Showing papers by "Dean Keith Simonton published in 2014"

More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators.

Abstract: 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 indepe

The Mad-Genius Paradox: Can Creative People Be More Mentally Healthy But Highly Creative People More Mentally Ill?

Abstract: The persistent mad-genius controversy concerns whether creativity and psychopathology are positively or negatively correlated. Remarkably, the answer can be "both"! The debate has unfortunately overlooked the fact that the creativity-psychopathology correlation can be expressed as two independent propositions: (a) Among all creative individuals, the most creative are at higher risk for mental illness than are the less creative and (b) among all people, creative individuals exhibit better mental health than do noncreative individuals. In both propositions, creativity is defined by the production of one or more creative products that contribute to an established domain of achievement. Yet when the typical cross-sectional distribution of creative productivity is taken into account, these two statements can both be true. This potential compatibility is here christened the mad-genius paradox. This paradox can follow logically from the assumption that the distribution of creative productivity is approximated by an inverse power function called Lotka's law. Even if psychopathology is specified to correlate positively with creative productivity, creators as a whole can still display appreciably less psychopathology than do people in the general population because the creative geniuses who are most at risk represent an extremely tiny proportion of those contributing to the domain. The hypothesized paradox has important scientific ramifications.

Can creative productivity be both positively and negatively correlated with psychopathology? Yes!

Abstract: Empirical research on the hypothesized relation between creativity and psychopathology must take care to frame the question very carefully. If a person's creativity is defined by the output of creative products, then the empirical association can be either positive or negative, depending on how that association is specified. On the one hand, individuals who make at least one creative contribution to a domain may exhibit lower risk of psychopathology than those who never do. On the other hand, among those individuals who contribute one or more creative products, those who contribute the most creative products may have higher risk of psychopathology than those who contribute the fewest creative products. These two hypotheses can both be empirically confirmed because the cross-sectional distribution of creative output is described by a highly skewed inverse power function known as Lotka's Law (Lotka, 1926). That is, the number of individuals producing n creative products is proportional to 1/n2 (Egghe, 2005). Given this skewed distribution, the risk rate can easily increase as a linear function of creative productivity even though the overall risk rate is strikingly lower than in the general population. To illustrate, suppose that the following Lotka function holds for a particular creative domain: f(n) = 100/n2. Then the lowest creative output is 1 and the highest 10. Let us also assume that the risk of some psychopathology increases as a positive linear function of n. In particular, we might specify the risk as R(n) = −0.100 + 0.100*n. According to this hypothesized function, the risk increases from R(1) = 0, for the lowest level of creative output, to R(10) = 0.90, for the highest level of creative output. It follows from the cross-sectional distribution that (a) nearly two-thirds (i.e., about 65%) will have zero risk of psychopathology and (b) the average risk for all individuals contributing one or more creative products is only 0.09 (or 9%). The latter figure is not only one tenth of the risk hypothesized for the most prolific creator, but also presumably noticeably smaller than would likely hold in the population of individuals who made no creative contributions to a domain. For instance, it might hold that R(0) = 0.46 (based on Kessler et al., 2005), a figure fivefold higher. This treatment can be generalized beyond this specific illustration. Whenever R(1) << R(0), that is, the risk rate is much lower among the one-hit creative individuals, then it would still be possible to have R(n) increase with increases in creative productivity n. This increase does not even have to be linear, for a positive monotonic relation will have the same effect, yielding the inequalities R(1) < R(2) < R(3) < … R(n − 1) < R(n). In fact, the creativity-psychopathology relation in the literary and visual arts may be accurately described in this manner, and even the function for philosophers is very close to positive monotonic (Simonton, 2014b). Consequently, researchers can find both positive and negative associations depending on which part of the distribution is actually sampled in their investigation. For example, creative geniuses can be more at risk than are their far less prolific or innovative colleagues. This expectation would explain the higher rates of psychopathology often found in historiometric research (Simonton, 2014a). In contrast, psychometric studies will more likely sample much less eminent creators who enjoy higher mental health, creating an apparent contradiction when none exists. Naturally, it is reasonable to ask why this paradoxical finding might actually appear. Possible explanations fall into two categories. First, the cognitive and personality antecedents of genius-level creativity may put the individual at increased risk for psychopathological symptoms. For instance, higher creativity may require greater cognitive disinhibition, an inclination also associated with tendencies toward psychopathology (Carson, 2014). Second, a highly prolific and creative career may have consequences that can threaten mental health, such as increased criticism and even hostility in the reception of those products. It may be no accident that positive creativity-psychopathology relationships have most often been found in low-consensus domains where immediate appreciation by colleagues or audiences is by no means guaranteed, such as the expressive arts (Simonton, 2014b). The struggling and neglected artist is proverbial. Ultimately, these possible outcomes and potential interpretations must be addressed by empirical research, but that research must have a more complex understanding of the questions asked.

Creative Genius in Literature, Music, and the Visual Arts

Abstract: This chapter examines creative genius in the three most prominent domains of artistic achievement: literature, music, and the visual arts. Treatment begins with the definition of artistic genius in terms of achieved eminence, with special attention to the measurement issues (i.e. magnitude of consensus and degree of temporal stability). From there discussion turns to the personal attributes of eminent artistic creators in the three domains, with an emphasis on how writers, composers, and artists differ from each other as well as from eminent scientific creators. The next issue concerns the developmental factors involved in the emergence and manifestation of artistic genius. These factors include both early developmental antecedents and adulthood career trajectories (especially the location of career peaks). The final topic pertains to the sociocultural contexts underlying outstanding artistic achievement. These contexts include both internal factors, such as artistic styles, as well as external factors, such as the political and economic milieu.

The Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders: Quantitative Multiple-Case Assessments

Abstract: A fundamental principle of political psychology is that psychology matters in the understanding of politics. Because both psychology and politics represent complex phenomena, with many manifestations, this tenet can adopt many different specific forms. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this chapter, two points stand out. First, an important subdiscipline of psychology deals with the personal characteristics of people. This subdiscipline is most commonly referred to as differential psychology, that is, the study of individual differences (Chamorro-Premuzic, Stumm, & Furnham, 2011). Second, a critical feature of politics is its leaders—the phenomenon of political leadership. Especially important are heads of state, whether presidents, prime ministers, monarchs, or dictators (Ludwig, 2002). These persons are reputed to have an exceptional influence, for good or ill, on their political system, whether democracy, autocracy, or oligarchy. Because political leaders remain persons, despite their exalted status in society, they too can vary in their personal characteristics. Furthermore, this variation can have consequences for their leadership, such as their ideology, decision making, or performance (Simonton, 1995). Hence, a central research topic must necessarily include the differential psychology of political leadership—the study of the personal characteristics of political leaders.