R
Robert J. Sternberg
Researcher at Cornell University
Publications - 1102
Citations - 93470
Robert J. Sternberg is an academic researcher from Cornell University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Creativity & Human intelligence. The author has an hindex of 149, co-authored 1066 publications receiving 89193 citations. Previous affiliations of Robert J. Sternberg include Ohio State University & University of Amsterdam.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
The Danger of Contempt in Universities and in Modern Society
TL;DR: The authors argue that college campuses are increasingly becoming tolerant of expressions of contempt rather than of respect for diversity of opinions and they need to take an active role in teaching students the danger of contempt because of its role in the development and encouragement of hate.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Road to Writing a Textbook
Robert J. Sternberg,Nicky Hayes +1 more
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the steps authors need to take in preparing to write a textbook and take the reader through the process of writing a textbook, which is close to a unique experience in the work of a psychologist.
Book ChapterDOI
Intelligence (as Related to Creativity)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on intelligence theories that include creativity, such as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) and Sternberg's theory of successful intelligence.
Journal ArticleDOI
Why the tall-poppy syndrome is becoming worse in the creative professions / Razones por las que el síndrome de la amapola alta es cada vez más acentuado en las profesiones creativas
TL;DR: The tall-poppy syndrome (TPS) is a pattern of behaviour whereby people who excel in some respect are cut down to size by those around them as discussed by the authors, and people are often uncomfortable with those who excel and t...
Journal ArticleDOI
Crimes of the Smart: A Reply to Humphreys and Larson.
TL;DR: The authors argue that Humphrey's statistical arguments are incorrect and not supported even by the formula he presents, whereas the test we performed was appropriate for the substantive question we asked, and they also argue that nothing Larson says about substantive interpretations of our data is inconsistent with what we have said.