
Great piece in Psychology Today about the creative personality (hat tip to Hugh MacLeod). I you work with highly creative people – or are one yourself, – then you owe it to yourself to read this. It’ll explain a lot.
Clarification: Creative, is not artistic :
Most of us assume that artists–musicians, writers, poets, painters–are [creative], whereas scientists, politicians, and businesspeople are realists. This may be true in terms of day-to-day routine activities. But when a person begins to work creatively, all bets are off.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s intro:
I have devoted 30 years of research to how creative people live and work, to make more understandable the mysterious process by which they come up with new ideas and new things. Creative individuals are remarkable for their ability to adapt to almost any situation and to make do with whatever is at hand to reach their goals. If I had to express in one word what makes their personalities different from others, it’s complexity. They show tendencies of thought and action that in most people are segregated. They contain contradictory extremes; instead of being an “individual,” each of them is a “multitude.”
One of ten specific examples Mihaly covers is the question of intelligence and creativity:
Creative people tend to be smart yet naive at the same time. How smart they actually are is open to question. It is probably true that what psychologists call the “g factor,” meaning a core of general intelligence, is high among people who make important creative contributions.
The earliest longitudinal study of superior mental abilities, initiated at Stanford University by the psychologist Lewis Terman in 1921, shows rather conclusively that children with very high IQs do well in life, but after a certain point IQ does not seem to be correlated any longer with superior performance in real life. Later studies suggest that the cutoff point is around 120; it might be difficult to do creative work with a lower IQ, but an IQ beyond 120 does not necessarily imply higher creativity
Another way of expressing this dialectic is the contrasting poles of wisdom and childishness. As Howard Gardner remarked in his study of the major creative geniuses of this century, a certain immaturity, both emotional and mental, can go hand in hand with deepest insights. Mozart comes immediately to mind.
Furthermore, people who bring about an acceptable novelty in a domain seem able to use well two opposite ways of thinking: the convergent and the divergent. Convergent thinking is measured by IQ tests, and it involves solving well-defined, rational problems that have one correct answer. Divergent thinking leads to no agreed-upon solution. It involves fluency, or the ability to generate a great quantity of ideas; flexibility, or the ability to switch from one perspective to another; and originality in picking unusual associations of ideas. These are the dimensions of thinking that most creativity tests measure and that most workshops try to enhance. (…)
[Yet] divergent thinking is not much use without the ability to tell a good idea from a bad one, and this selectivity involves convergent thinking.
Other points of note:
Despite the carefree air that many creative people affect, most of them work late into the night and persist when less driven individuals would not.
Creative people have a great deal of physical energy, but they’re also often quiet and at rest. They work long hours, with great concentration, while projecting an aura of freshness and enthusiasm. They control their energy; it’s not ruled by the calendar, the dock, an external schedule. When necessary, they can focus it like a laser beam; when not, creative types immediately recharge their batteries. They consider the rhythm of activity followed by idleness or reflection very important for the success of their work. This is not a bio-rhythm inherited with their genes; it was learned by trial and error as a strategy for achieving their goals.
Creative people combine playfulness and discipline, or responsibility and irresponsibility. There is no question that a playfully light attitude is typical of creative individuals. But this playfulness doesn’t go very far without its antithesis, a quality of doggedness, endurance, perseverance.
Creative people trend to be both extroverted and introverted [while the rest] are usually one or the other. In current psychological research, extroversion and introversion are considered the most stable personality traits that differentiate people from each other and that can be reliably measured. Creative individuals, on the other hand, seem to exhibit both traits simultaneously.
Creative people’s openness and sensitivity often exposes them to suffering and pain, yet also to a great deal of enjoyment. Most would agree with Rabinow’s words: “Inventors have a low threshold of pain. Things bother them.” A badly designed machine causes pain to an inventive engineer, just as the creative writer is hurt when reading bad prose.
Being alone at the forefront of a discipline also leaves you exposed and vulnerable. Eminence invites criticism and often vicious attacks. When an artist has invested years in making a sculpture, or a scientist in developing a theory, it is devastating if nobody cares.
Deep interest and involvement in obscure subjects often goes unrewarded, or even brings on ridicule. Divergent thinking is often perceived as deviant by the majority, and so the creative person may feel isolated and misunderstood.
Perhaps the most important quality, the one that is most consistently present in all creative individuals, is the ability to enjoy the process of creation for its own sake. Without this trait, poets would give up striving for perfection and would write commercial jingles, economists would work for banks where they would earn at least twice as much as they do at universities, and physicists would stop doing basic research and join industrial laboratories where the conditions are better and the expectations more predictable.
Go here to read the whole thing.
Have a great Friday everyone.

















Wow….wow…wow!
Thanks for the article summary and for pointing out what you see as highlights.
I heard Csikszentmihalyi speak at Iowa State University a few years ago and he was awesome.
Thanks again.
Keep creating…a brand worth raving about,
Mike
You’re lucky. It’s amazing to me, looking back, how valuable this kind of insight could have been for people of my generation or yours sometime between high school and college/grad school.
I always knew I was creative, but back then, no one ever connected the dots the way Mihaly does, linking IQ, divergent and convergent thinking, meshed extroversion and introversion and other personality factors into the profiling of creatives. This kind of context could have helped many of us understand that there didn’t need to be a choice between “creative” disciplines (graphic design, music, art, etc.) and “non-creative” disciplines (management, law, accounting, etc.).
I remember taking personality tests in college and trying to reconcyle the fact that I was insanely analytical (with the kind of deductive reasoning scores that would make Sherlock Holmes tremble with envy) but also wildly creative and imaginative. The two didn’t seem to gel. I went into Marketing because it seems to blend these two opposites pretty well, but it was a complete accident. No career counselor I ever spoke with knew what to do with someone like me. I was either destined to be an unhappy lawyer or a bored copywriter. Mihaly’s insights would have shed a lot of light on my dilemma: How to choose a path that would best employ my seemingly contrary skillsets and interests.
It still takes someone like him to come along and state these otherwise obvious facts (creativity can – and should – exist everywhere, not just in traditionally creative roles) to make us realize that there is tremendous value (magic, even) in having a highly creative CEO, manufacturing engineer, attorney, combat commander or system analyst.
It’s almost as if his research finally legitimizes creativity in the business world (as opposed to perpetuating the marginalization of “creative types” outside of the Marketing department). He is a brilliant, brilliant man. More people (business execs and HR managers) need to be exposed to his findings.
Thanks for the comment.
“no one ever connected the dots” — that’s my experience too!
And like you, “no career counselor I ever spoke with knew what to do with someone like me.” I didn’t know what to do with someone like me!
I went into history and ancient language studies because it seemed like a world full of dots waiting to be connected in a creative way.
Good to “connect” with you Olivier, as always.
Keep creating…no matter what,
Mike