On point, but what's wrong with mathematically sound generalizations (statistics)? The procedure seems simple enough.

Good answers! :up:

I am not sure that creative people are more 'messed up' than others. It may be more of a myth and a not particularly helpful one. It is associated with the products of creativity, such as the masterpiece and the notion of genius. In reality many would like to reach such heights but many seek it and only a minority achieve it. But for most of us as 'ordinary' people wishing to be creative it would probably be rather foolish to think about creativity simply as works rather than a creative approach to living.

I am not sure that the statistical analysis of creativity would be particularly worthwhile. It would probably involve as much bias as IQ tests. Creativity is subjective to some extent. The one gender issue which might be relevant is the question of technical vs emotional intelligence within the creativity equation.

There is also a risk of stereotyping and, as far as gendered aspects of creativity are understood, there is the question about how much is innate and how much is dependent upon social learning and cultural expectations. Some people who have been creative, ranging from Virginia Wolf, Oscar Wilde, to some of the flamboyant pop singers, may have been gender outlaws.

There is also the possibility that creativity may be about the yin and yang as the integration of the anima and animus. However, as June Singer argued in her book, 'Androgyny', this does not have to include physical gender ambiguity and may be about going beyond the psychological aspects of the self stemming from stereotypes.

Statistically speaking,
All sheep are black (based on a sample of 1 of course)
All people have straight black hair
Shakespeare is alive and well in China (most people who ever lived are alive today)

Why would you think it "not worthwhile" to analyze data on creativity. There's a point to statistical, sensu amplissimo, averages - they're a kind of knowledge and isn't knowledge useful? They say it is. How many times in a day do you do statistics even when you don't know what z-score means? Quite a lot in me humble opinion. Enough about statistics.

Gender?

I am not opposed to statistics and evidence based research on creativity. It is simply that it can sometimes be so reductive and the spark of creativity and its depths may be beyond empirical investigations. Statistical analysis may have some importance but the aesthetic embodiment of creativity and numinous experiences may be important in the arts, and even in science. Even though science may be based on the empirical it also incorporates metaphorical thinking.

Gender? It may be that the issue is not simply about this division and all aspects of difference. I know an art therapist, Vicky Barber, who has written on art therapy and race. In thinking about all experiences in daily life, as well in aesthetics and reasoning, culture and difference have such an impact. This may involve the various cultural meanings and backgrounds which shape our own symbolic worlds, alongside the political aspects of equality and inequalities which come into play in the realisation of creative expression in social life.

Well, if I were Ronald Fisher, I would say "now you see the light!" :grin:

You have a point though, but if you look at how mathematicians have (attempted to) solve(d) the particularly vexing problem you perhaps allude to, you would be going "damn, that's creative!!"

On gender I have no further comment! Au revoir mon ami!