Dr. Martin E.P. Seligman—renowned worldwide as the “father of Positive Psychology”—has led visionary leaps in the scientific research, empirical data and personal understandings of human flourishing. This course explores the past, present and future of positive psychology as a journey through the key scientific leaps led by Dr. Seligman and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania's Positive Psychology Center and Master of Applied Positive Psychology program. There are no prerequisites.
Creativity and Imagination Part 2
Loading...
En provenance du cours de University of Pennsylvania
Positive Psychology: Martin E. P. Seligman’s Visionary Science
1890 notes
University of Pennsylvania
1890 notes
Cours 1 sur 5 dans Specialization Foundations of Positive Psychology
À partir de la leçon
Being Whole: Mind/Body Flourishing Throughout Life
In this module, Dr. Martin Seligman shares key research questions from the field of Positive Psychology, and the answers turn some conventional assumptions on their head. Are we shaped by the future vs. the past? And what does science tell us about mind/body flourishing? What gets better as we age?
Rencontrer les enseignants
Martin E.P. Seligman, Ph.D.Zellerbach Family Professor of Psychology & Director, Positive Psychology Center
Positive Psychology Center
[MUSIC]
Another study that I really like that helps us understand the nature
of creativity are the famous IPAR studies from the 50s and
60s, conducted by Frank X Barron at UC Berkley.
So, he took some of the most creative people of his generation, and he brought
them to a renovated fraternity house at UC Berkley and spent, and had them
stay over a couple days, and he gave them batteries of tests, personality tests.
He gave them, he talked them, he had lots of interviews.
He gave them the Rorschach test, I don't know if anyone's heard of them where
the people have to like project what do you see in this picture?
So, he brought a lot of these really creative people of a generation to do
these sort of things.
And he found something quite surprising.
So, first of all he found that IQ wasn't the special sauce of these creative
geniuses.
I'm sure most of them had a higher than average IQ.
But it wasn't the that differentiated the creative geniuses from the non creative
geniuses.
He also found that they scored very, they tended to score very high in ego strength.
Ego strength is something that allows us to overcome obstacles.
It's very important, very good for
resiliency in life, having a really strong sense of identity.
These were strong, these people had strong sense of their self and
were able to overcome resiliency.
But he also found that they scored extremely high on almost every measure of
mental illness that he could possibly throw at them.
[LAUGH] So, Frank Barron was like, what do I do with this information?
They score almost very high on all these measures of psychological health.
The kinds of things that we study in positive psychology, resiliency,
and ego strength and healthy self acceptance.
But at the same time they also scored very high on a lot of marked metrics of
non-mental health.
But they had all these things in one body.
So, they also tended to be very highly emotionally volatile,
for instance, and reported lots of mood changes.
They tend to report being very anxious, these kinds of things.
So, it's very interesting when you look at creative people,
you tend to see these paradoxes.
You tend to see these contradictions within a single person.
So, this is a quote of Frank Baron, describing the conclusion of his studies.
Thus the creative genius may be at once naive and knowledgeable,
being at home equally to primitive symbolism and to rigorous logic.
He is both more primitive and more cultured, more destructive and more
constructive, occasionally crazier and yet adamantly saner, than the average person.
So, what do you do with that information, right?
As a young creativity researcher going into the field, and
looking at what we've known about creativity, it's like,
well how could we ever possibly study this phenomenon?
Well, we can, and I think a big way of reconciling these contradictions,
the fact that openness to experience is a big part of it.
When you're really open to new experiences,
you're open to your own contradictions, you find that the creative process itself
is a really nice way of reconciling these contradictions.
It's through the creative process that you harmonize yourself.
For me, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a creativity researcher, as also in his
ground breaking research of over 100 creative people says, if I had to express
in one word what makes their personalities different from others, it's complexity.
They show tendencies of thought and action that in most people are segregated.
They contain contradictory extremes,
instead of being an individual, each of them is a multitude.
So, he found almost the same thing in an independent sample of creative people.
And then recently from my own research, we found, working throughout history, you
tend to find that creative people have, what I call, refer to as messy minds.
I think it's the best way to describe creativity, creative people.
And I don't say that in a pejorative way at all,
I think it's something we should embrace in society.
We spend so much time in school on standardized testing,
and having students do everything just right, by the book.
Show up to class, be self-controlled,
listen to other people's goals, don't daydream, etc.
But you find that creative people, that's not what really characterizes them.
What characterizes them is variability, not efficiency.
What characterizes them is embracing the messiness,
the inherent messiness of the creative process.
And you see that all throughout history.
So, here is Michael Scott quoting Wayne Gretzky saying,
you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
Thomas Edison said, I haven't failed.
I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
And it's true, Thomas Edison,
in a statistical analysis by Dean Keith Simonton, found that Thomas Edison
had more failures of his generation than anyone else in his generation.
But he just happened to have a couple things that tended to be the most
revolutionary things of his generation.
This is a Picasso painting, Guernica.
And if you do a systematic analysis of Guernica,
it almost looks like he's painting it blind.
Like he had no foresight of where he was going before he got there.
If we expected creativity to be a very efficient process,
like you study, you do everything right on the standardized test.
You would expect this kind of curve, right?
You would expect to the extent to which each sketch
that he produces is greater progress towards his ultimate goal.
What you actually see when you look at Picasso's creative process is this.
It's much more like this.
He would put the mother holding the baby and
then take that back and then he'd put another painting, and
it's almost like he was operating blind with a lot of trial and error.
And again,
you do find that it's trial and error that seems to characterize creative people.
Again, it's that messiness that we must embrace.
And it's those contradictions that tend to play themselves out
throughout the creative process.
Shakespeare, many of you have heard of Shakespeare.
And of heard of some of his glorious works, such as Hamlet.
Well, there was an interesting analysis that was done that looked at
the popularity ratings of various Shakespeare's plays and
the year in which they're produced.
And we see Hamlet, for instance, had a popularity reading of 100%.
Most people consider that his greatest work.
And yet he was able to follow that up with Pericles,
which most of you probably never heard of, which had a popularity reading of 8%.
So, how could this, if expertise was all there is to creativity,
doing everything right, being efficient, you would see an upward progress.
But what you see is he has some amazingly popular works,
then he has some really big, if I may say, clunkers.
[LAUGH] How many of you have heard of Pericles?
[LAUGH] Some historical scholars may disagree with me, but literature scholars,
but I think most of us agree Pericles wasn't his best work.
So you do tend to find, and
Dean Simonton has done these kind of analysis showing that trial and error.
And we also don't always know whether or
not how something's going to be received by the general public.
So, there's always going to be that element of
blindness to the creative process.
Dean Simonton has created something called the equal-odds rule showing this
really pertains to almost any field and
he first started studying this when he looked at scientists.
This is a quote from his 1977 book, the average publication
of any particular scientist does not have any statistically different chance
of having more of an impact than any other scientist's average publication.
What this means is if you want to be creative, you need to get through
all the poor work, the average work, you need to be average in order to be great.
Yet, the key, producing.
S,o I want to give you,
I'll leave you with what I think is the secret of creative genius.
Everybody likes the secret, so
I'm going to give you the secret of creative genius.
It's create, create, create.
Create, create.
Create.
Create, create, create.
Create.
Create, create.
Create, create, create, create, create, got it?
Explorer notre catalogue
Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.
Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde,
en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.
© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.
