Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and creativity. Export

@article{citeulike:4052262, abstract = {QUESTION: why are so many leading modern scientists so dull and lacking in scientific ambition? ANSWER: because the science selection process ruthlessly weeds-out interesting and imaginative people. At each level in education, training and career progression there is a tendency to exclude smart and creative people by preferring Conscientious and Agreeable people. The progressive lengthening of scientific training and the reduced independence of career scientists have tended to deter vocational 'revolutionary' scientists in favour of industrious and socially adept individuals better suited to incremental 'normal' science. High general intelligence (IQ) is required for revolutionary science. But educational attainment depends on a combination of intelligence and the personality trait of Conscientiousness; and these attributes do not correlate closely. Therefore elite scientific institutions seeking potential revolutionary scientists need to use IQ tests as well as examination results to pick-out high IQ 'under-achievers'. As well as high IQ, revolutionary science requires high creativity. Creativity is probably associated with moderately high levels of Eysenck's personality trait of 'Psychoticism'. Psychoticism combines qualities such as selfishness, independence from group norms, impulsivity and sensation-seeking; with a style of cognition that involves fluent, associative and rapid production of many ideas. But modern science selects for high Conscientiousness and high Agreeableness; therefore it enforces low Psychoticism and low creativity. Yet my counter-proposal to select elite revolutionary scientists on the basis of high IQ and moderately high Psychoticism may sound like a recipe for disaster, since resembles a formula for choosing gifted charlatans and confidence tricksters. A further vital ingredient is therefore necessary: devotion to the transcendental value of Truth. Elite revolutionary science should therefore be a place that welcomes brilliant, impulsive, inspired, antisocial oddballs - so long as they are also dedicated truth-seekers.}, author = {Charlton, Bruce G.}, citeulike-article-id = {4052262}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2008.11.020}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306987708005902}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19070437}, citeulike-linkout-3 = {http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=19070437}, doi = {10.1016/j.mehy.2008.11.020}, issn = {0306-9877}, journal = {Medical hypotheses}, keywords = {creativity, intelligence, iq, science, sociability, training}, month = {March}, number = {3}, pages = {237--243}, posted-at = {2009-08-25 23:33:06}, priority = {2}, title = {Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and creativity.}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2008.11.020}, volume = {72}, year = {2009} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:4052262 L3 - citeulike-article-id:4052262 N2 - QUESTION: why are so many leading modern scientists so dull and lacking in scientific ambition? ANSWER: because the science selection process ruthlessly weeds-out interesting and imaginative people. At each level in education, training and career progression there is a tendency to exclude smart and creative people by preferring Conscientious and Agreeable people. The progressive lengthening of scientific training and the reduced independence of career scientists have tended to deter vocational 'revolutionary' scientists in favour of industrious and socially adept individuals better suited to incremental 'normal' science. High general intelligence (IQ) is required for revolutionary science. But educational attainment depends on a combination of intelligence and the personality trait of Conscientiousness; and these attributes do not correlate closely. Therefore elite scientific institutions seeking potential revolutionary scientists need to use IQ tests as well as examination results to pick-out high IQ 'under-achievers'. As well as high IQ, revolutionary science requires high creativity. Creativity is probably associated with moderately high levels of Eysenck's personality trait of 'Psychoticism'. Psychoticism combines qualities such as selfishness, independence from group norms, impulsivity and sensation-seeking; with a style of cognition that involves fluent, associative and rapid production of many ideas. But modern science selects for high Conscientiousness and high Agreeableness; therefore it enforces low Psychoticism and low creativity. Yet my counter-proposal to select elite revolutionary scientists on the basis of high IQ and moderately high Psychoticism may sound like a recipe for disaster, since resembles a formula for choosing gifted charlatans and confidence tricksters. A further vital ingredient is therefore necessary: devotion to the transcendental value of Truth. Elite revolutionary science should therefore be a place that welcomes brilliant, impulsive, inspired, antisocial oddballs - so long as they are also dedicated truth-seekers. IS - 3 JF - Medical hypotheses SN - 0306-9877 EP - 243 TI - Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and creativity. VL - 72 SP - 237 KW - creativity KW - intelligence KW - iq KW - science KW - sociability KW - training AU - Charlton, Bruce PY - 2009/03// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2008.11.020 ER -