The Creative Personality
Having dismissed the notion that creativity is an attribute of an individual, he now addresses that concept directly: a person may have original or unusual ideas, but they are only "creative" if they create a change in the culture. So while a person is not creative as an innate quality, they may be creative in the sense that they are capable of the act of creation.
To be creative, a person must internalize the entire system that makes creativity possible. They are remarkable for their ability to think in an unconventional manner while, at the same time, adapting to the environment in a way that enables them to bring their ideas to fruition in practical application.
Here, he balks a bit, suggesting that "there does not seem to be a particular set of traits" that a person must have to produce a "valuable novelty." He backs this with a quote from an interviewee, who is a successful innovator and associates with others, and who indicates there is "no consistency in style and approach, personality, and so forth. There is not a consistent norm with regard to anything except [their] performance."
There may in some areas be a genetic predisposition that allows people to excel. One cannot be a masterful musician without an acute sense of hearing - Beethoven's deafness is a common rebuttal, but he did not begin to loose his hearing until the last decade of his life. A person whose vision is highly acute stands a better chance of becoming a great painter than one who has difficulty differentiating between close hues.
It is not that genetic predisposition guarantees success, nor that it is impossible to succeed without a genetic advantage -but it does affect probability. The reason we are so impressed by a blind sculptor is that it is highly unusual. It is harder, though not impossible, for a person to excel in spite of handicaps - and people in general seek the path of least resistance and tend to gravitate toward professions to which they are biologically well suited.
It would then be more accurate to suggest that the innovative spirit is rooted in curiosity and determination. A person who accepts and follows is not inclined to think in an unusual manner, and one who is not determined will quickly fall back to standard practices and desist attempting to discover anything that is not already known and accepted.
To step back to the level of a system: determination will only carry a person so far. If they exist in a culture or environment in which new ideas are discouraged or punished, then their potential to be creative will never be realized, and they will be pressured to conform. (EN: Which explains why creative individuals are heroes in some cultures and pariahs in others -it has less to do with the person than the system.)
Determination is particularly important in domains where there already exists a great deal of knowledge. Where little is known it requires little effort to suggest something new - but where there is a great deal of knowledge and most of the problems have already been solved, it may take a great deal of effort over a long period of time to produce something that is new and valuable.
A person also benefits from access to a domain. While it is common to regard creativity as a genetic quality because children follow a parent or grandparent, it is not entirely because of the inherited biological qualities, but because they were immersed from an early age in a domain of knowledge. A man who takes to a profession in his mid-twenties will have a child who has been exposed to it since birth, and whose fundamental patterns of thinking were formed in context. The child was not "born" to be a musician, but even in his early childhood was exposed to music because it was the profession of his father, grandfather, or uncle. It is in his history, not necessarily his blood.
Again, this should not be taken to the extreme of suggestion a person must be born into a "musical family" in order to be a musician. It may be a talent he acquired later in life - though in that case he must work much harder to gain the knowledge, and to overcome ways of thinking that are borrowed from other domains.
Access to the field is also very important- because it is not enough to have an innovative idea, it must be communicated to and accepted by those who guard the canon of knowledge and practice. A person who is known and appreciated by the relevant people has a much easier time gaining acceptance of their ideas.
To concretize this: the young student of a leading surgeon is given a kind of instant credibility by the profession because of his association to the teacher. The teacher, being a member of the field, can champion his ideas - but even if he does nothing to promote his protegee, those who know of the connection assume a tacit endorsement of the student's work. An unknown person, even with greater knowledge and experience, will have a harder time gaining acceptance.
Access to many fields is severely restricted, and the person who does not have a sponsor who will endorse and introduce them has a great deal of difficulty even getting attention for their ideas. Moreover, many fields act as gatekeepers who defend the domain, and are hostile to anyone who seeks to change the way of thinking. They are not willing to invest time in considering new ideas, especially when the source is an unknown person.
Ten Dimensions of Complexity
The author concedes that what he has written so far is vague and general, and necessarily so. The reader who is eager to learn about the specific qualities of the "tortured souls, impossible dreams, and the agony and ecstasy of creation" is likely going to be disappointed - simply because there is no simply checklist of the qualities of a creative person.
Because a person must be creative within a system, the qualities that facilitate creation are derived from that system - so there are no universal and timeless qualities of a creative person, only those that are germane to their environment and culture. The set of qualities that are successful in one place and time will not be successful in another.
So instead, he will describe creativity in terms of the "dimensions of complexity" that must be addressed by a person who aspires to create, in whatever environment, and must be appropriately resolved. People with certain traits will be more likely to resolve the complexities in certain situations - and again, there are no universal qualities.
It is the complexity of character, rather than its conformity to a set of standard qualities, that enables a person to be capable of the act of creation - to have an idea and to deliver it to the field requires a resolution of dilemmas that must first occur internally, then externally.
Here, he defers to Carl Jung, who defined a "mature personality" as one that can adapt to the circumstances in which he finds himself. To be dominant or submissive, spontaneous or methodical, and so on based on what is required of him in any given instance.
In that sense the quality of character that a person needs to succeed at being creative is adaptability - to personify different qualities at different times in response to the environment. So being creative requires different characteristics in different situations - which prohibits the definition of a finite set of universal and timeless qualities.
1: Physical Energy
Creative people display a high level of physical energy - not in the sense of athleticism, but in terms of vigor. That is to say that they are driven, and although what drives them is largely an intangible mental phenomenon, their passion for their ideas enables them to overcome physical limitations.
This is particularly evident in creative people who are in their seventies and eighties, who do seem to have great stamina. He remarks that some creative people are seen to work two to four times harder than others half their age. Driven by their minds, they do not allow their bodies to become a distraction.
He also mentions the sexual energy of creative people, which seems paradoxical. They seem to have "quite a strong dose of eros" bur often demonstrate "a certain Spartan celibacy" when in pursuit of their intellectual goals.
2: Intellectual Curiosity
Creative people tend to be remarkably smart, but at the same time a level of curiosity and that seems naive at times. This is highly useful, in that their intelligence enables them to analyze and deuce, whereas their naivety prevents them from becoming mired in existing models.
He suggest that we should not take seriously the lists of IQ scores printed in many psychology textbooks that suggest the intelligence of historical figures - they are often quite exaggerated. It is also noted that many people who score well on standardized tests are dreadfully mundane thinkers.
He suggest that creativity exists below the level of genius. Some level of intelligence is necessary for creative thought, but too much intelligence tends to make people complacent and secure in their mental superiority: they leap to conclusions, defend their first idea, and do not have the curiosity or patience to look further.
(EN: This strikes me as generalization that fails to consider that the ability to understand and the curiosity to investigate are two entirely different qualities of character. Intelligence does not necessarily lead to disdain, though I would agree with the speculation that the two are correlated to some degree.)
In particular, he considers it important for creative to have intellectual divergence. The convergent intellect seeks to unit all things into a single system and maintain that there can only be one correct answer to any problem. The divergent intellect is able to consider multiple perspectives, follow multiple solutions, and recognize that there are many different definitions of the "best" outcome.
He refers obliquely to the steps the problem-solving process. Mundane people stop considering options when they arrive at the first plausible idea. Creative people generate many options to give them multiple alternatives before they begin the process of choosing which option to pursue.
He elaborates on the shortcomings of the former approach, but they are largely self-evident.
3: Discipline and Playfulness
Another paradoxical pair of traits relates to the discipline which creative individuals show in developing a consistent idea, but they playfulness they show in considering alternatives. Exploring ideas is a combination of mulling over various possibilities, even ones that may seem a bit silly, before eventually settling in on a smaller number of approaches, sometimes a single one, and pursuing it doggedly.
Playfulness is taken to far by many individuals who are constantly coming up with half-baked ideas but cannot subject them to much analysis. Discipline is taken too far by individuals who tend to "lock in" quickly on a single idea and ignore all alternatives. The two must exist in balance.
He provides an extended quote from a sculptor, who relates that other people tend to find her quite a bore. They are fascinated by the phase in which she is generating ideas for things she might sculpt, but thoroughly bored by the detail of how sculpture is actually done. And as it turns out, the majority of her time is spent sculpting to develop or realize an idea - which is about as interesting as masonry, because it's doing the tedious and mundane work necessary to create something physical out of a vision.
Doing the creative work requires focus, and alternative ideas become a distraction. One may speculate that there are many great ideas that are aborted because their creator came up with a different idea while he was attempting to develop them, and either diverted or abandoned the project in order to chase after the latest idea.
He goes back to the characteristic of physical energy: creative people work long hours, late into the night, in order to develop an idea that has occurred to them - often because they feel in a rush to get it done before they are distracted by something else.
4: Fantasy and Reality
Another paradox for creative thinkers is finding the right balance between fantasy and reality. An idea that is too far into the realm of fantasy is impractical and can never be achieved, but one that is too rooted in reality is mundane and uninspired. There is a sweet spot where an idea is revolutionary but not impossible to achieve.
He mentions the Rorschach tests in which people are asked to describe the shapes they see in ink blots. A person who exists too much in the mundane will go for the most obvious answer, but a person who leans too far to the fantastic may give an answer inspired by the shape they see, but has nothing to do with it at all. The author considers such responses to be bizarre rather than creative - producing a novelty that is not rooted in reality.
This kind of creativity is universal. Most of us may think of politicians, businesspeople, and physicists as being deeply rooted in reality, whereas artists and musicians are of in a world of pure fantasy - but neither is true. Thinking creativity in any field requires a departure from mundane reality, but not to the degree that the ideas become completely detached and unrecognizable.
"I don't think there is such a thing as reality," says a creative businessman. Reality is simply means of perception that is agreed upon by two or more people. Each person has their own perception of reality, which is unique to them and which is probably not real at all - such that "reality" is merely an area of overlap.
When presenting an idea to another person, they will only accept it if it is grounded in their reality - and this is equally true of the fields which govern creative domains. That is, they are attracted to ideas that a slightly removed from the reality they already accept, as they can work to convince others of the portion of that idea that is shockingly different. But when an idea is completely bizarre, they have a hard time accepting it themselves, and do not know how they will promote the idea to anyone else.
He uses the phrase "evolutionary success" - because "revolutionary" requires others to completely abandon their comfortable sense of current reality in order to embrace the new vision. People are loath to do that. But if they are presented with an idea that is mostly within their comfort zone, they can easier accept the minor adjustments necessary to embrace those elements that are novel.
5: Extraversion and Introversion
People tend to prefer either being in the thick of the crowd or observing from the periphery. In current psychological research, extraversion and introversion are among the most stable personality traits, which are consistent in individuals over time.
The stereotype of the "solitary genius" is strongly associated to creativity. After all, a person must remove himself from the chaos of the crowd to find a quiet place to write, paint, or do experiments in a laboratory.
But the creative individual is also seen to be highly sociable, and needs to interact with others to share and develop ideas. One interviewee describes science as "a very gregarious business" and suggests "it is only by interacting with people that you get anything done."
A few other interviewees speak of achieving a balance. It is certainly necessary to withdraw from the crowd to work on an idea - but in many ways the ideas come from interacting with others and, ultimately, require the acceptance of others to get the idea off of the drawing board and into reality.
6: Humility and Pride
MC observes that it is not unusual "to meet a famous person whom you expect to be arrogant ... only to encounter self-deprecation and shyness instead." Many people who are renowned or celebrated for great accomplishments have the sense that they didn't do anything particularly monumental, and feel a bit awkward about their celebrity status.
Especially when it comes to innovators, they are aware that the work that they did is a contribution to a domain in which they inherited most of the knowledge from others - "standing on the shoulders of giants." They are also aware that luck plays its part - they happened to be the person who noticed something that someone else would probably have discovered, and just happened to be the first one to be recognized for making a connection.
Moreover, those who are immersed in their work seldom feel that it is finished and that they can rest on their laurels. Their minds are on the next thing they want to do, not something they did months or years ago. To them, it is part of the past, less important than the future, and they are not backward-looking people. If anything, what they have done has set other peoples' expectations of them impossibly high.
At the same time, being recognized for achievements does tend to go to a person's head, and some become believers in the legends that others tell about them. It can be excessive, but even when it is not, they are aware that they have proven themselves and are often more self-assured. It is not that every idea they have will become legend, but having done it once they feel capable of doing it again.
Finally, remember that "creativity" means creating change - and one does not create change without being very assertive. There are likely very many people who have ideas that have the potential to be creative, but are not creative because they do not pursue them aggressively or champion them to others. To "sell" ones own ideas requires some level of arrogance.
7: Masculinity and Femininity
Political correctness aside, there are certain character traits that are commonly identified as masculine or feminine. By an large, creative individuals maintain this balance. He mentions that when tests of masculinity/femininity are given to young people, it is commonly found that the more creative and talented girls are more dominant and tough than other girls and creative and talented boys are more sensitive and less aggressive than other boys.
This sort of "mental androgyny" is necessary to escape the stereotypical roles and keeps personality traits in balance. A balanced individual is more observant and adaptable than one who conforms to a predefined role, which is likely the reason that creative and talented people must have the strengths of both genders.
He speaks of the people he interviewed, but admits he did not administer any sort of gender bias test, but makes a few personal observations regarding the balance of their nature in terms of traditional gender roles.
8: Traditionalism and Rebellion
Creative people are often regarded as rebellious. The very nature of creativity is in departure from tradition. However, to be able to succeed at getting others to adopt a new idea, a creative person must have a thorough knowledge of tradition. Therefore there is a balance between being conservative and iconoclastic.
Those choices that are simply "different" are not necessarily creative if they are rejected by a culture, and departure from tradition must be a calculated risk.
9: Subjective and Objective
The creative person must have the passion to follow his own ideas, and to put great effort into his creation simply because he feels strongly about it. This is balanced against the dispassion necessary to assess these ideas with an objective eye, recognizing what others might think. To adapt a wild idea into something that might possibly be adopted requires "detaching oneself from the work."
10: Pain and Pleasure
The suffering of creative is easy to understand: they are sensitive to things that others are not, and it is very often the discomfort they feel with situations that others endure is what causes them to notice an opportunity for improvement. There is also some sense of the pain of isolation - being the only one who notices something, feeling misunderstood, and wondering if there is something "wrong" with oneself for feeling this way.
There has been, since the Romantic era, the sense of the "suffering artist" who is afflicted - and the belief this affliction is what grants him his creative power. There is also the sense of isolation and alienation of a creative mind from the rest of society. We expect creative people to be depressed and manic, and find that self-destructive behaviors such as alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, and suicide are common among creative types. And we recognize that artists' work is often rejected or ridiculed by the mainstream. To be creative is to be misunderstood.
On the other hand, the creative type has greater capacity to feel pleasure from their work - whether this is an obsessive immersion in the creative process or a cathartic relief that occurs after an act of creation. They are able, and even eager, to spend long periods of time in activities that other people find tedious and unbearable because of the pleasure they are able to experience from it.