Description
I need help with peer review
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Peer Review
Debate Response: Review your classmates’ discussions. Respond to at least one of your
peers after reading Hot Topic #2: The Dark Side of Creativity from your course text. In
your response,
•
•
•
Debate that the innovation your peer highlighted in their discussion is all
good.
Propose how it could potentially have a dark side.
Support your rationale with a specific example and cited evidence to
substantiate it.
o Post your debate response via video or written format.
Classmate Discussion
Hello everyone I hope you are having a good week.
In Wallace’s four stages of the creative process, the preparation is gathering information
to prepare ideas. Incubation is allowing the eggs of ideas to sit and hatch at a later time.
We can wander or sit back from the problem and come back to it later. The illumination
stage is after we return from allowing the eggs to hatch, we receive moments of clarity
by allowing the ideas to sit. By testing out the ideas we confirm the verification process
can present a physical form of the idea through various efforts.
When I was completing a final project for one of my psychology classes it may have been
my applied psychology class. I gathered information from sources that provided similar
topics and was able to find meaning until I had trouble understanding the final task.
Struggling to answer one of the tasks I had to step away from the problem and let my
gathered information incubate while I went for a walk. While enjoying the view and
pondering I felt very relaxed. By the time I came back home, I reread the problem and
the information clicked into place allowing me to understand or at least know what can
be written for the required written task. Allowing my mind the time to relax and hatch
my informational egg into illumination. It also helped me improve my essay through the
verification process by associating all information in a way that made better sense than
pieces of information.
A creative person can look like various methods of creativity. According to Plucker
(2017), the various forms of creativity allow all types of people to be creative in a unique
way whether it’s for personal or professional use. This is important to remember because
creativity is more than just fun, it can be very useful. So creativity can be developed
through creative process models, geneplore, and blind variation, and selective retention
(Plucker, 2017). Creative processes are used for both external and internal factors
whether it’s to help others or teach others creativity has various shapes. Since creativity
is a process that uses various parts of the mind we can assume that it can be developed
if used regularly.
References
Plucker, J. A. (Ed.). (2017). Creativity and Innovation: Theory, researc, and practice. Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Hot Topic #2: The Dark Side of Creativity:
Are creative people always good? This may sound like an
odd question when you think about the fact that creative
efforts are responsible for technological advance, cultural
evolution, innovation, design, and invention. The
contribution of creativity to the arts, including painting,
sculpting, music, writing, and drama is obvious. Look
around you right now and you will probably see a
computer or cell phone; some attractive, functional, and
comfortable clothing; and perhaps walls covered with art.
Very likely an attentive glance around your immediate
surroundings will show you hundreds of things that
resulted from creative efforts.
The question about creative people being good people will
not be as surprising if you consider the weaponry and
computer viruses that have also resulted from creative
efforts, or lies and crimes intended to cheat and steal.
These can each be original and effective, which means that
they fit the standard definition of creativity (Runco &
Jaeger, 2012). No wonder morals and ethics have become
key issues in the current creativity research. This Hot Topic
reviews the research and theory that helps to understand
the relationship between creativity and morality. It
addresses the question, “Are creative people always
good?”
Perspectives on Creativity
The concept of a “dark side” to creativity was introduced
by McLaren (1993) in a special issue of the Creativity
Research Journal devoted entirely to “creativity in the
moral domain.” Thus you might think that the question
posed above, “Are creative people always good?” has only
been discussed in the last 20-25 years. Actually, the
sentiment behind it has a long history. Indeed, four strands
of thought have led up to the question of creativity and
morality. One of these is apparent in the personality
approach to creativity. The personality approach
represents what is probably the oldest approach used by
researchers to empirically investigate creativity. Early
research did not predict immoral or unethical tendencies
being tied to creativity, but instead, various traits indicative
of a dark side were included in the investigations because
standard personality inventories throw a wide net and
include a very wide range of dimensions. They assess both
socially desirable and socially undesirable traits. The bestknown studies of personality and creativity, and some of
the best early research on creativity, was conducted at the
Institute for Personality Assessment and Research in
Berkeley, CA (Barron, 1955, 1963, 1995; MacKinnon,
1965; for a history see Helson, 1999).
A bit more about the personality research: Although no
one was predicting evil to be correlated with creativity,
there was an expectation of psychopathology. This
followed from the very long-standing interest in the “mad
genius,” which has roots going back literally hundreds or
thousands of years. Recent data on the correlation
between psychopathology and creativity were presented
by Ludwig (1998) and Richards (1990), to name just two of
many examples. The interest in a mad genius and the
connection of creativity with psychopathology is relevant
because, if creativity was always associated with
psychopathology, and psychopathology includes
narcissism, the questioning of norms, and antisocial
behavior, there would be good reason to expect at least
some creative individuals to have socially undesirable or
even immoral tendencies.
There is fair agreement about the so-called core
personality traits for creativity. The typical traits uncovered
include openness, autonomy, intrinsic motivation,
flexibility, and playfulness. These do seem to vary from
domain to domain, and thus it is not surprising that some
traits may be vital specifically for moral creativity. Richards
(1993) pointed specifically to courage (cf. May, 1975) as
the key trait for moral creativity. Others have attempted to
identify the traits associated with immoral creativity.
Kapoor (2015), for example, pointed to the “subclinical
dark triad (DT) of personality—narcissism, psychopathy,
and Machiavellianism” (p. 58). Furnham (2015) pointed to a
different set of traits (schizotypal, histrionic, obsessive
compulsive, and paranoia), but he relied on divergent
thinking as his criterion and worked specifically with
managers. Lee and Dow (2011) also used tests of divergent
thinking (but didn’t study managers), and they found
correlations with (low) conscientiousness and aggression—
as well as gender. Values, honesty, conscientiousness, and
responsibility have also been studied in the research on
benevolent and malevolent creativity (Eisenman, 2008;
Family, 1993; Gruber, 1993; Rappaport & Kren, 1993).
The second line of thought that led up to the current
interest in the dark side approaches creativity quite
differently. This approach focuses on creative products.
Works of art are often studied in the research on creativity
(Amabile, 1982; Dudek, 1993; Runco, 1989; Schwebel,
1993), as are publications, patents, and a wide range of
other products (Huber, 1998; Simonton, 1999). Products
have an advantage in that they can be counted and thus
objectively studied. There are of course different kinds and
levels of products (Ghiselin, 1963). Ultimate creative
products are those that represent expert efforts and are
professional, if not world-class (e.g., paintings in a
museum). There are also intermediate products that may
be professional, but may not win awards and influence
large groups of people (e.g., a book with only a moderate
readership and no awards). Then there are immediate
products, which include ideas and solutions. The weaponry
mentioned above would be an example of a dark side
creative product, as would a computer virus.
A third line of thought that led up to questions of the dark
side focuses on the process approach to creativity. To
explain this, it is useful to consider the theory of divergent
thinking. This is the cognition that often leads to original
ideas. There are tests of divergent thinking, for example,
which present open-ended tasks to a respondent and ask
for “as many solutions and ideas as you can think of.” This
kind of task is very different from most academic tests that
tend to assess convergent thinking, which is the cognition
involved in finding the one correct or conventional solution
to a problem (e.g., Who was the first President of the
United States?). Divergent thinking allows the respondent
to produce a large number of ideas and provides scores for
fluency (the number of ideas given), originality (the number
of unique or unusual ideas given), and flexibility (the
number of conceptual categories in the ideas). Tests of
divergent thinking have reasonable correlations with realworld creative activities and achievements (Plucker, 1999;
Runco, Millar, Acar, & Cramond, 2011), though of course
there is more to creativity than just divergent thinking.
Tests of divergent thinking are best viewed as estimates of
the potential for creative problem solving.
This is all relevant to the dark side and the underlying
process because immoral ideas are in some ways divergent.
Associative theory predicts that when generating ideas and
solutions, people first think of common and conventional
options and only when those are exhausted are less
conventional ideas found. It is as if there is a small universe
of conventional options that easily come to mind, but
outside of that are more remote ideas that are
unconventional and original. Think for a moment about
immoral ideas. They are immoral precisely because they
are inconsistent with societal morals and conventions.
Thus it follows that the capacity to think divergently and to
find remote ideas probably contributes to the capacity to
think in an immoral fashion. This logic is supported by
reports by Rothenberg (1990) and Walczyk, Runco, Tripp,
and Smith (2008).
A related line of research also used tests of divergent
thinking and found evidence of the capacity to think in
unconventional and sometimes immoral ways. This
investigation administered six tests of divergent thinking,
but then evaluated the resulting ideas using 13 dimensions
identified a priori to represent what Acar and Runco (2015)
called ideational hyperspace. That label was chosen
because the overarching interest was in assessing
divergent thinking in a literal fashion. As Acar and Runco
noted, previous testing of divergent thinking gave credit to
ideas that were remote and original, but not literally
divergent (as in moving in different conceptual directions).
Acar and Runco found that the scoring of ideas using the a
priori dimensions of thought was reliable. They also
reported a significant correlation between the number of
categories used by any one individual and that same
individual’s originality and fluency scores. In addition, they
found the use of the conceptual categories was correlated
with a measure of creative attitudes and values. All of this
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
