And we've done a fair number of studies with the Big Five aspect scale, which we've talked about a lot, which enables the Big Five model to be differentiated down into two aspects per trait.

And those aspects have bean useful for a variety of reasons.

For example, when we're looking at political behavior, we've been able to determine that conservatives, who are generally regarded as higher in conscientiousness, are actually more specifically higher in orderliness.

It's not a lot of difference between liberals and conservatives with regards to industriousness, and we've also been able to determined, at least to some degree, that orderliness seems to be associated with disgust, sensitivity and discussed sensitivity is part of the behavioral immune system.

And so part of the reasons that conservatives are more inclined to want things like closed borders is because they're more concerned about maintaining the boundaries between things and the reasons without seems to be fundamentally associate ID with disgust.

And I'll talk to you a lot about that next week because once we sorted that out, it really, really illuminated my way of thinking about things that had happened, for example, in Nazi Germany, because people tend to, people tend to think about when people have bean studying conservatism from a scientific perspective, they've tended to assume that it's associated with fear of the groups.

A.

And the conservatives are more fearful the Liberals.

But that actually doesn't seem to be.

Conservatives are not hiring treat neuroticism, and that's a really tough one.

Because if you're going to make a case that a Group one group is more anxious, let's say or threat sensitive than another and you don't get differences in trade neuroticism, then you've really got a problem vs.

Well, yeah, but the theories, the theories seem to be more trade like rather than situation.

Yeah, so So.

But what we have found is that you know, for a long time people thought that all of the negative emotions loaded on neuroticism and it was like the global.

It was the global trade for negative emotion.

But discussed seems to be its own peculiar thing, and, uh, but I will talk to you more about that next week.

And but that's just an example of why differentiation at the aspect level seems useful.

You also pick up differences between men and women at the aspect level that aren't obvious at the trade level as well.

So you can think about the model says, You know you have a model that operates at different levels of resolution and low resolution representations are good for one set of operations and higher resolution representations air good for other purposes.

And the purpose, of course, is to predict least that's one of the primary scientific purposes.

And so you pick the level of analysis that gives you the most prediction and perhaps also the most utility in terms of formulating scientific theories.

So and so will concentrate a little bit more today on openness per se, so openness to experience fragments into intellect and openness proper.

And I think the right way to think about intellect is that it's the personality in Stan she ation of cute, roughly speaking.

And the reason I think that is because, well, first of all, working memory predicts intellect quite nicely, and working memory tests are very, very highly correlated with G and specifically G being the first factor that you pull out of any set of I Q tests right?

That that's the technical definition of G.

You set up cysts, a sets of questions, do a factor analysis and extract out the first factor, which is roughly equivalent by the way, to the total or to that, to the mean of the of the items.

If it's if there's a one factor solution, it's not much different than the average, so the average is actually a factor.

That's where the hypothesis is that every single item loads equally on that factor because you're adding them all up and then dividing them by the number.

So it's no different than a factor Now.

Sometimes you'll hear people like Stephen Jay Gould did this when he was complaining about Ike you back in the nineties, he said.

A factor and a factor.

Analysis like a factor is just a mathematical abstraction.

It's like, Well, yeah, so is the average you think is the average of a set of numbers riel and answer That question is depends on how you define real.

You can use it for certain functions, which is a pretty good definition of really as far as I'm concerned.

But when you ask questions like that you have to define both your terms and you do that somewhat arbitrarily.

Anyways.

People with high IQ's tend to think that they're smart, which is that's right.

And so then they tend to describe themselves as smart if you give them the opportunity to do that.

And then that shows up when you ask them questions about their problem solving ability, and that loads mostly on intellect.

And so it isn't even obvious that there's any real utility in assessing intellect from the self report perspective when you could replace that with an I Q test, because the I Q test is way more accurate, so but that gives you some sense.

You think about the whole five factor model.

You know where intelligence slots slots in underneath.

Open now the openness, proper part of openness to experience, which which I tend to think about as creativity.

You can use that at least as a shorthand to sort of aid your understanding and what it is.

Creativity seems related to like you in that more people with higher our cues are likely to be creative or if you take people who are noted for their creativity.

There's a high probability that they'll have a higher i Q.

But there's more to it than I Q Um, and and what?

What creativity seems to be associated with, then again depends on whether not on how you define creativity, because you could define it as the sum total of creative achievements that you've made in your life, which would be the actual production of, say, artifacts of one form or another, performances or inventions or artworks or or or what have you will go over the dimensions and middle in a minute.

Or you could also define it as the proclivity to engage in creative thought.

And I think we'll start with that first.

So what does it mean to think creatively?

It's It's sort of like it's something like this.

You imagine that I toss you out an idea, and there's some probability that when I tossed you that idea that that will trigger off other ideas in your imagination so you could think about it as a threshold issue.

If you're not very creative, I'll throw you an idea, and hardly any other ideals will be triggered, and the ones that will be triggered are going to be very closely associated with that initial idea.

So let's say I tossed each of you an idea and I asked you to think, Tell me the first thing that comes to mind.

OK, so what we would see first is that the first thing that comes to mind for you, the first thing that comes to mind in like in all likelihood, would be shared by many of you.

Okay, so then you could think about that as a common response, right?

And so that's a less creative response.

And then there'll be some things that come to mind for you that they're that they're so idiosyncratic that you're the only person that thinks it.

And no one can understand it well, that that's also not exactly creative, because the thing that you for something to be creative, it has to be novel and useful at the same time.

That's sort of rough definition, creative.

Something creative is novel and useful, and obviously you know there's a there's a certain amount of judgment that goes along with that clearly.

But if it's too novel, then no one else can understand it, and it's unlikely to be useful.

So there's there's A There's a range of convenience.

So anyways, if you want to decide if something's creative, like what we would do for I could say to you.

Okay.

In the next three minutes, I want you to write down all the uses you can think of for a brick.

So Okay, so someone tell me a use for a brick.

Breaking windows.

Yes.

Okay.

At what else can use a brick for build a wall?

It's very small wall.

A wall for ants.

And what else?

Paperweight.

Okay, okay, well, so you get the idea.

You're not feeling very mouthy today, obviously.

But so So you see that?

So if we gathered your responses, say, I said you have to think up 20 items that 20 things that you could do with a brick, then a bunch of the things that you thought would be the same and some people would come up with something different, like yours was reasonably different.

One about using it as a public stone for your feet that someone else might have come up with that.

But it's it's a good creative response because it's under unexpected and you could actually do it, you know, so anyway, so you'll get a graph of probability of response, right?

And the more probable, the less creative, Roughly speaking.

It's not the only criteria because you also have to look a utility.

So if I said OK, you've got three minutes to write down as many uses as you can think of for a brick, I would score that in a variety of ways.

The first thing I would do is just figure out how many uses you generated.

That's called fluency, and we could also do that.

I could just say, Write down as many words as you can begin with the letter s in three minutes or that.

Begin with the letter C or four letter words that begin with the letter D.

No, I can I can constrain it.

And if I counted how many words you generated if I had an I Q measure and I had a measure of how many words you generated, I Q plus the number of words that you generate.

It would be a better predictor of your creativity than just like you.

So there's this fluency element that's so that's something like the rate at which you can produce a verbal ideas.

And one of the things we do know about about the creativity dimension of of openness is that it is associated with fluency.

And it's also associated with originality and originality Would be how improbable your use was compared to the uses generated by other people.

So so you, anyway.

So you can think of you get thrown an idea, and there's some probability that that will co activate other ideas.

And if it co activates many other ideas, that's like fluency.

And if it co activates ideas that are quite distant from the original idea something like that and you could you could track distance by comparing it to two probability that other people have generated it.

Then that's also another indication of creativity.

So they have to be unlikely, many unlikely responses that are useful.

That's what creativity is, roughly speaking, and then you can fractionated into different dimensions, so that's creative thinking.

But then creative achievement would be the ability to take those original ideas and then actually to implement them in the world.

And that's obviously much more different than merely being creative.

And so and then what creativity is depends on which of those measurement routes that you take now?

I developed a questionnaire with one of my students, Shelley Carson boat.

Jeez, it's just about 30 years ago now, 20 years ago, I guess called the Creative Achievement Questionnaire.

And I'll show you that here, and I'll show you some of the things that are interesting about it.

You know, you hear very frequently people say things like everyone's creative.

It's like, That's wrong.

Okay, it's wrong.

It's just a CZ Wrong is saying that everyone's extroverted.

First of all, you have to be pretty damn smart to be creative, because otherwise you're just gonna get to where other people have already got.

And that's not created by definition.

So so being fast and being out there at the front of things really makes a difference.

And then you also have to have these divergent thinking capabilities, and that's part of your trade structure.

And creative people are really different than non creative people.

You know, partly because, for example, they're highly motivated to do creative things and to experience novelty into and to and to chase down aesthetic experiences into a 10 movies and to read fiction and to go to museums and to enjoy poetry and and and to enjoy music.

That's not conventional music.

For example.

These aren't trivial differences, and so and so it's a really it's a really miss statement to make the proposition that everyone's creative.

It's just simply not the case.

It's a matter of wishful thinking.

It's like saying that everyone's intelligent.

It's like, Well, if everyone's intelligent than then the term loses all of its meaning because any term that you can apply to every member of a category has absolutely no meaning.

No, that doesn't.

And, you know, the other thing you want to be thinking about here is that don't be thinking that creativity is such a good thing.

It's a high risk, high return strategy.

So if you're creative, you just try this.

There's creative people in this room, man.

You guys are gonna have a hell of a time monetizing your creativity.

It's virtually impossible.

It's really, really difficult because first of all, let's say you make an original product.

You think the world will beat a pathway to your door.

If you build a better mousetrap, it's like that's complete rubbish.

It isn't it.

It isn't true in the least.

If you make a good creative product, you've probably solved about 5% of your problem because then you have marketing, which is insanely difficult, and then you have sales and then you have customer support, and then you have to build an organization and you have to.

If it's really novel, you have to tell people what the hell the thing is.

You know, we built this future authoring program right, and it's available for people online.

How do you market that?

No one knows what that is, and that's a real problem.

If you write a book, well, then you have the problem that another 1,000,000 people have also written a book.

But if you produce something that's completely new and doesn't have a category, people can't search for it online.

How are they gonna find it?

So you just have and then you have pricing problems, and it's really unbelievably difficult to produce something creative and then monetize it.

And even worse, if you're the creative person, let's say you have a spectacular invention.

He's got no money, you've got no customers that those are big problems, and so maybe you go and you find a venture capitalist.

We start with family and friends because that's how it works.

You raise money for your product.

You raise money from your family and friends.

That's assuming you have family and friends that have some money and that they're going to give it to you.

And most people aren't in that situation.

So it's a terrible barrier right off the bat.

And then, of course, you're putting your family and friends.