ADVICE FOR THE GULLIBLE AND IMPERCEPTIVE

[ THE REAPPEARANCES OF MATA HARI AND SIMON MAGUS]

by Paul Henrickson

tm.

2015

WEISBERGs (an analysis for the

gullible)
and GOLDSTEINs (comments for the imperceptive)

The following is a rather unexpected response to

the announcement that Robert W. Weisberg of
Temple University had published a book

am not at all sure that because of the rather quirky

way my mind sometimes works the analogies it
somehow happened upon are not, in vital fact,
absolutely an accurate description of how I perceive the
recent publication by Wiley of Robert Weisbergs work
I

Creativity:
Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving,
Science, Invention, and the Arts.
with the long title implying universality.

I reserve some caution here for it may have been that

Weisberg had not meant to imply there was no difference
between the so-called common mind set and the
extraordinary mindset, but the wording did, somehow,
trigger that response. Nevertheless, he does deserve
correction when he also implies (by not referencing the
material)* that multi-ethnic studies have not been made in
the area of creativity. E.Paul Torrance did do such

studies.

* THE FOLLOWINGIS QUOTED FROM THE ON

LINE WEBSITE: ordinarypeople employ the same thought processes as the greats.
Though used and developed differently by different people, creativity can and should be studied
as a positive psychological feature shared by all humans.

Now, a vagrant thought of my own here. If we assume that

the processes which characterize creative thinking in its

inception are the same for those who develop creatively

and for those who do not we then are left with the question

to

as to why the difference from this.

this

or

or

My off the cuff response to that would be the differences

lie in the reactions to social pressures formed by early
childhood experiences with discipline and reward and,
perhaps, a few other things. In short, a battle of
dominance and survival between the self and the many.
Once that battle has been settled in favour of the
individual THEN we achieve creative differentiation. In
sum, it is not very helpful to our understanding to merely
indicate that in the beginning the behaviours of the

common and the extraordinary are the same for when

mature, they are not.

For whatever reason some individuals do exactly what
they are told and appear content to do so. Others do so
and harbour resentment for the imposition of authority.
Others are openly rebellious and refuse outright, but seem
to possess no alternative of their own, or they might simply
need the time to find it.

As a child, when I did experience praise for my efforts I

silently rejected it and felt irritated by the person
providing it for not comprehending my reasons for the
effort in the first place. Of course, my language abilities at
the time would not have made it possible for me to express

my disappointment...(nor do I think my audience would have understood it)

but it was definitely there. As an extension of that thought
eight (8) decades later I am still bewildered by the
occasional, but temporary, non-appearance of what I seek.
One present theory is that it is all a matter of pleasure....I
simply enjoyed the mental scratch and the product result
is not all that important but I do not really believe it was,
in that sense, a pastime. There are sometimes other things
going on which urge the individual one way or another
and at the risk of offending my colleagues in research I
favour a being of some type or another...perhaps just
another self that wants completion on the material level.
In a similar fashion, perhaps, I resent Weisberg and Scott
Barry Kaufman for not being able to express these
complicated procedural efforts in nothing more than an
algorithmic, step by step fashion rather than more
completely in a Wagnerian, Beethovenly of Pucciniesk
chord, but then, that is the inherent problem with the
literacy we know and use.
Kaufman, particularly, took, amazingly, credit for putting
order in to the process of the creative mind. What
arrogance! The creative mind puts order into its own
process...that is why, (I hope you all get it) they are creative in
the first place!
Cassius: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our
stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings

And this, our responses to social pressures,

if we are not born as underlings accounts
for the various avenues the creative

personality, according to Drevdahl, takes in

its efforts to escape the controllers
The major stumbling block in this process is the mind-set
of the common psychologist who, it seems, believes that
everything has its place and that is where everything is, or,
if it isnt they will put it there. Amateur, (or otherwise)
paleontologists like Charles Dawson (11 July 1864 10 August 1916
have had that problem as well, and as an interesting side
note, Dawson first studied to be a lawyer, so for those
interested in possible psychological differences between
those choosing one profession over another, for example, take
note. That is, for the algorythmicist, it is in its place where it is
after the book gets published.
But, as I see it, that is only the beginning, a re-beginning,
actually.
My personal view is that reality is much more slippery
than this given scenario suggests.
I also feel that we act as underlings when we allow
anothers prestigious ego to overly impress us whether
that ego takes form in a 640 page book or, as in the cases
of Koons and Kopple public exhibition of their penile
organs.
Mata Hari, it may be recalled, was executed at the age of 41 for
being a double agent and historians later tell us it was to cover up
the double agenting of her handler.
Simon Magus approached Simon Peter to sell him Christs secrets
for raising the dead. So, it seems Magus was guilty of
incomprehension.

The one benefit I have received from reading the publishing blurb
for Weisbergs book was that it, inadvertently validated my 1970
findings that creative thinkers do not lie. For this I give Weisberg
ex gracia thanks.

However, professional duty requires that I

ask how it is that Weisberg could have
overlooked the volumetric research of E.
Paul Torrance and, most pointedly, its
multi-ethnic character and, in our face,
imply it hadnt been done. An associated
question must also be asked what a headsurgeon is doing commenting approvingly,
in a knowledgably professional manner, on
the work of a psychologist. Could Weisberg
not find a cooperative psychologist?
And to ask a similarly related question to the
matter of truth speaking...could not Amabile
have secured more appropriate subjects, that is,
a group less predetermined to support the
originating hypothesis?
And one other finger-pointing effort .One might
assume that Runkos urging that the creative
personality become more discreet was
motivated by his concern for their social
acceptability. But such a position assumes that
the majority is always right ( the current PR protocol in support
of supporting democratic revolutions) and I would maintain
that for the development of the individual the
majority is always wrong. However, out of their

pressuring insistence to join the crowd he

carves a self.

In any event, the final judgment, to date, must

be that some statements in the referenced blurb
are , at least, misleading. And it probably was for
this reason it reminded me of the behaviour of
Mata Hari and Simon Magus, double agents,
serving two masters and speaking with forked
tongue
Mata Hari and Simon Magus were both purveyors of untruths

the film titled Mata Hari (1931) and starring Greta Garbo in the leading
role. While based on real events in the life of Margaretha Zelle, the plot was largely fictional,
appealing to the public appetite for fantasy at the expense of historical fact (internet source)
The reason I have joined the two, usually (except when passing grades become the reward for
student uncertainties) very disparate, thoughts, academic discipline and effectively focused
sexual seduction is to draw to the attention of the reader their occasional similarity.
It was Weisbergs introduction that set me off on this rant so I am inserting it here (with my
comments in color when I think they need extra attention). The mediating fact in this case is
that Weisberg has a book to sell and Goldstein (a surgical oncologist for the head and neck)
wants to help. I think we all understand that.
The analogies, I think, developed in this way Garbo played Mata Hari in a film which was
not historically accurate, but effective theatre and Simon Magus tried to get St. Peter to sell
the secret of how to raise the dead...or omits to include that E.Paul Torrance always did (some
fifty years ago) though it had not already taken place what Weisberg says he wants which, he
says, should include studies of different people, creativity can and should be studied as a

positive psychological feature shared by all humans....but not to the same extent, or
similarly responsive to social pressures

(Oh my God, Weisberg just murdered the Bell Curve and nothing will ever be the
same)
My comments follow:

The processes, in part, may be the same, but it should be the results that make the
difference...yes? The only rationale I can see for what appears to be a not too occult
effort to democratize creative behavior is some sort of act of pernicious envy, or a
political agenda.
If it were true that the ordinary person is also creative one is tempted to ask why do
the ordinary persecute the extraordinary...which is also a matter of established
fact? One might possibly think that the ordinary, in some fashion, recognize an
irritating difference between themselves and the extraordinary. I wonder what this
might be.
I might also wonder why Weisberg, enthusiastically supported by Goldstein should
appear so intent upon communizing the rare. Harvards Teresa Amabile seems to
have the same goal which is to deprive the distinguished of what distinguishes them
and, thereby. limiting perception to the parameters of political tolerance, ...such is the
finale of censorship.
In the case of Amabiles majors in business economics having been determined to
lie just like the rest of us [now isnt that a jolly conclusion? If were all bad together and all
equally sinful, no one can get the blame. I would suppose Ms. Amabile may have forgotten Near East
history];or, for her to conclude that the creative mind can also be duplicitous and that,

therefore, there are no differences is, in addition to being an example of a conscious

rejection of, or selective memory for, established facts it is also 9(if one turns the
coin) an example of convention dictated perception. Some refer to this as
conventional dissonance, a mystifying if not an unattractive disorder
Of course, one might try to forget that the population of subjects had already declared
themselves ready to lie for a buck and committed to duplicity as majors in business
management. My subjects had no such bias (The Perceptive and Silenced Minorities,
on www.scribd.com).

Conventional wisdom holds that creativity is a mysterious quality present in a select few
individuals.TRUE, and it is true.The rest of us, the common view goes, can only stand in awe of
great creative achievements: we could never paint Guernica or devise the structure of the DNA
molecule because we lack access to the rarified thoughts and inspirations that bless geniuses
like Picasso or Watson and Crick. Presented with this view, today's cognitive psychologists
largely differ DO THEY INDEED! Who ?finding instead that "ordinary" people employ the
same creative thought processes as the greats. Though used and developed differently by
different people, creativity can and should be studied as a positive psychological feature shared

by all humans the same ....but not to the same extent, or similarly responsive to social
pressures

Of course, as my Maltese friend frequently reminds me

one should reserve final judgement until one evaluates
the causes for behaviours And I, frequently remind him
that after we know the reasons for the behaviours...we
still have the behaviours.
In this present case, that is the Weisberg/Goldstein
syndrome we appear to have a promotion, pure and
simple, not too unlike that of ex-Congressman

+Wieners
quite
extraordinary display behaviour which may have been,

we remain unsure on this point, misleading.

But Weiner is a politician and , somehow, we expect a

politician to mislead...BUT NOT A PSYCHOLOGIST!
My goodness, Junior does seem to have an
extraordinary influence over its owner. Would it be too
out of line to suggest that this is the source of much
creativity? Certainly it does seem that some claiming to
be artists find it of some psychic satisfaction to invite
others to come take a peak. Koons Kopple are
examples. But what ecuse does Wiener have? It seems it

must be done for him.

M goodness, Junior does seem to have an extraordinary

influence over its owner. Would it be too out of line to
suggest that this is the source of much creativity?

Certainly it does seem that some claiming to be artists

find it of some psychic satisfaction to invite others to
come take a peak. Koons Kopple are examples.

After
such a degrading comment it would be only fair to point
up some aesthetic differences berween Kopple and
Koons which might be evidences of some real

differences. Works by Kopple:

While the correlation between narcissism and

photogrpahic technical ability is remarkably highwithn
many of the works,beyond thr subject mater the
organization of the formal elements is admirable. Jeff
Koons work, on the other hand, never seems to have left

the five-year old mind set.

Well now, it would appear that truth and fact

are basic for Koons and for this gets an
approving motherly kiss on the cheek for being a
good boy. I have a problem with this image...my
mother never looked like that.
Weisberg tells us that the creative process is the
same in the extraordinary as in the ordinary and

I would suggest that that may also be a valid

comparison for the shepherd who counts his
sheep the divorcee who counts her alimony and
the priest who counts the value of the sins you
have yet to commit. I think I suspect some
mischief here. Despite Koppels and Koons
fascination with their penises I cannot accept the
Weisberg notion that the procedures are the
same for, I believe it obvious that Koppels work
is superior to that of Koons even considering the
millions Koons has made titillating a stupidly
arrested mentality.