Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3



By Paul Henrickson, Ph.D.

tm. 2011

This email introduces you to another level of social control

A friend, knowing of my interest in creative thinkers and thinking, sent me a notice written by one Remy Melina for some publication using the word science in its title which read:

When it comes to money, creative people are more likely to cheat to get it than the less-imaginative crowd,.This startling announcement shocked me into reviewing what I thought I knew about the way creative people think and I came up with a re-write which is: but only because creative thinkers are creative thinkers regardless of the subject area. In this study by Dan Ariely of M.I.T. to which Melinas remarks refer the goal of the study was to determine the differences, if any, between creative-types and non-creative types on the stated goal of gaining credits (money, as it were).

Since it had been known, scientifically, for several decades before the Ariely study was performed, that creative minds thought more broadly, more

variably, and more productively than non-creative minds the outcomes of the Ariely study could easily have been predicted without the study having been made.

This, in turn, raised the question as to why then was the study made? Was it intended only as a form of a common-place replication or was it, after all, an excuse to discredit the behavior of creative thinkers and to encourage a form of back-lash to inhibit projected changes in the status quo? If the latter it might explain why it appears that the anti-creative forces, in the guise of creativity experts such as Mark Runko, of the Torrance Center at the University of Georgia, urge that the creative mind be trained in discretion and why Amabile, of Harvard University School of Business urges the acceptance of cooperation as a virtue in creative production when she should know that the nature of the truly creative mind is to work alone, and certainly, and additionally, that cooperation implies negotiation, compromise and acquiescence to the ideas of others...all of which would diminish the probable creativity of the product. To say nothing of this making common whatever achievement there might be. to say nothing about the recommendation that one be polite, that is, discrete, cooperative and, if you really want to be a member of the group, it is O.K. to cheat in order to achieve your aims. In other word, lie, dissemble and kick the other guy while hes down for success is success is success....isnt it?..and that is the final measure!

Well if ballet dancers such as Mikhail Baryshnikov, Alexander Godunov, and Natalia Marakova under the Soviet regime can dance their way to excellence a few creative minds might be able to identify escape passages from this current effort at repression.,, ? What valuable consciousness this present situation does bring to the fore is what appears to be a fundamental difference between the creative mind which pays attention to its own business and thus is probably apolitical, and the non-creative mind which pays attention to everyone elses business and is VERY political.

It used to be that such mass-mind shifting propaganda was reserved for the rather mindless ingestion of those who bought the publications of yellowsheeted journalism But Ms. Melina cannot be considered at fault because she writes what she is told to write and is paid to write, but who, if any, have called the readers attention to the fact that creative thinkers can play games as well as non-creative thinkers and can, when called upon, shift their imagination gears to fit the circumstances. It should, in all honesty, be additionally noted that playing games is not the area in which creative thinking has generally been analyzed, but the effort here, by these researchers, seems to be to discredit the moral structure of creative thinkers whereas my research (THE PERCEPTIVE AND SILENCED MINORITIES, 1970) indicates quite the opposite that the creative thinker, when involved does not lie, misdirect, or accept false evidence but he and his efforts get put down, down-graded and ostracised all because his perception differ from those of the consensus.