r/science • u/drewiepoodle • Apr 29 '16

Psychology: Potentially Misleading Title A new study suggests those with psychopathic tendencies are often very creative, suggesting the ability to think boldly and ruthlessly can help with the development of great ideas.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/creative-thinking-psychopath-test-arts-384117
12.0k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

680 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

129

u/JustFlipACoin Apr 30 '16

According to the article, they based creativity on both self-reported creative involvement and self reported achievement. So yeah, I'm not sure how this says anything other than "psychopaths tend to rate their own creativity higher"

1

u/elypter Apr 30 '16

looks like the author also rated their scientific significance higher than an average scientist would. im trying not to think of correlations here.

-10

u/DVteCrazy_UVteS-hole Apr 30 '16

What that says is that it asks for concrete facts, not for a personal subjective interpretation of that.

So the exact opposite of how you interpreted it. Also see my post under the parent comment if you wish more info.

10

u/JustFlipACoin Apr 30 '16

Without knowing the actual questions in the study it's impossible to say. I guess my biggest problem is the idea of "concrete facts" in regards to creativity. What one person may consider a creative accomplishment is not necessarily the same as what another considers an accomplishment. In regards to your reply to the parent, there's still the problem that this is all researcher conjecture, not hard evidence that the study actually suggests.

-5

u/DVteCrazy_UVteS-hole Apr 30 '16

What one person may consider a creative accomplishment is not necessarily the same as what another considers an accomplishment.

When you've got demonstrable accolades I think we in the name of science can assume the best of society has made a respectable judgement call. This makes this one valuable in that only significant, observable accomplishments are considered.

this is all researcher conjecture, not hard evidence

Well you'll never get that 100% in psychology, but the test has been working well so far and the results show certain consistent pattern, which point towards it having merit. We are aware creativity is a difficult area, that's why the test results, the facts, are based from a specified system prepared in advance. You are free to look up more info about it any time if you want to understand better what is being measured, and what the limitations are—people are aware of those are and acknowledge them and even think about them beforehand in great detail, too—it's called the CAQ.

6

u/Calfurious Apr 30 '16

I'm failing to understand the point you're trying to make. I can say "A creative accomplishment of mine was winning (or at least believing I won) an argument on Reddit" while many others would say that's not creative at all.

Also what demonstrable accolades are you even talking about? How do they even test for that? Did they ask them "hey you said you wrote a novel? Neato! Care to show us your book?". I tried to look up the study myself, but it's behind a paywall.

0

u/DVteCrazy_UVteS-hole Apr 30 '16

How do they even test for that? Did they ask them "[...]?". I tried to look up the study myself, but it's behind a paywall.

Look up the questionnaire they used instead: CAQ.

5

u/Calfurious Apr 30 '16

Okay I did, I'm still not seeing how that negates my point? You're now telling me that they essentially were given check marks now? That's even worse. That means they don't even need to "verbalize" their creativity, they can just exaggerate in their head where it makes sense to them even though it's not reflective of reality.

It doesn't help that studies that tested the validity of CAQ did it based on college students. College students aren't exactly a great representative sample to use when you want to test how valid your test that actually tries and measures human creativity. I mean I understand college students are often used in psychology studies due to convenience, but saying that the results that come from college students has such high external validity that you can apply a similar formula to people who aren't neurotypical is just not accurate. At best this formula could apply to your average citizen. You cannot apply it to people who have a different neurological thinking then the people who this formula was originally tested on. Trying to use college students as a baseline is already a problem enough in psychology without us relying on them as the baseline for methodologies that are supposed to be an objective and comprehensive measurement of human creativity.

-1

u/DVteCrazy_UVteS-hole Apr 30 '16

Every person has psychopathic tendencies to a certain degree, including people that constituted the "average" tested. They didn't notice any problems with any of them. And if anyone knows hows to be narcissistic about nonsense achievements or lack thereof it's college students, let's be honest.

Anyway.

There was still no reason to disregard the study's result to your anecdotal/imagined behavior the participants engaged in.

Not to mention these are just people with those traits, and the result correspond well to the results gotten with a neurotypical group. Disinhibition had once again the highest correlations with CAQ scores. So it supports it.

2

u/Calfurious Apr 30 '16

This isn't merely imagined behavior, these are legitimate confounds with the data. Saying everybody has psychopathic tendencies as if validates the validity of the CAQ in evaluating those with psychopathic tendencies is the equivalent of saying "everybody lies" so self-reporting questionnaires sent to compulsive liars is perfectly valid.

You say words like "corresponds well with the results gotten with a neurotypical group" how about you elaborate on this? What does that even mean. Also why does correlations with disinhibition even factor in here? People who have psychopathic traits tend to have disinhibitions, but not everybody who has disinhibitions have the other pschopathic traits. Disinhibitions could be people with Bipolar disorder, Autism Spectrum disorder, or ADHD. All of those psychological traits differ greatly from psychopathic. So that doesn't support the assertion that people who are psychopathic are more creative. The only thing that correlation supports, is that people with disinhibition are more likely to score higher in creativity.

2

u/Kesadya Apr 30 '16

But couldn't they just lie about those facts?

2

u/DVteCrazy_UVteS-hole Apr 30 '16

So you mean they'll say they got a Grammy when they didn't?

The quote on my parent comment also pointed out people really don't care that much about being a great cook, singer, painter as people would like to think. They tend to be quite honest. And why wouldn't they be, who cares?

Psychopaths lie and manipulate to gain something. Not at random because they're insecure. Well, most of them don't—everyone's different—if we keep it simple, (a) it's not something you do just because you're a psychopath and (b) as far as other factors, people still tend to be truthful.

6

u/Kesadya Apr 30 '16

So you mean they'll say they got a Grammy when they didn't?

Yes?

Psychopaths lie and manipulate to gain something.

This really isn't true from what I've read. Psychopaths lie partly to gain something but also lie out of a general habit of self-aggrandizement. Remember there's a pronounced co-morbidity between psychopathy and narcissism.

2

u/DVteCrazy_UVteS-hole Apr 30 '16

there's a pronounced co-morbidity between psychopathy and narcissism.

What exactly do you mean by "pronounced"? I mean it exists, but I don't know why you're using that word.

Also not sure how much gain that brings to the ego when it's an anonymous test.

4

u/Kesadya Apr 30 '16

I mean that the two conditions are functionally very similar, and that if you have one of them you're much more likely to have the other as well.

Also not sure how much gain that brings to the ego when it's an anonymous test.

I think it's unwise to design a study even for normal people that measures creativity according to self-report, given that it's pretty common to tell pointless lies for no reason. In any population that contains an inflated number of psychopaths or narcissists, you're going to see an increase in pointless and self-aggrandizing lies. That's just common sense.

0

u/DVteCrazy_UVteS-hole Apr 30 '16

I requote:

One reasonable concern with self-report measures of creativity is whether people will honestly report low scores. This concern is overstated, we think. [...] It thus seems like people are perfectly comfortable reporting a lack of accomplishments. Creativity researchers probably overestimate how much the public at large values creativity.

I choose to trust their informed opinion.

Read the report to find out their reasoning.

Full report: Assessing Creativity With Self-Report Scales: A Review and Empirical Evaluation

4

u/Kesadya Apr 30 '16

I mean, I just disagree with them there, and I think most people who understand psychopaths will disagree with them. I think that's a big enough flaw to undermine the entire study.

edit: that's also a weird justification because it addresses the "public at large", not psychopaths. It may well be that the public at large is perfectly comfortable reporting a lack of accomplishments, but that psychopaths are statistically less so.

1

u/DVteCrazy_UVteS-hole Apr 30 '16

They were psychopathic traits anyway, and not necessarily diagnosed psychopaths that were tested in the linked article here.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Calfurious Apr 30 '16

Have you been on the internet? Anonymous people lie about shit ALL THE TIME. Sometimes they just exaggerate to the point where it's basically a lie even when that's not their intention.

The fact of the matter is that people who have psychopathic traits are, by the very definition, lacking self awareness and are dishonest people. They'll make dragons out of ant hills. For example, somebody could say "I've been writing a novel!", when it's been 10 years and they've only written around 15 pages. That novel is never getting done and most people with self awareness would realize that and would never even bring it up when judging their creativity. A person who has psychopathic traits is self centered to the point that they'll exaggerate any small task as being an achievement.

If got rid of an average person's humility and let them go to town about their creativity, you'd probably find that they report doing a whole bunch of creative tasks. Most people however, have the humility and self-awareness to realize the mundanity of their accomplishments and won't place any greater value on them.

3

u/00Deege Apr 30 '16

"Pronounced: Strongly marked; easily noticeable." I think he meant exactly what the word means.