creative achievement questionnaire, in which they reported their levels of success in ten creative fields, from music to dance to inventing to culinary arts.
In an experiment to measure response to stimuli, participants put on headphones and listened to a pair of clicks. People with "selective sensory gating," or a tendency to ignore repeat stimuli, had a smaller response to a second click. But people with "leaky sensory gating," or an inability to ignore repeat stimuli, had a near-equal response to the second click.
The link?
People who were less able to ignore the second click were more likely to be high creative achievers.
"The more creative achievements people reported, the leakier was their sensory gating, early in the processing stream with meaningless stimuli and no task goals," Zabelina and her colleagues wrote.
In other words, people who were less able to ignore distractions were more likely to do great creative work. Sensitivity, so the argument goes, drives creative achievement.
"If funneled in the right direction," Zabelina told Science Daily , "these sensitivities can make life more rich and meaningful, giving experiences more subtlety."
And the world more art.
 
I have found this to be true in my classroom. Students who have "behaviour problems" because they are easily distracted and like to head off on tangents are almost always the most creative and respond very well to non-conformist type assessment tasks. It frightens me a great deal that so much potential artistic genius is being destroyed by society's need to drug people until they fit into pigeonholes.
That was my experience growing up, more so i the church prison camp (mon-wed-sun, morn&night) where they said I was spoiled. They said I had uncontrolled energy, which of course was a sign of Satan at work. The excess energy was actually me trying to compensate, and overcompensating instead for lack of energy. It was not quite do bad at the public noneducational system. I was only known there as a troublemaker, not as a spawn of Satan.
Both of my daughters have similar problems, but not to may degree. Being creative is no blessing. When I was doing drug and alcohol work, I noticed about 50% of that population fit this mold. I suspect what got a lot of them into drugs was an effort to clam down their brain and be able to focus. Without a doubt a large percentage of speed and coke users fit this profile. When interviewing the family members of these people, someone would invariably say, they just can't seem to stick with things, they can't settle down.

Dale
It has also been noted that all creative geniuses have noses. (I could be the next maya angelou).

Current estimates are 58% of males and 37% of females suffer from some form of adhd. I guess creative geniousness isn't that rare.
What I've been told about genius is that you have to start from a very early age and read sun up to sun down and then be involved in the government or something. That's just what I've been told though. Furthermore, it seems that artists who come up and stray away from canonical rigidity add a rich perspective to what is out there and should probably be encouraged. So with that I can put away my spyglass and return to my pipe tobacco.
(03-07-2015, 02:06 AM)milo Wrote: [ -> ]It has also been noted that all creative geniuses have noses. (I could be the next maya angelou).

Current estimates are 58% of males and 37% of females suffer from some form of adhd.  I guess creative geniousness isn't that rare.

I misread this as 'current estimates are 58% of males and 37% of females suffer from some form of child'. Smile
Excellent thread. Delicious food for thought.

Finally drugs;
a mind
tooo much maligned
by paparazzi stimuli,
relaxes
into itself.
Don't get me wrong -- plenty of 'hyperactive' kids are less creative genius, more completely self-involved little shit. Those definitely exist. Even of the exceptionally creative, only a minuscule percentage will go on to achieve success in the arts because along with innate talent and a creative mindset, you also need discipline and perseverance. Those two things can be taught though, as can the ability to deal with criticism and strategies for coping with the inevitable rounds of rejection after rejection before that breakthrough that hopefully happens, but may never. I support student choices if the arts is the path they want to take, but I don't actively push them onto it, because it's a bitch and always will be. If they have the guts to take that path themselves, then all power to them and I can't wait for one of them to make it big and decide I'm worth a donation.
Oh milo, you are just as guilty of what you imply. No one ever said that all people with these symptoms were of the creative type, it is simply one of the traits that they hold in common.

You can do the "it can be noted" false argument all day long to obscure the reality of what is intended.
All creative type are mostly humans.
All creative types have owned or known someone who has owned a pet.
All creative types drink water.
All creative types have at least one of the five senses.
All creative types live somewhere.
All creative types were at some point born.
All creative types breath and have a heartbeat, at least until the die.
All creative types have had a cold at least once.

nausea ad infinitum... Tongue

dale
milo is the next Maya Angelou. I've seen what he does with those chained-up doves.
Milo Angelou

Phenomenal
(03-07-2015, 06:01 AM)Todd Wrote: [ -> ]Milo Angelou

Phenomenal

imminent name-change incoming.

(03-07-2015, 05:37 AM)Erthona Wrote: [ -> ]Oh milo, you are just as guilty of what you imply. No one ever said that all people with these symptoms were of the creative type, it is simply one of the traits that they hold in common.

You can do the "it can be noted" false argument all day long to obscure the reality of what is intended.
All creative type are mostly humans.
All creative types have owned or known someone who has owned a pet.
All creative types drink water.
All creative types have at least one of the five senses.
All creative types live somewhere.
All creative types were at some point born.
All creative types breath and have a heartbeat, at least until the die.
All creative types have had a cold at least once.

nausea ad infinitum... Tongue

dale

maybe, I think it is apt.  It isn't even a trait that all or most "creative geniuses" have, just one that many of them have.  From what I hear it is 58% of male creative geniuses and 37% of female creative geniuses . . .

or, put another equally accurate way:

Scientists discovered the personality trait that creative geniuses often lack

It seems many creative geniuses are focused and have an uncanny ability to ignore distractions.

Scientists discover remarkable link between inability to focus and lack of humility:

Among other tests, participants took a creative achievement questionnaire, in which they reported their levels of success in ten creative fields, from music to dance to inventing to culinary arts. . .
Let's have some reference citing for these claims.
(03-07-2015, 10:04 AM)Erthona Wrote: [ -> ]Let's have some reference citing for these claims.

The same exact article says all of those things.
(03-07-2015, 05:58 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]milo is Maya Angelou.  I've seen what he does with those chained-up doves.
fixed


i can see how it can be true, though i think you have to start with the genius trait for the silence to work. with or without it it passes me by. i also agree that the establisthment are too quick to use medication and too quick to give certain kids titles (stigma) i had no concentration as a kid or adult i seldom went to any school and it seems on looking back that my local schools were good with that. i was labelled a ne'er do well and a kid with no prospect. the one least likely to achieve, i showed them though i was in fact the 2nd to last best achiever. good teachers will always work better than bad drugs, maybe not as well as good drugs such as coke and weed, okay scrub that, that's for when you leave school but yes. mental attitude and understanding needs to play a greater part in education and nurturing. if the genius likes to look out of the window instead of doing 12 x 12 then let him and if possible find out why he does it, is he painting with his minds eye, is he creating something he can't express. scientists often talk shit
I don't really think this interjection will add to this discussion, but I think (and I could be very wrong here) that science or logo-centrism is often compared as an oppressive system to more creative modes of thought that may jump off of various nodes more sporadically or something. Food for thought, the "druggies" (as some may call them) seemed to be dissatisfied with something and may be it's because they didn't belong in the overarching structure of things, one way or another. I think the people who get addicted throws a whole wrench in this framework though because then you have to question the oppressive nature of a diagnosis vs. the potential usefulness of that diagnosis. Either way, I'm highly unqualified.
some of the greatest genius's of history were big on drugs. though i doubt they were prescription drugs and if they were it was probably Laudanum or other such remedy/
(03-07-2015, 12:49 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]some of the greatest genius's of history were big on drugs. though i doubt they were prescription drugs and if they were it was probably Laudanum or other such remedy/

Coleridge did like his opiates, but I think his artistic career struggled at that point. However, there was still the proclivity which may indicate a connection and of course there's all those alcoholics who hung around other alcoholics. Let's face it, alcoholics and drug users are interesting and in the middle of a lot of relevant social issues.
As a whole it is a pretty bad article about what looks like a pretty un-empirical study.
They tested an unknown number of people for the ability to focus. Of those, "many" who couldn't focus also claimed to be more successful at creative pursuits on a questionnaire. The assumption is that many of those that could focus also claimed that but it isn't mentioned.
No "creative geniuses" were reported to have been tested. Three people who the author considers creative geniuses mentioned publicly that they don't like to be bothered while creating. All of the other thousands upon thousands of creative geniuses abstained from answering or else their answers were excluded from this article, we cannot tell which.
There is no distinction made between the reasons for this perception of increased success. (Many people who can focus are creative but find more success in the "non-creative" fields of medicine, law, politics, engineering, management, etc.)
(03-07-2015, 05:37 AM)Erthona Wrote: [ -> ]... All creative types have owned or known someone who has owned a pet. ...

                                [Image: picassodog.jpg]
Pages: 1 2 3 4