- *phil*osophies
- Posts
- What the most creative people have in common
What the most creative people have in common
wisdom from a legendary psychologist
630
Read time: 3 mins
In the mid-1990’s, a legendary psychologist studied 91 of the 20th century’s most creative people. These were individuals who helped usher in massive changes or improvements into our culture.
In this post, I’ll share their key commonality and how you can be more like them.
Key Commonality
Across 10 key dimensions, these individuals were more able to swing back-and-forth between extremes, enabling them to interact with the world in a richer and more complex way.
For the most creative people, both “poles” of a dimension were present and fully integrated.
Let’s take a brief pit stop at each of the 10 “poles” / dimensions.
1. Energy & Rest
High energy is needed to concentrate with a fresh mind and these individuals had it in abundance. More of it as they aged, even.
(Also, that energy tended to be under their control, not from an external calendar or clock.) #goalz
Those energy bursts were typically followed by lots of idleness & reflection, more than what we’d likely consider “normal”.
2. Smart & Naive
They certainly possessed strong intelligence, enabling (1) lots of ideas and (2) quality judgment and selectivity of those ideas.
They also possessed a naivete, which sparked questions and doubt, enabling them to improve existing knowledge.
3. Discipline & Play
Discipline provided them the endurance to preserver and overcome obstacles.
They still possessed a playful aura, though; enabling them to keep it light-hearted and to kick ideas around freely.
4. Reality & Fantasy
They tended to stay grounded and alert to what's going on in reality.
At the same time, they were able to consistently do what our brains are uniquely equipped to do: imagine a different future reality.
5. Interaction & Aloneness
They needed to interact with people, ultimately, to get interesting things done.
At the same time they also needed plenty of uninterrupted time to work, especially to write.
6. Humble & Proud
They tended to be humble in recognizing all those who came before them & the immense luck involved in their success.
While, at the same time, feeling proud and self-assured with respect to all they've accomplished.
7. Aggressive & Sensitive
They seemed to have escaped rigid gender role stereotypes - e.g. men tended to be more sensitive, women more assertive, etc.
What’s key is that they possessed both, enabling them to interact with the world in a richer and more nuanced way.
8. Traditional & Rebellious
They recognized and honored what's been valued in the past.
And, yet, also tended to take chances and seek novelty.
9. Attached & Detached
The strong attachment (or passion) helped them maintain interest when work got tough & helped ensure work was of high-quality.
The strong detachment helped them avoid (a) identifying with the work and (b) closing themselves off from outside critique.
10. Suffering & Enjoyment
They tended to be sensitive to slights and anxieties, especially as they operated at the forefront of a field.
Yet, they were also fully able to enjoy the bliss of the creation journey. Here they are in one visual in case you want to reference.
Here’s all 10 in one visual for ease of future reference:
Key takeaway for you?
It's not about being one or the other - it's about operating in and alternating between both ends.
The more you can do that, the more creative you'll likely be. You’ll probably need to actively develop your ability to operate in the pole that comes least natural to you. While that sounds like a full life’s effort, it sure seems worth it!
The essence of this post came from a book called Creativity by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. What I don’t know is how to pronounce his last name; what I do know is he’s a talented author, best known for his book Flow.
Talk to y’all next week.
-Phil
Enjoy this post? Forward on to a friend or colleague! It only takes 20 seconds.
If you were forwarded this email, sign up below to receive next week’s edition!
Reply