TORRANCE, AMABILE, AND ME

by Paul Henrickson, Ph.D.

©2008 tm

I think, perhaps, I may be one of the more fortunate persons to be able to

seek, and genuinely to find, subjects/objects of mental magnetism to attach
my interests to when modern technology frustrates me by crashing as my
computer has done for several days.

Such a divergence of mental energy has forced upon me this last day of
August of 2008 some 47 years after E. Paul Torrance published his
article in “THE GIFTED CHILD QUARTERLY” theautumn issue. I had read
it, of course, before, and even perhaps had, by that time, even
contributed to Paul’s thinking. Although, I rather doubt that since I
rarely offered insights at The University of Minnesota, having learned
rather quickly that there was an identifiable level of polished self-
assurance most particularly at the College of Education.

In any event I came across a copy of this Torrance article and in order to
refocus my mental energies began to read it again, and again, as
I must do when I read, arm myself with a pen in order to
document my responses. The result of this respectable activity
was that I found my responses now nearly a half century later,
different, not in kind, but in intensity. Part of this increase in
intensity may be due to the grave disappointment in what seems
to be societies’ willingness, or ability, to learn.

Such an interpretation was reinforced when Torrance reminds us that the

Harvard University Psychologist Henry Murray (1960) made the
observation that there was a wide-spread desperation which he
associated with a paralysis of creative imagination and a
devotion to comfort, a warning Torrance likened to that of
Socrates in his day (5th C. B.C.). 2,500 years ago.

A half century after, Murray issues a similar warning and makes a similar
reference to the classical Greek, enriched in this later instance
with the not so veiled suggestion in “Oedipus Rex” that the way
to solve the problems of the people is to rid themselves of the
 King. I must as if it is not possible to be a “king” without, in that
process, opening yourselfup to a ritual sacrifice? This
arrangement has a long tradition, a very long one, but I do not
like it and prefer to think of an alternative. Some constitutional
monarchies have turned their kings into cardboard puppets and
thereby avoid the necessity of tryanncides. The prophets of the
Old Testament, if proved false, would lose their lives and if some
( I guess women were not allowed to testify) gave false
testimony they would lose their cajones. Now, I approve of that.

For some reason or other all these fragments of information form a pattern in
my mind and it is my solemn and creative effort to bring order
out of this chaos.
In the Torrance article the author suggests six behaviors teachers might
perform in order to better provide the needs of the creative
personality. These six are: (1) provide a refuge for the divergent
thinker; (2) be a “sponsor” for the unusual ideas; (3) openly
accept the fact that there are differences among people; (4)
initiate class discussions about differences and ideas; (5)
recognize unusual contributions; and (6)create a secure
environment and forestall retribution.

When Torrance listed these six needs I had absolutely no quarrel with them
whatever. I did, however, begin to wonder to what extent self
acceptance (cf. #3 above)might be a part of it, for, it is clear
that, for some, accepting the fact that one is truly different from
others, is difficult, painfully difficult.
C.G. Jung reported that he was 11 before he became conscious that he was a
different from others. I suppose he meant something more than
just a biological difference for he also reported that he was aware
he was intellectually superior as well. Perhaps that observation
was clearly understood by virtue of the fact that his childhood
community was a farming community and his father was,
perhaps, a rare individual in that he was literate and functioned
as a religious instructor. In any event it was, apparently, not
difficult for him for since, we might assume, through his father he
had had already more than the usual amount of social
acceptance.
For some, however, accepting oneself as being different comes after
considerable pain and willingness to communicate ceases when
what one communicates meets with ridicule or, at best,
indifference.

On the other hand sometimes recognition can also be the death of creative
activity depending upon whether in the individual concerned self-
esteem or the idea is in the greater need. If one receives praise
and is thereby rewarded, one’s self esteem might encourage the
personality to forget about the idea.

In any event recognition at some level for some people at some times can be
very helpful.

Thirty some years later, a few years ago, in fact, Teresa Amabile of The
Harvard Business School through the agency of one Bill Breen of
FastCompany.com., announced that she has discovered there to
be six myths about creativity. These are (1) creativity comes
from creative types.(2) money is a motivator for creativity, (3)
time pressures fuel creativity, (4) fear forces creative
breakthroughs, (5)competition is better than collaboration; and
(6) Downsizing the work community helps creativity.

I was surprised to learn that these (except for the first, which is true and definitely
NOT a myth, “creativity” does stem from “creative types”) had been
beliefs of anybody let alone men of business. If these really were
beliefs, or shall we kindly say “assumptions” from where did
these business leaders get these assumptions…certainly not
from those researching the area of creativity.

The first listed is, in fact, the most surprising (from having originated from
someone who should know better) for it is definitely not a myth that
creativity is found to flourish in creative types. This is, actually, how
one distinguishes one type from another, of course, it is possible that Amabile
How else might one find what may be
is using language differently.
defined as creativity except in a type which exhibits it? One
starts out identifying a type of activity and through statistical
correlations one discovers that this type of activity is associated
with a certain type of personality . That personality type then
gets labeled as a creative-type personality. However, through all
of this rather hazy clarification of meaning one gets the sense
that Amabile’s audience, presumably “business types” at
Harvard University needs the assurance that they too, have
 some of this illusive and desirable quality called ”creativity”, but
they have, by way of some social distinction, fortunately, been
able to avoid those “tacky”attributes which make the creative
type less academically, as well as socially, acceptable.

In the light of academic acceptability it occurs to me that Breen’s somewhat

trumpet fanfare-like introduction to Amabile’s “discovery “
certainly lacks Harvard’s usual decorum as I had come to know
it.

However, much more important than the display of self-importance is the

fact that these myths appear to have been totally contrived. To
my knowledge no researcher into aspects of creative behavior
has ever suggested that any of these attributes or courses of
action would be successful in assisting the production of creative
results. This approach then, must have been directed toward that
group most likely involved, that is, the “business type”. We must
then see these “attributes of belief”, as being attributes of the
mind-set borne by the “business type”, that is, this set of myths
are the property and the baggage of the “business type” and do
NOT describe the attributes of a creative personality. Until now,
this matter has been a conceptual problem for me for I have not
understood the quite apparent financial success of those
promoters who go from country to country and well-known
corporation to well-known corporation, at least as prominently
advertised, claiming outstanding successes of “inspiring” the work
force with a Viagra-type creativity. Out of curiosity about how
effective this jingoism might be I initiated contact with a
prominent Norwegian business man whose name had been listed
as having experienced this “service” (I was also tempted to contact
this person because his surname also appeared in my genealogy and I
thought, naively that “using family” I might get somewhere…it didn’t work
that way). The report I received back (the fact I received a response was
surprising) read like a carefully crafted response from an
experienced tight-rope walker. In short, an expressed desire to
report truthfully without, if possible, getting anyone angry. In
sum, it seemed to me this Norwegian business man had felt
used, taken in, and his innocence altered by what I now would
describe as a very subtle game of extortion using the range of
social beliefs, expectations, and trusts as a cover for improper
personal gain. Actually, my personal reaction, and my
 professional reaction, to this sort of enterprise, is that it
promotes a tragedy where real charity is required.

I knew such a one, that is an archetypical business man, in the form of Harry
Bullis who had the reputation of being a bully and he was
certainly, opinionated, rude, and totally unreflective and needed
to be dressed-down which is something few people dared do…
and it was fear in others that he cultivated as a weapon to use
against them. Can it truly be that after 45 years after the death
of Harry Bullis that there are still people in business who
maintain that fears, threats and pressures will get them what
they want? I would judge from this Amabile report that such must
still be the case and that, hopefully, the trumpet fanfare of Breen
was a hint of a requiem mass for Bullis and his type. Perhaps,
after all, one might, with justification, see Amabile’s
announcement, on the most motherly level, as a kind of especially
designed approach for those in needful emotional support ….in
this case, ”the business type”.

Some might understand my consternation that after thirty years of research

to come up with the insight that creative people do not respond
well to pressures, threats or force of any kind is more than a bit
anachronistic. It is not convincing. It doesn’t wash. Surely
someone who had received the Torrance award for her
contribution to the field would be better prepared to report on
more significant research. Thirty years ago I published, in altered
form, the report of research which showed that “advanced”
programs of teacher preparation at “The University of
Northern Iowa” systematically prohibited the more creative
students from following that course of study and systematically
allowed in as students those with high scores on lying. After
trying several professional journals which refused the article I
finally allowed a political journal REASON, intrigued by the title,
perhaps, ”THE PERCEPTIVE AND SILENCED MINORITIES”.
Comparing my experience with the present experiences of
Amabile I might only guess that the road to success is still paved
with gentle motherly-like reminders to be polite to people in
authority. The opposite of this is called “speaking truth to
power”.
Nevertheless the impression remains that Amabile did wish to convey the
idea that creativity was not restricted to “creative types”. This ,
so contrary to the vast compilation of findings over the past fifty
years, that I must again assume she believes her audience is
only “the business-type”. In a sweep she has undone the works
of Guilford, Torrance, Getzels and Jackson, and a host of very
experienced researchers to list only the Americans, and only, it
would appear, to place salve on the easily injured egos of self-
important business moguls. I do not know whether the business-
type is a creative type or not, but if Amabile wishes to warp the
findings of research to appease their injured egos then she
should be condemned. There is a creative type of personality
and I would only suppose that she knows there is and knowing it
then she should say it. The goals, the business goals of a
business man, as I have had them explained to me, are defined
by the bottom line. The creative personality doesn’t even know
what the bottom line is, at least not while he is being creative,
and he rarely knows where to find it when he takes a moment off.

I understand that Gladys Zehnpfennig is or has written a biography of Harry

Bullis and the announcement goes to some pains, some effort, to
label him a humanitarian. Well, depending on one’s definition he
might be called that, but certainly not as a result of any
experience I have had with him.

Now enough about those who wish to be labeled divine and a little more
focus on substance such as what is creativity. At the start I shall
have to admit that the definition is arbitrary even while we try to
disguise our subjectivity with statistical data and definitions. In
short, the question is where might onedecide the proper cutoff
point for creativity and non-creativity to be. The frequency of
something makes it common. If it is infrequent we might think it
creative (because it is unusual), on the other hand, inappropriate
responses are infrequent as well and can either be characterized
by a mischievous attitude, or a mindless one…or something in
between. Subjectivity seems to be something that will always be
with us and should at some point be avoided, but I would think it
an error to consider it something totally evil. After all statistical
 data is merely a system of numbers and that does ultimately
require interpretation.

There have been several efforts made by entrepreneurial types to convince

CEO’s that their efforts to energies the workers will improve the
bottom line, that techniques of creative thinking can be taught. I
suspect and I have been somewhat supported by disappointed
CEOs that the main effect of such programs of spot enthusiasm
is merely a momentary excitement and enthusiasm differing
from a children’s Halloween party or birthday celebration only to
the extent that the principal player does not wear a clown
costume.The particular business man who communicated his
disappointment to me felt that he had been taken in. I agree
with him. Evidently there is some truth in the saying that a con
man is the easiest to con.

There could very well be people who have not yet understood the real
differences which exist between the creative person and the non-
creative person. The personality which lies suspended
somewhere in between is the one the causes some real concern
for the urge to create is very much related to the urge for a
personal salvation and the one who is a real creator, as opposed
to a dabbler or fraud, is very much concerned about that.

There is no place in Amabile’s dramatically offered announcement

proclaiming this myth shattering news that creative behavior is
addictive mental activity amounting to a very satisfying mind
scratch and requires independent thought and action. The only
occupations I can think of at the moment that involve
collaboration is theater and the military and of the two only
theater allows for independent interpretation at all levels. As
every actor probably knows knowing the lines is never enough
projecting oneself into another’s character is essential. This kind
of understanding about oneself or others is not promoted in the
armed forces. Some decades ago a study revealed that of all the
occupations studied the two most uncreative were the police
force and the mortician.

If what Amabile was telling us that contrary to the myth collaboration was
better than competition I could hardly disagree with her…but
what seemed to be missing in this continuum was the idea of one
competing with one’s self. It is this that the creative mind finds
 most rewarding, There was one time a person in Santa Fe, New
Mexico who very much considered himself to be an artist and
spontaneously at one time told me that he was going to be Santa
Fe’s best known artist. I made no response but what I thought
was, that he may well be the best known but that it will not be as
an artist.

Now, more than ever, as the understanding among some of what “being
creative” means has been clarified, I feel the power to maintain, more
than ever, that “creativity” cannot be taught. I will mention one
possible exception, but it is a bogus exception, not at all real, and it is
this: The responses typical of a creative type personality conceivably
can be taught by rote to anyone (remember the fantastic, but deadly, memory
of the stage performer in the film “The Thirty-Nine Steps?) but that product of
brainal coercive incursion is similar to a department store manikin and
does anyone with a long-lasting embarrassment remember how it feels
to have apologized to a manikin for having jostled it? Such a verbally-
functioning copy is NOT real..not unlike a recording in the manikin which
forgives you for your clumsiness. The really creative person is one who, in
his somewhat energized search for answers tends to shut out the rest
of the world in order NOT to be distracted. (considering this, how is it
possible to reasonably expect a creative personality to function cooperatively and
collaboratively with others who have their own distinctive problems to deal with..it is
It is likely that
not unlike requiring the patient to cooperate in his own lobotomy.)
such a focus on search , for the creative personality, is motivated by
some very deep-seated concern to which even the subject may not
have access and certainly not the manikin or cloned copy…they do
not operate on the same level or for the same reasons, or in
the same ways.

Consequently, those who present themselves as being able to energize a

work force are the special clowns hired by CEOs to entertain (read
implant) their work force with a new vitamin pill that will forever
increase the corporation’s income and make the CEO the richest man
in the world. Do this, and you enrich someone who wants to buy an
island in the Grand Canal in Venice.

The corporation which can identify and secure for themselves the output of a
truly creative individual should probably, judging from legitimate
psychological findings, not hire, not employ, but reward…if you have a
goose that lays golden eggs you feed that goose, you do not give it a
weekly salary. Certainly one would not be another Harry Bullis who
 would brow beat, yell at, scold and insult it. Quite probably finding the
proper recompense for these enigmatic gifts of creative insight might
require some ingenuity of its own, but, for this moment, I will not touch
that. I’ll leave that up to the creativity of the CEO.
Paul Henrickson

www.tcp.com
.mt

Paul Henrickson (photographed,

c.1980 by Eugenio Arnal (another creative type)

”In the Pathway of the Snail” by

Paul Henrickson. This painting measures 5’x6’(frame excluded) and represents
what I like to do. If anyone is interested please contact Kurun Vella at:
puzzles@tcp.com.mt. I do not like “doing business”.

A letter addressed to The Faculty of The University of Georgia

Regarding their promotional role in augmenting the principles of CREATIVE THOUGHT.

Throughout my life, more or less, I have, despite more than ample evidence to the contrary believed what I had been told. Even as a 10 year-old when the camp counselor ordered me to go to the lake and bring back the shore line…I went to the lake.

When, as a university administrator of a Division of Fine Arts, I was told by a colleague who came to me in defense of another whom he thought, not quite correctly, was in trouble and made the rather startling statement that “creative people do not lie” I gave that assertion some critical thought over the years and when the opportunity came for me to test the matter, I did.

The results of that research is reported in “THE PERCEPTIVE AND SILENCED MINORI TIES” which I have included in the short list below of articles and points of view I think might interest some of you. These are available, on line, through www.scribd.com if you browse the name Paul Henrickson, or, perhaps, some words or combination of words in the titles.

The LIST:

ART AS CREATIVE THERAPY

THE “X” REPORT

BIRTH ORDER AND IN TELLIGENCE

CONDI TIONING BEHAVIOR TO BEGIN ACCEP TING A NEW WORLD ORDER

SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND THE CR EA TIVE PERSONALI TY

Although I have visited the campus of The University of Georgia and at one time contributed some information to a conference on creative thinking sponsored by E. Paul Torrance my two strongest connections with him are my performing as his research assistant when THE JUS T SUPPOSE TES T was developed and my gift to him of a painting which he later stated was, for him, an example of functioning creativity.

“The Song of the Bird”, by Paul Henrickson

Regards,

Paul Henrickson, Ph.D.

www.tcp.com.mt This miniaturized section may be of interest