Assignment 5, Part A: Individual Explanation of Imagination and Creativity
For EME 6646: Learning, Instructional Design, and Cognitive Neuroscience
By Richard Thripp
University of Central Florida
June 15, 2017

Measuring Creativity: Neuroimaging or Psychometrics?

When researchers using neuroimaging techniques seek to compare brain activity between people who are especially creative and people who are of average creativity, how do they do so? One might think this would be accomplished by using neuroimaging techniques to determine who is more creative. However, the pretty pictures of brain activity we see in many journal articles are actually the result of averaging and subtraction (Sawyer, 2011). In truth, most of the brain is active almost all the time—what we are really looking at is whether particular regions are comparatively less or more active than others, and this difference is often only 3% if we are lucky (Sawyer, 2011). Brain scans where certain “creative” regions of the brain are shown in bright red may lead the reader astray, not suggesting such a tiny differential in brain activity.

Perhaps because our current ability to measure actual brain activity is not a useful indicator of creativity, neuroimaging cannot yet be directly used to determine an individual’s level of creativity. Thus, even studies employing neuroimaging typically fall back on psychometric measures. For example, Jaušovec (2000) empirical investigation is titled “Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent, creative, and average individuals while solving complex problems: An EEG study” (p. 213). At first glance, one might think electroencephalogram (EEG) is being used to determine whether someone fits into the four categories of “gifted,” “intelligent,” “creative,” or “average.” However, Jaušovec actually used the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS or “IQ test”) and the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) to organize participants into these categories, defining “gifted” as doing well on both tests, “average” as not doing well on either, and the other categories as doing well on one test but not the other. Then, he found minor differences in EEG readings when participants solved open- or closed-problem tasks, and concluded that intelligence and creativity are probably different, and that patterns of brain activity are related to creativity and intelligence. Knowing that even the best psychometric tests have substantial measurement error (e.g., IQ tests measure not only intelligence, but familiarity with written language and academic environments), that grouping people as Jaušovec (2000) did introduces further error (I have reproduced his grouping table below), and that EEG itself lacks spatial resolution, Jaušovec’s methods seem so muddy as to be unfit to produce any conclusions. However, it is not as though I have cherry-picked an unknown, dubious study—according to Google Scholar his article has an impressive 239 citations! With recent arguments further suggesting that EEG’s temporal resolution is overblown (Burle et al., 2015), our confidence ability to draw conclusions diminishes further.

Figure 1. Grouping table for intelligence and creativity categories by Jaušovec (2000).

While EEG is not in the same vein of neuroimaging as magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI), near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), or positron emission tomography (PET), the use of psychometrics as an organizing device, and of subtractive averaging as a method to present pretty pictures implying big results, remain applicable. I have difficulty seeing the ethical differences between subtractive averaging and removing the zero axis on a bar chart to show bars of vastly different heights that would otherwise have been only slightly different.

Neuroimaging and Psychometrics in Creativity Research: A Corroboration Model

Psychometrics, the science of mental measurement, by definition is messy and imprecise. However, corroborating psychometric instruments with neuroimaging techniques may help us more accurately understand creativity. This is what Arden, Chavez, Grazioplene, and Jung (2010) advocate in their literature review and position piece on neuroimaging creativity. Researchers are all using different criteria to measure and interpret creativity, but there has been no concerted effort toward detailing the “psychometric properties of creative cognition” (Arden et al., 2010, p. 152), which is needed to be able to compare studies to each other. Nevertheless, employing neuroimaging has already allowed us to debunk, or at least fail to find support for, common hypotheses such as creativity being linked to the right brain or improved neural function (Arden et al., 2010). If we continue to improve the reliability and validity of creativity research along both psychometric and neuroimaging dimensions, we will improve our limited understanding of creativity, which is particularly needed areas such as novelty and originality (Fink, Benedek, Grabner, Staudt, & Neubauer, 2007). Limited spatial resolution prevents us from accurately isolating brain activity, while at the same time, the prevailing paradigm of neuroscience creativity research remains oriented toward finding the specific areas of the brain are associated with creativity (Arden et al., 2010; Sawyer, 2011), while the correct answer may be that all of them are—although some more so than others. Modern techniques as reviewed by Jung, Mead, Carrasco, and Flores (2013), such as structural magnetic-resonance imaging (sMRI), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) are critical to isolating the structural characteristics of creative cognition, and might be seen as a complement, rather than a replacement, to the proxy measures that psychometrics constitute. Finally, lesion studies reveal that areas of the brain may actually compete in parallel to reach creative solutions, with the right medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) winning out in healthy subjects, even though it produces inferior results (Jung et al., 2013). When corroborated with psychometric measures, this may lead us to an amusing finding whereby high creativity might be associated with brain problems (i.e., lesions in the left language errors).

Methodological Issues in Neuroscience-Based Creativity Research

Even recent creativity research is often devoid of neuroimaging. For example, Anderson, Potočnik, and Zhou’s (2014) “Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective, commentary, and guiding framework,” published in Journal of Management and focused on 2002–2013 research, defines creativity as “idea generation” and looks at studies that solely use observational and self-report data. In an organizational context, it is still unheard of to use MRI, DTI, 1H-MRS, et cetera, and even EEG is rare. Moreover, the research corpus itself is scattered and disjointed (Batey & Furnham, 2006). Consequently, sound methods are even more important for the few researchers who are able to use neuroimaging methods.

A big issue exemplified in Jaušovec (2000), and reiterated by Arden et al. (2010), are case-control designs whereby subjects are unnecessarily dichotomized into high- and low-creativity buckets, instead of respecting the continuous nature of creativity. Even psychometric measures such as Torrance tests do not classify people in binary, but rather across a range of scores. Respecting this continuity can improve statistical power.

Using expensive and cumbersome technologies such as PET or fMRI requires lying down, perfectly still, with loud whirring noises (Sawyer, 2011). Even EEG requires electrodes attached to one’s head, which impairs many creative activities. Methodologically, this is a large problem that is presently not surmountable. There is no way to measure creativity with an fMRI while a subject plays a violin (except, perhaps, a pizzicato performance). Moreover, neuroimaging studies do not measure novelty or usefulness, unlike common definitions of creativity used by non-neuroscience researchers (Sawyer, 2011).

Lastly, although there are many other methodological issues, neuroscience creativity research would be furthered by accurate reporting and disclosure of averaging, subtraction techniques, and the actual activation levels that were observed temporally and/or spatially (Sawyer, 2011). Speculation about causation should be clearly marked as such. Finally, researchers should refrain from labeling a region of the brain as a center for any specific creative task, or for creativity in general (Arden et al., 2010). Even though it generates popular press, such determinations are typically inaccurate.

References

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, perspective, commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128

Arden, R., Chavez, R. S., Grazioplene, R., & Jung, R. E. (2010). Neuroimaging creativity: A psychometric view. Behavioural Brain Research, 214, 143–156. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2010.05.015

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 355–429. http://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430

Burle, B., Spieser, L., Roger, C., Casini, L., Hasbroucq, T., & Vidal, F. (2015). Spatial and temporal resolutions of EEG: Is it really black and white? A scalp current density view. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 97, 210–220. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.05.004

Fink, A., Benedek, M., Grabner, R. H., Staudt, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Creativity meets neuroscience: Experimental tasks for the neuroscientific study of creative thinking. Methods, 42, 68–76. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.001

Jaušovec, N. (2000). Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent, creative, and average individuals while solving complex problems: An EEG study. Intelligence, 28, 213–237. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(00)00037-4

Jung, R. E., Mead, B. S., Carrasco, J., & Flores, R. A. (2013). The structure of creative cognition in the human brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–13. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00330

Sawyer, K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 137–154. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.571191

Starting in summer 2016, I took to using Evernote to take notes at meetings and classes instead of pen and paper as I had for nearly a decade before (I have paper notes dating back to my first college courses in fall 2007). I take notes with a Logitech K810 Bluetooth keyboard connected wirelessly to my Samsung Galaxy S7 phone, using the Samsung Wireless Charger as a stand. I’m not sure why, but many people are surprised/impressed by this. Often, I recall my classes at University of Central Florida being filled with people on laptops or MacBooks, which seems like overkill to me and is probably quite a bit less productive than my setup (although I often devolve into transcribing verbatim due to being able to type 100+ WPM, the small size of a smartphone removes the “wall” between others and I, and discourages multi-tasking).

My use of Evernote is fairly basic: primarily for text-based notes. I regularly use only my smartphone and home desktop PC, so Evernote’s recent decision to limit syncing to two devices (and simultaneously raise the prices of paid subscriptions with no new features) did not affect me. I’ve never approached Evernote’s atrociously small 60 MB per month data limit. I find the PC client useful for its search functionality, and like being able to view, write, and update notes from my phone. I’ve recently expanded into using Evernote to take photos of whiteboards or handwritten notes where necessary; it does a nice job of correcting lighting issues and cropping + straightening.

Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that Evernote, as a company and product, is a freaking joke. Here are just a few big reasons why:

1. Evernote notes literally cannot be printed. Customers have been complaining about this basic feature being broken for over SIX years, and Evernote doesn’t give a crap. If your note has any italics or bold text, the printing comes out wonky. Like many “support” forums, Evernote’s forums have descended into people blaming users for trying to use an app for something it’s not designed/intended to do. Some even say printing is stupid! Evernote employees actually advise not using bold or italics as a workaround. I kid you not.

2. Evernote sync just plain sucks. Their solution is to put conflicted items in a “Conflicting Changes” folder, and changes can “conflict” even if the user does everything right. Evernote gurus instruct users on the forums that they should be very careful to click the “Sync” button and wait for it to complete before attempting to edit a note on any other device. Basically, blame the user for something that other apps like Google Docs have figured out. As for Conflicting Changes, Evernote offers no “diff” feature to compare these conflicts. Even MediaWiki (the bungling, convoluted PHP disaster behind Wikipedia) offers diffs. This can’t be too hard to implement.

3. Evernote’s PR is a freaking trainwreck. First, they had the poorly executed 2-device limit in June 2016, coupled with a price increase that makes Evernote almost as expensive ($7.99 vs. $9.99 per month) as Adobe Photoshop, an infinitely more complex and per capita (by features), a less stupid program. (Admittedly, Adobe for some reason removed tabbed browsing in Acrobat X and XI and then their forum volunteers/employees enjoyed going off on customers about why they shouldn’t want/need tabbed browsing, and then there is Adobe Flash, but I digress.) Second, in December 2016 they announced a Christmas present: a new privacy policy that says they will read your notes whenever they feel like it. You can’t make this stuff up.

4. Evernote forum morons (I don’t actually participate in support forums but often read them or find them via Google) repeat the mantra about Evernote, in addition to NOT being a word processor or synchronization tool, is also not a collaboration tool. Anyone who finds issue with this is Just Plain Stupid™. Of course, then, I think, I must be pretty stupid. What the hell am I using this piece of crap for? The search and “sync” functions? (The latter should really be labeled “backup” because remember, you should only edit an Evernote note on one device at a time or Bad Things Will Happen, quite literally, because you’ll have to manually reconcile a “Conflicting Change” with a note that’s missing half of what you wrote.)

5. Evernote’s Android and iOS apps literally bog down if your note is over about 10,000 characters. Seriously, in a 3-hour lecture, I’ve had to make three separate “Part 1,” “Part 2,” and “Part 3” notes because the typing becomes slower until the words don’t appear until many seconds after I’ve typed them, making corrections and even moving the cursor agonizingly slow. This is for a PLAIN TEXT note on the Samsung Galaxy S7, literally the Greatest Smartphone that Doesn’t Seem to Have an Explosion Problem in the World™. Seriously, I’m pretty sure my phone became hot to the touch because of the Evernote Android app not being able to handle a 10 KB note. This is like something out of 1991 (the year of my birth). The PC client doesn’t have this problem, but this is simply ludicrous to begin with.

6. Evernote cannot save an empty note. What? Even Windows NotePad can save a text file with no text in it. On the PC client, I often end up titling a note first, before typing anything in it. I put a “.” in the note body to be able to save the note. After I write the note, in the viewing pane, the preview of the note forever remains “.”! There is literally no way to update the preview snippet. actually, this seems to be working now in v6.4.2.3788 of the PC client, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t working before, and still, Evernote will never fix the printing issue for some reason and apparently believes they are treating their users and customers a lesson (yes, the paid version can’t even print).

As you can see, I am still using Evernote but I did, in addition to these grievances, suffer data loss once where I lost part of a note when switching from PC to phone, but this is Probably My Fault Anyway™ and I also should not feel so entitled as to complain about a free product that I am choosing to use of my own free will. Google can’t even get search to work properly in Google Calendar, and one commentator says it doesn’t matter because Google doesn’t make ad revenue off Google Calendar anyway, and another says I should be grateful to even have a Google Calendar. So, in the spirit of Christmas I am grateful for my Google Calendar and this freaking joke we call Evernote. (Though, in a year, it will probably be pretty embarrassing to look back and see I was still using Evernote at the end of 2016.)

I have started working as a web developer for University of Central Florida’s new Florida Center for Students with Unique Abilities. Check out the progress Dr. Rebecca Hines (sister of Cheryl Hines!) and I have made on the site so far: FCSUA.org

The Florida Senate established this new program which will serve the whole state from its headquarters at University of Central Florida in Orlando: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/senate-gives-floridians-unique-abilities-big-boost.

Working on WordPress with GoDaddy IIS hosting (chosen by the previous developer) has been awful. GoDaddy is so much buggier and slower than my host, SYN Hosting. I’m hoping to get approval to switch soon, though we’ll lose money on our GoDaddy subscription.

Chick-fil-A, in their February 2009 press release [local mirror], alleges that being closed on Sundays is meant “to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

Evidently, this does not extend to contract workers, even though Chick-fil-A could easily stipulate that contract workers must perform work on Monday–Saturday.

At the Daytona Beach Chick-fil-A, I have commonly seen landscapers or paving crews working on Sunday.

A commentator on Reddit states: “Interesting note, while Chick-Fil-A stores are closed on Sunday, they have no problem having construction workers build their stores on Sunday.”

Because Chick-fil-A alleges their closed-on-Sunday policy is religiously based, it is hypocritical that they use Sunday to get all sorts of work done on their restaurants.

Other restaurants that do not close on Sunday must perform such contracted work during business hours or overnight. Chick-fil-A’s supposed “sacrifice” is diminished when we consider they have an entire day to perform contracted work without pesky customers. Further, any moral authority they have with respect to the “Lord’s day” is denuded.

Unlike with Amazon, I do not have a specific reason to pick on Chick-fil-A.

As a young child, I often visited my grandmother and step-grandfather (who passed away in 2003). I would go with them in the mornings to a meetup of seniors who met for friendship and to discuss various issues. After Target in Orange City, FL replaced their cafe with a Starbucks, we would meet at the Orange City Chick-fil-A. In the photo below from Friday, December 31, 2004, I am pictured far right, age 13.

As long as Chick-fil-A continues to conveniently employ contracted workers on Sundays, they will never have moral authority regarding the Sabbath. Their hypocrisy is on full display when they claim such authority, such as in deceased founder S. Truett Cathy’s claim from their February 2009 press release: “Cathy credits ‘blessings from the Lord’ for the great success the company has enjoyed, and he remains as committed as ever to maintaining the Closed-on-Sunday policy.”

I actually thought about going to graduation for my M.A. in Applied Learning & Instruction from University of Central Florida, because some of my classmates and faculty were encouraging me to go. However, I think the ceremonies are predatory and stupid, and none of my family were interested in going.

Commencement is an opportunity for the enrichment of the private companies UCF provides monopolistic, “sweetheart” deals to. UCF graduates are required to rent their gowns from Herff Jones at inflated prices that are much higher than other public Florida universities. My gown would cost $120 to rent, and Herff Jones assures me my credit card would be billed $800 if I do not return the gown by 5:00 p.m. the day of commencement, even though the ceremony does not start until 2:30 p.m.

At UCF commencements, guests are prohibited from getting closer to the stage or even standing up to take photos. From page 19 of the spring 2016 Commencement guide:

Photography and Recording Equipment
The University of Central Florida has arranged for GradImages to take professional pictures of all graduates as they cross the stage during the ceremony. After the ceremony, photographers will be available outside the CFE Arena and in front of the UCF FAIRWINDS Alumni Center for individual and family photos. Graduates will be contacted at a later date with purchasing information, but are under no obligation to purchase photos. See page 27 for more information.

While cameras and video recording equipment are permitted, guests are required to photograph or videotape from their seats only and must not obstruct the view of others.

GradImages will charge you about $100 for 6 photos that may be dark or blurry, according to their atrocious Yelp reviews. Of course, you won’t be able to tell before buying the photos, because you only get to see blurry, heavily watermarked preview images.

It is my opinion that this level of featherbedding reflects poorly, especially upon a non-profit, State institution chartered for the public’s benefit. Providing a monopolistic arrangement to Herff Jones and GradImages would be like prohibiting students from ordering textbooks from anywhere but the overpriced campus bookstore. It is at odds with the “Integrity” and “Excellence” components of the creed of the university.

When you attend commencement, you are surrounded by people who may or may not actually be graduating. Bachelor’s and Master’s graduates are given a diploma cover; their actual diploma is not mailed until 6–10 weeks later. These purported graduates may even be “walking” early at some institutions, with their graduation remaining dependent on them completing their program of study in the summer semester. Attendance of graduation at UCF and other institutions provides no indication of an earned degree.

I am continuing at UCF in the Education Ph.D. program and have promised to attend that graduation, which will be in 2019 or later if my dissertation takes longer. Fortunately, according to the commencement guide, doctoral graduates actually receive their degree on-stage, indicating they have actually graduated.

I will be receiving my Master’s degree by mail in 6–10 weeks, just like my cohorts who attended commencement.