Creative mess

DSCN0746Some researchers and psychologists study creativity like a kind of pathology, researching causes of creativity, methods to diagnosis it, and determining best practices. Others look at the creative person and delve into a personality that is often contradictory because a strongest drive in creative people is to not be like other people, even other creative people. Psychologist Frank Barron saw in holistically as he performed testing and conducted in-depth interviews with writers, architects, research scientists, and mathematicians during the 1950s and 1960s at UC Berkeley when creativity was newly studied as an scientific subject.

According to Barron the highly creative person is “both more primitive and more cultivated, more destructive, a lot madder and a lot saner than the average person.” Creative people could appear and actually be conventional in many ways. However, “they tend to rebel against conformity as they accompany their own private visions down lonely, untrod paths.” They also could appear highly neurotic on personality tests while having an ego strength that could deal with stress, and psychological pain.

Barron attempted to describe the psychology of imagination, which found the need for both order and disorder as motives in the creative process. According to his research the creative writer espoused originality, complexity, independence of judgment, and aesthetics sensitivity. His creative subjects often took extremely complex elements to produce a final product that was elegant and deceptively simple.

Creative people can hold two opposite views at the same time and yet see no contraction, because they were prone to “Integration of dichotomies.” They can be both naive and knowledgeable, emotional and logical, disciplined and free spirited. When you think about it, an either or view does not necessarily make life easier. It is a refusal to deal with ambiguity that naturally abounds. The highly creative person’s tolerance for ambiguity and messiness is balanced by a strong desire to bring order. “It was a powerful motive to create meaning and to leave a testament of the meaning which that individual found in the world, and in himself in relation to the world.”

Barron, Frank and Harrington, David M., Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality by Frank Barron. Annual Review of Psychology, 32 (1981): 439–476.
Posted in Creativity, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Group IQ

Picture 012a3One of the tricks in getting groups to be more creative is having a hand in determining who goes into the group. A number of gurus on increasing group creativity will mention the need for greater diversity in groups. How exactly does this work?

Wooley and Malone performed research on “group IQ.” Members of a group were tested for IQ individually and then randomly assigned to a team. Each team  was required to complete a number of complex tasks such as creative brainstorming, and solving puzzles. Interestingly enough the teams containing the people with higher IQs did not do any better. However, the teams that had women did.  The more women there were on a team, the better they did at the tasks, unless the team was entirely female.

Choi and Thompson found that rotating new members into already existing groups improved their performance in creative tasks. It was the influence of the “newcomers” that exerted a positive impact so that people already residing in the group increased both the number and diversity of ideas.

Of course, there are certain people you just don’t want to include in a group because it would drag the other people down, such as pessimists.  Right? Not at all. According to Haimowitz when people are primed to thing about difficult situations with negative outcome before work, their creative output was higher.  “Negative affect draws attention to problems and signals that effort needs to be invested to solve a problematic situation.”  The negative affect provides incongruent ideas that might not normally be considered a solution.  But this negative affect has to decrease to achieve the breakthrough idea. On other hand the person who starts positive and stays positive, remains less creative.

But can diversity be so great that it interferes with group creativity? Wooley and Malone point out that both extremely homogenous and extremely diverse groups simply aren’t as intelligent. So like anything, diversity can be pushed too far, but without it the group will just keep on churning out the same stagnant ideas.

 

Choi, Hoon-Seok and Thompson, Leigh. Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 98, Issue 2, November 2005, Pages 121–132
Haimowitz, B. For worker creativity, it helps to think negative, new research finds, Academy of Management. April 22, 2013
Woolley, A. and Malone, T. Defend Your Research: What Makes a Team Smarter? More Women, Harvard Business Review Magazine June, 2011.
Posted in Creativity, Educational trends | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Stuck in a group

1024px-Allegorie_op_visserij (2)_edited-2The people making decisions at your place of work have bought into the concept of group synergy, the belief that combined abilities of people in groups produce equals more creative ideas than individuals working alone. Despite the fact that most research points in the opposite direction, your assignment is to work with a group to come up with brilliant new solutions. What can you do to improve your chances of at least some modicum of success?

First, it helps to understand some of the human characteristic that prevent people from effectively sharing knowledge so others can build on their ideas.  It is almost impossible to grasp what others know, or deduce what they need to know from us. Sharing of information takes time. It helps to have initial sessions that are simply for the purpose of the group disseminating what they know with the others without the pressure to come up new ideas or commit to any new plan of action.  Clearly defining why we know what we know is another hurdle that may be nearly impossible to overcome.  People base knowledge on various underlying assumptions of which they are often unaware. Have the group take the time to locate and provide sources for the information each one contributes. Without exception  group members should be able to pinpoint the outlook that colors their knowledge.

Then, realize why people fear loss of status if they share their knowledge and creativity. This is a legitimate concern and there is no easy solution to this problem. However, skillful facilitation helps.  A facilitator needs to refrain from making own contributions while openly acknowledging the contribution of others. Skill in mediating a discussion also enables  a more equitable contribution from various members. How often have you been in a group discussion in which one of two people spend most of the time talking?  Take a timer and explain the time limits. After people have used up their allotted minutes, they must be silent and listen to others. This spreads the contribution made by various members and forces them to consider the importance of what they are actually saying.

Finally, choose a variety of activities to get out of the rut of group brainstorming sessions. Tell the group that they should try to push the limits in their attempt to come up with creative solutions. Let them question and critique each other’s work (but not each other as people.) Alternate between group and individual activities, with individual activities taking place away from the presence of the group. Simply having others around, possibly looking over your shoulder, tends to limit on the job creativity. Try improvisational tasks that do not require collaboration with others, such as design of a facility, coordination of an activity, or explanation of a theory. Alter the required mode of output so that group members produce results that are verbal, visual, constructed, active, quantitative and qualitative.

By now you should realize that it takes far more time for a group to produce creative ideas than an individual. However, the bonus to this method is the sense of is community and connectedness. You also have more viewpoints for promoting the acceptance of the creative ideas, if and when the group actually produces them.

Artwork based on painting attributed to Willem Eversdijck (circa 1620–1671)

Nemeth, Charlan J., Personnaz, Bernard,. Personnaz, Marie., and Goncalo, Jack A. (2004) The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, Issue 4, 365–374.
Oltra, Victor and Newell, Sue.(2006)  Knowledge Management Projects and the Learning Cycle: Synergy or Fallacy?  OLKC 2006 Conference at the University of Warwick
Sawyer, Keith.  (2008) Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration , Basic Books
Shalley, C. E. (1995) Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483-503.
Posted in Creativity, Educational trends | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sweet solitude

switzerland1Recently I was involved in a survey rating classroom environments based how much they induced creativity. Encouraging students to work in groups was supposed to improve creativity according to this survey, but many instructors observed just the opposite happening. More unique ideas surfaced when the learners worked on projects individually.

Students collaborating in groups did not seem to be able to piggyback on each others’ ideas very easily to produce elaborate and sophisticated products. Sometimes everyone followed a leader’s instruction, but the leader rarely was the most creative person. Others spent time in long discussions, and then their work resembled that which had already been done before and was already familiar to all those in the group. In a few cases, there was disagreement which caused the end product to appear piecemeal and shoddy. But this seems to happen in the corporate world as well as in education.

Brainstorming has been touted as the way for groups to multiple creativity in the workplace. Groups sessions produce more ideas if people spend alone time considering and conceptualizing ideas first. However, the best performance as far as number and quality of ideas occurs when there is a brief group session followed by individuals brainstorming on their own. In research conducted in a manufacturing company a whopping 23 of 24 groups produced a greater quantity of high quality original ideas when brainstorming isolated and alone, than in groups (Dunnet et al, 1963).

In another experiment in which people worked on simulated work tasks, one group worked alone and the other worked in the presence of other  people. The results of those working in isolation were consistently judged more creative. It appears as if the very presence of others decreases creative output (Shalley 1995). This may be because we are unwilling to trying out new ideas and techniques that may flop in front of others.

Yet the survey I mentioned in the first paragraph assumed working in teams increased creativity. Why? Is this just another fad? Research has actually been done to discern why this mystique of greater creativity within teams exists despite so much evidence to the contrary. Allen and Hecht (2004)  have proposed it is the psychological benefits of teamwork contribute to this illusion. People with strong needs for social interaction feel more satisfied when working in a team, even if the results show lower quantity or quality of ideas. Teams have social appeal because inclusion in a team provides a sense of belonging. However, teams tend to enforce similar social behavior and thought in a manner more restrictive than that imposed by an individual leader of a group.  Belonging is based on conforming, and conformity is in essence the opposite of creativity.

 

Allen, Natalie J.  and Hecht, Tracy D.  (2004) The ‘romance of teams’: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 439–461.
Dunnette, Marvin D.; Campbell, John; and Jaastad, Kay. (1963) The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for 2 industrial samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 47(1), Feb 1963, 30-37.
Shalley, C. E. (1995) Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483-503.
Posted in Creativity, Educational trends | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mentors and masters

Telemachus_and_Mentor_cropIn the epic poem the Iliad, Odysseus was absent twenty years; first at war and then wandering on the long route home. Meanwhile his son Telemachus grew to an adulthood. Having pity on the basically fatherless youth, the goddess Athena disguised herself as an old man, took on the pseudonym “Mentor”  and became his guide.  For the novice in creative and experimental fields finding an appropriate mentor with experience and the willingness to advise seems almost essential.

Choosing a mentor often starts around college age as students seeking to further their experience in creative and research fields search for someone of standing that they can relate to  and latch on to. But mentors are real people, not deities that have set themselves up as guardians. Why would they want to enter into this kind of relationship? One obvious answer, is for the ego boost.  It is a great self-esteem builder to have someone select you as their role model, especially in fields where success is based on subjective judgment. Second would be a desire to maintain quality of creative work in their  area. However, a voluntary mentorship takes time away from the mentor’s own productive work, so this kind of relationship is not widespread.

Often mentorships are organized  programs in upper levels of education.  The tendency in many Master’s level creative writing programs is for the instructor to essentially perform the duty of a mentor among a small hand-picked group. Mentors unlike instructors, can only work with a few individuals, making this kind of relationship in education elite and partial (Churchman 1984). This may also lead to marginalizing those individuals that differ from the instructor. The Iowa Writers Workshops were initially promoted as collaborative. But by members own account, the weight of  praise and criticism came from the instructor. These workshops were also know for being male dominated (Bishop) .

However, look into another field, such a s science,  and slightly differing models for the mentor appears.  Male science field students tended to choose mentors who had distinguished themselves in the field and rarely chose a female mentor. While the female seem to be split in their criteria, with some seeking professional expertise and others concerned with the interpersonal aspects of the relationship. The females often preferred a mentor who provided encouragement (Dowdall, 1979).

Those who reached the highest acknowledgement in the realm of science, the scientific Nobel laureates,  were familiar enough with their specific domain that they selected both the university and potential mentors  “doing work at the frontiers of the field” (Zuckerman’s 1977). They did not just receive knowledge from mentors but also a socialization into the culture science that helped the students discern what the scientific community viewed as important problems and sophisticated solutions.

It is that socialization, basically an introduction into the tastes and sensibilities of the domain, that seems to be the driving force for most creative individuals seeking mentors,  no matter what field.

Illustration “Calypso receiving Telemachus and Mentor in the Grotto” by William Hamilton – http://www.wengraf.com/wengraf/ham-cal.htm. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons -
Bishop, Wendy. “Teaching undergraduate creative writing: myths mentor and metaphors” Journal of Teaching Writing .pp 83-102
Churchman, Deborah. “Fertile Times for Creative Writing: More College Courses Every Year.” New York Times 8 Jan 1984: 42-43
Dowdall, Jean. 1978. “Mentors in Academe: the Perceptions of the Protege”, American Sociological Association Annual Meetings
Zuckerman,  Harriet. 1977. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States, New York, The Free Press
Posted in Creativity, Writer's resource | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wanted mentors: Dead or Alive

Old_Man_with_Water_StudiesIn the city of Florence Italy stands the cathedral Santa Maria del Fiore with a massive dome, a masterpiece in its day, built without centering supporting (wooden framework to hold up dome while mortar dried), it took centuries before anyone could build a larger one. The architect Filippo Brunelleschi was a goldsmith by trade. He learned his secrets of architecture by examining  the work of Roman builders who died centuries before him. In the sketch book of the more popularly know Leonardo da Vinci is the diagram of a unique machine for lifting heavy weights to great heights. He didn’t invent it; Brunelleschi did. However, da Vinci observed and recorded this machine in use after its real inventor died (King 2000).

Think about person who influenced you the most: stable and accepting, hard and demanding, fitting into society or rebelling against it. Or did they create amazing things? One of those generic writing prompts that students (and the people who grade the writing samples) hate the most is “Describe the most influential person in your life.” Students feel constrained to show this  imperfect  person in glowing terms, with interesting flaws omitted in favor of complimentary vagueness. Some try to explain how their goal in life has been to emulate a celebrity, but they only know notable accomplishments and not enough personal information to peak anyone’s interest. So the rule is typically: Do not attempt to write about someone you do not know personally.

However, give this assignment to students who show promise of great creativity and the results with be different. They will paint a vivid picture of the person that inspired them, warts and all. Or they will describe in detail the influence from the works of a person they have never met. According to Simonton (1984) eminent creative people are influences the most by associates working in the same field with them and secondly by paragons in their domain of creativity, whose life and work they follow without being personally acquainted.

Still creative people need living, breathing mentors – associates and patrons – to help steer them through the often discouraging  journey of producing original work.  The patronage of de’ Medici family assured Brunelleschi  of the resources necessary to keep working on the dome.  E.P. Torrance’s (1983) long term study following the life of students with higher creative scores on the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking,  found that having a mentor was significantly related to level adult creative achievement. This was particularly true of the females. You may not be surprised to find that even though female had higher creative scores, over half the female students had male mentors, while a very small percentage of the males had female mentors. Creative ability of the mentor was secondary to their knowledge of careers and business.

According to Torrance “Regardless of their own views, (they) encourage and support talented individuals in expressing and testing their ideas …. They protect individuals from the counter-reactions of their peers long enough to permit them to try out some of their ideas. They keep the structure of the situation open enough so that  can occur.” (Torrance 1995)

Drawing: Leonardo da Vinci c. 1513, public domain

King, Ross (2000). Brunelleschi’s Dome. Walker Publishing (Penguin Books in 2001)
Simonton, D.K. (1984) Popularity, Content and Context in 37 Shakespeare plays Poetics. 1986, Vol. 15, p 493 – 510.
Torrance, E.P. (1995) Why Fly?: A Philosophy of Creativity. New Jersey: Ablex
Posted in Creativity | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What kind of childhood?

Club_03_VorbereitungenAccording to a review of research on the childhood of exceptionally creative individuals  “The growth of creativity in a young person suggests the effects of powerful nurturing and support” (Piers 2000).  But what is suggested may not actually be occurring.  For psychologists, like Maslow, who see creativity resulting from an enriched environment, it  would make sense that very creative individuals have a caring and supportive situation in childhood. Only the records of these individuals and their own recollections indicate that creative genius often comes from a harsher, less than ideal environment.

By their own report many creative individuals recall stern, and almost cruel parenting in which acceptance was not unconditional, but based on performance. Their talent was often supported by another family member, usually the father. However many describes  their upbringing as “more correct than warm” (Gardner 1993). Often home experiences were reflected in the creative products  of actors and writers, and perhaps the conflicts in the home actual contributed to the ability to conjure dramatic scenes and poignant plots (Goertzel 1962). The difficulty with finding the correlation between a demanding home life and creativity is that most information on the childhood and adolescence period of creative individuals comes from a relatively small number of sources, not a large enough population for a quality sampling (Piers 2000).

A biographical study of over 500 renowned creative individuals uncovered another seemingly negative childhood experience.  “Orphanhood” seems to be a more frequent plight for them. The death of one or both parents during the individuals’ childhood was somewhere between two to three times more common than for the general population (Eisenstadt 1978). Illness also seemed to be a greater problem with approximately 25% of renown creative individuals suffering serious or chronic illness in their childhood years (Goertzel et al 1978).

However, we should not assume the these difficulties outweighed the advantages that were typically available to the exceptionally creative person as a youth. Prior to this century notable authors, artists, musicians, and renown scientists and theoretical mathematicians came almost exclusively from the middle and upper classes. It would have been difficult to make their mark of originality without the additional education and opportunity that disposable wealth could provide (Cox 1926).

So it seems the childhood of many prominent creative people had a larger dose of unpleasantness in it, but that stress may have been the impetus that drove them to concentrate so intently on their gift.

Illustration “Club 03 Vorbereitungen” by Christian Wilhelm Allers – Buch “Club Eintracht” von C.W. Allers. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons
Cox, C.M. (1926) The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses. Volume IIin Genetic Studies of Genius, edited by L.M. Terman. California: Stanford University
Eisenstadt, J.M. (1978) Parental Loss and Genius. American Psychologist. March 1978, p211 – 223.
Goertzel, V. and Goertzel, M.G. (1962) Cradles of Eminence. London: Constable.
Goertzel, M.G., Goertzel, V. and Goertzel, T.G. (1978) Three Hundred Eminent Personalities. San Francisco: Josey Bass.
Gardner, H. (1993) Creating Minds. New York: Basic Books.
Worth, Piers J. (2000). “Localised creativity: a life span perspective”. PhD thesis, The Open University.
Posted in Creativity | Tagged | Leave a comment

Beyond Self-Confidence

800px-2445_-_Milano_-_Università_statale_-_Adolfo_Wildt_(1868-1931)_-_Sant'Ambrogio_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall'Orto,_22-Feb--2008Now the more creativity is the mantra of business, the educational institutions have been informed that they need to encourage rather than quash creativity. The recurring theme of the difficulty in getting along with creative people has recurred.  So what exactly makes creative people unlikeable for some of the population? Recent research at the University of North Carolina (Silvia et al, 2011) pinpointed the offensive characteristic as arrogance.

Similar to much research conducted on larger populations, this one used college students who self-reported information on creative abilities and personality traits. A lot of the traits measured did not seem to matter. Creative people described themselves as both extroverted and introverted, emotional and rational, conscientious and unconcerned.  The agreeableness did not seem to have a bearing on creativity either, except for one aspect.

Highly creative students scored lower than average on the honesty-humility scale. They were not any more angry than the average person, but they were more arrogant.  According to the study “This finding is consistent with past work on arrogance, which is captured by the pretentiousness and immodesty defined by low honesty-humility.” Even though creative people can cooperate and are not overly hostile, their feeling of entitlement because of perceived ability irks others.

This characteristic is not the same as narcissism in which people rate themselves more highly in leadership and performance than others and responded with violent behaviors when their ego is threatened.  Arrogance is more of a type of social interaction than a consistently held internal  perception. It is manifested when in the company of others by exaggerating one’s own importance and being critical of others.  The person who shows arrogance  may actually have a lower than average self-esteem.

However, arrogance in creative individuals tend to be countered by a greater openness to experience, which correlates to a willingness to accept other ideas -but not all of them.  In this case there is a feeling of superior judgment, not defending own ideas as much as one’s own judgment.  Creative people can sympathize and compromise with others, but they still believe that they know better.

Sant’Ambrogio, sculpture by Adolfo Wildt (1868-1931) – Photograph by Giovanni Dall’Orto
P.J. Silvia., J. C. Kaufman, R. Reiter-Palmonc, B. Wigert, B. Cantankerous creativity: Honesty–Humility, Agreeableness, and the HEXACO structure of creative achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 51, Issue 5, October 2011, Pp 687–689
Posted in Creativity | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Longer or shorter life?

grimm's grave wRecently while reading articles about research on creativity I found contradictory conclusions. That  is not terribly uncommon when it come to creativity research. However, these sets of findings are interesting because it adds fame to the mix. Fame is something the individual does not necessarily control. Granted there are some creative people who purposely hide their works (such as Emily Dickenson) and others who spend more time flaunting their work than creating it (like Salvador Dali). However, one cannot discount the impact that notice from the surrounding society has on a creative person’s life.

The most publicized of these studies, by C. R. Epstein and R. J. Epstein, was published in QJM: An International Journal of Medicine.  Despite being from Australia, the researchers decided to use the New York Times as the gauge of fame.  Under the assumption that anybody with an obituary in the New York Times had obtained some degree of fame in their field, they examined the age at death and occupation of these people so see if there was a correlation between types of careers and lifespan.

Who dies the youngest? It was no surprise to see creative performers such as musicians and actors at the top of this list. In fact what shocked me was that the median age at death of years for this group was as old as 77.1 years. The notoriety of dying  young  in mid-career is more easily recalled because actors and musicians typically stop performing long before they reach their seventies.  I tend to forget about these older performers and am mildly surprised to find they were still alive a few days ago, when I hear of their death.

Not far behind this group are athletes (77.4 years),  and then people that worked in creative fields such as artists, writers and composers (78.5 years). But to put this whole study in perspective you need to realize most of the obituaries in the New York Times were for men, and the average  life expectancy for a male in America  is 75.6 years. The individuals in this population were not just well known in their fields, they were wealthier and with wealth comes another set of parameters for longevity.  However the women in this study died at an average of 78.8 years, younger than female average of 80.8, but most of them were performers and athletes.[1]

The next study shows how longevity seems to increase chances for fame in the very group whose life is most shortened by it – the actors and actresses. The life span of all those ever nominated for an Academy Award in a leading or supporting role were compared to life span of those in the acting in the same movies, and born in the same eras who never achieved this distinction.  In total, the life span of 1649 performers were analyzed to show that Academy Award winners lived 3.9 years longer than the other actors and actresses.  Still both groups, the award winners at 79.7 years, and the others at vs. 75.8 years were in the range of average life spans. In this case better health that led to increased longevity may have been the cause rather than result of increased fame, because it allowed the performers to have longer careers and participate in more films. [2]

However, when the lifespan of screenwriters was examined, the reverse was true. Academy Award winning screen writers lived 3.6 years less than less famous screen writers (74.1 versus  77.7 years).  But you may have noticed something else was reversed. These statistics, based on fame in California instead of recognition in New York, show the performers living longer than those working in the creative field, the screen writers.[3]

So there is really no conclusion to be drawn on how creative careers affects longevity, or how fame affects it either. But as I look at these studies, I find the typical fate of these populations seems much better than those few performers whose names are splashed across the media because their careers ended foolishly in midstream.

[1]Epstein, C.R. and Epstein, R.J. (2013), Death in The New York Times: the price of fame is a faster flame. QJM (2013) 106 (6): 517-521
[2] Redelmeier D.A. and Singh S.M.(2001) Survival in Academy Award-winning actors and actresses. Annual of Internal Medicine. 2001 May 15;134(10):955-62.
[3] Redelmeier D.A. and Singh S.M.(2001) Longevity of screenwriters who win an academy award: longitudinal study. BMJ. 2001 Dec 22-29;323(7327):1491-6.
Posted in Creativity | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The relationship between age and creativity

aged023All the buzz around declining creativity deals with this factor as measured by tests. These tests typically take less than an hour and scores are based on lists of ideas or little snippets of work.

When creativity is measured by the actual value of real products different trends appear. Comparing creative products to determine which are more innovative and original is much harder. The very act of creativity means producing results that don’t resemble those produced by others. There is no score based on number of answers or amount of elaboration. Instead a group of people, respected in the particular field, must all view and judge the entire body of work from the sample in order to rank individual works. This kind of assessment is not easy to perform with a huge sample.

For example, in a recent joint study by Harvard and University of Washington (Davis and Weinstein, 2013) the researchers compared samples of visual art and creative writing by teenagers published between 1990 and 2011 to determine if creativity was increasing or decreasing.  Their conclusion was improvement existed in visual work, which showed greater sophistication and complexity, and a decline in the writing, which became simpler and more mundane. Davis concluded that “there are markers of creativity — like complexity and risk-taking and breaking away from the standard mold — that appear to have changed.” However, only fifty examples of writing were reviewed.[1]

Judging by actual products also changes the findings of creativity based on age. Children are not known for producing masterpieces of art, literature or music. But neither are elderly people. Lehman, (1962) found creative scientific achievement, as well as that in the arts was a bell curve with a single-peak as a function of age.[2]

Simonton’s study of the lives of creative geniuses led him to conclude that poets and mathematicians tend to peak the earliest of the disciplines in producing creative work.  Anyone who had studied English literature may recall that the many of the romantic period poets didn’t live past their thirties. There are exceptions to this trend for poets of course, such as  Robert Frost whose most well known work were written in his late forties and after.  Yet each of these had a time when their creative production rose fairly rapidly and then declined until their death. Novelists, philosophers and biologists seem to peak later and decline more slowly. This difference may be a result of the complexity of the product and ambiguity of their fields.[3]

Just as there is no single factor contributing to the creativity of individuals, there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to age and creativity. There are just trends that may not always hold true, because as all creative people know, rules are meant to be broken.

[1]Kelley, P. A decline in creativity? It depends on how you look, University of Washington News and Information, November 14, 2013
[2] Lehman, H. C. (1962). More about age and achievement. Gerontologist, 2, 141-148.
[3] Lehrer, J. ” Old Writers,” The Frontal Cortex, Posted on June 15, 2010
Posted in Creativity | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment