I’m curious about two things.

1. My post on the Creative Achievement Questionnaire gets a lot of hits, probably from people wanting to know what’s on the questionnaire, and yet
2. Google Trends doesn’t have enough data to make a chart for “creative achievement.”

I get why people search for it–Jordan B Peterson talks about it and naturally people get curious. That’s why I found it myself. Then, I was enthusiastic about it. Now, I am much less enthusiastic about JBP and about the questionnaire.

Much of the questionnaire is based on social acceptability of the creative work. Publishing, reviews in national publications, that sort of thing. As a proxy for popularity, it makes sense. The question we’re answering is “to what degree is this person creative within this social epoch.”

But is that an objective scale? No. That would put many artists, such as Vincent van Gogh, who were not popular during their lifetimes, much further down the scale than they merit.

This scale does not take into account social norms or taboos (and the fact that truly creative work often violates these). It does not take into account the Lindy effect, or the timelessness of a creative act. And it does not take into account originality or mimicry. Only acceptability.

It also does not take into account the political and very flawed nature of peer review, but asking that of peer-reviewed “science” may be too much. (Understatement.)

What I’m getting at here is that this Questionnaire sets the boundaries of creativity to what is socially acceptable. Boundaries are intrinsically antithetical to true creative achievement.

One of the commenters on the forum from which I cribbed the Questionnaire echoes this same sort of sentiment:

The people who are most likely to be the creativist achievers are also the least likely to accept the rules of society. See also Elon Musk’s current 1v1million battle against the media and Peter Thiel’s status as Permanent Outsider.

I see this online a lot as well, where the originators of tremendously influential memes are completely anonymous, and the ones that we do know (like Comrade Stump) are highly obscure.

This world has an interesting way of obscuring the true origins of things.

Anyway, I did some additional research into the phrase “creative achievement,” and as Google Trends suggests, there isn’t all that much. (Especially if you’re not particularly interested in psychology.)

From the Oxford English Dictionary, we have a few out-of-context quotes:

1927   Lima (Ohio) News 25 Jan. 7/2   It releases the worker from the old body-killing exertion and frees him for creative achievement and recreation outside his job.

2012   N. Dykstra Clover Adams ii. 23   How she grew had been shaped by being at the center of a city during extraordinary years of go-getting, reform, and creative achievement.

These uses certainly position creative achievement among the day-to-day things that we do, such as cooking dinner (Culinary arts?) and doodling in the margins of our notes.

Some psychologists say there are eight domains of creativity, such as Culinary Arts and Creative Writing, but others bump that up to 10 by adding Inventions and Scientific Discovery to the mix.

I investigated ten different domains of creativity: Visual Arts, Music, Dance, Architectural design, Creative writing, Humor, Inventions, Scientific Discovery, Theater and film, and Culinary Arts.

The two main factors most strongly associated with Intellect— Intellectual Engagement and Explicit Cognitive Ability– were more relevant to creative achievement in the sciences than the arts, whereas the two main factors most strongly associated with Openness— Affective Engagement and Aesthetic Engagement– were more relevant to creative achievement in the arts than the sciences. What’s more, these results suggest that Affective Engagement may be detrimental to creative achievement in the sciences.

Interestingly, when I considered all four factors at the same time, I found that Intellectual Engagement was a better predictor of scientific creative achievement than Explicit Cognitive Ability.

• Intellectual Engagement = Intuition
• Explicit Cognitive Ability = Thinking
• Affective Engagement = Feeling
• Aesthetic Engagement = Sensing (although this might be a little bit shaky).

It would make sense to me that Intuition would be the best predictor of creative achievement (intuition includes the ability to make leaps between seemingly disparate subjects). It would also make sense to me that N and T skew to science-related creativity while S and F skew to the arts.

(Once you understand that science is mostly made up of NF types, the personalities make much more sense. Most of the NTs are in engineering, not science research.)

Mensa, on the other hand, deliberately eliminates any artistic achievement at all from their Copper Black award:

• classroom integration of Sudoku for learning
• anti-bullying app
• teaching strategy to narrow, close, and even reverse historically pervasive achievement gaps among students from diverse backgrounds
• research and development of a motion sensor capable of discriminating between a home intruder and a wandering pet
• developing and implementing an intervention for those with children suffering from Reading Comprehension Deficit

I once was mildly curious about Mensa. Can’t say that I am anymore.

The question remains: what can we get out of all these differing perspectives on creative achievement? From the looks of things, not much.

If we wish to rise above the confines of our times and truly get a handle on what achievements were worthwhile, original, contributions to the world…we’d have to be God.

Same with scouring the earth for the hidden creative forces that are far more influential than seems allowable. Like Susan Boyle, for instance, an incredible voice in a person who was not seeking fame or achievement.

Perhaps what we can see is “creative ambition,” not true creativity.

I’m intrigued by this now, and will have to investigate and ponder it further.

What is creative achievement, and does writing about it matter?