際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

test+ppt+2

Download as PPT, PDF
T
theextraaedge

This document discusses research on the relationship between aging and creative productivity. It finds that on average, creative productivity follows an inverted U-shaped curve, rapidly increasing early in the career, peaking at a certain point, and then gradually declining. However, it notes there is significant individual variability and other factors like creative potential, career onset age, domain, and outside influences complicate the picture. It concludes that while aging relates to decreased productivity on average, it is less determinative than other intrinsic and extrinsic factors at the individual level.

1 of 58
Download to read offline
Aging and Creative Productivity Is There an Age Decrement or Not?
Brief history: Antiquity of topic Qu辿telet (1835) Beard (1874) Lehman (1953) Dennis (1966) Simonton (1975, 1988, 1997, 2000, 2004)
Central findings: The typical age curve Described by fitting an equation derived from a combinatorial model of the creative process
Henri Poincar辿 (1921): Ideas rose in crowds; I felt them collide until pairs interlocked, so to speak, making a stable combination. [These ideas are like] the hooked atoms of Epicurus [that collide] like the molecules of gas in the kinematic theory of gases [so that] their mutual impacts may produce new combinations.
p (t) = c (e at e bt) where p (t) is productivity at career age t (in years), e is the exponential constant (~ 2.718), a the typical ideation rate for the domain (0 < a < 1), b the typical elaboration rate for the domain (0 < b < 1), c = abm/(b a), where m is the individuals creative potential (i.e. maximum number of publications in indefinite lifetime). [N.B.: If a = b, then p (t) = a2mte at]
2.0 1.5 Productivity 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 Career Age
Central findings: The typical age curve Rapid ascent (decelerating)
test+ppt+2
Central findings: The typical age curve Rapid ascent (decelerating) Single peak
2.0 1.5 Productivity 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 Career Age
Central findings: The typical age curve Rapid ascent (decelerating) Single peak Gradual decline (asymptotic)
2.0 1.5 Productivity 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 Career Age
With correlations with published data between .95 and .99.
Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real?
Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity?
Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity? But high correlation between two
Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity? Differential competition?
Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity? Differential competition? But survives statistical controls
Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity? Differential competition? Aggregation error?
Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity? Differential competition? Aggregation error? But persists at individual level
e.g., the career of Thomas Edison CEdison (t) = 2595(e - .044t -e ) - .058t r = .74
500 400 Observed Count Predicted Count 300 Patents 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Career Age
However ...
Complicating considerations
Complicating considerations Individual differences
Complicating considerations Individual differences Creative potential (m in model)
0.5 0.4 Gerontology/Geriatrics Geology Infantile Paralysis Proportion 0.3 Chemistry Psychology 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Decile
In fact, 1) cross-sectional variation always appreciably greater than longitudinal variation 2) the lower an individuals productivity the more random the longitudinal distribution becomes
Complicating considerations Individual differences Creative potential Age at career onset (i.e., chronological age at t = 0 in model)
Hence, arises a two-dimensional typology of career trajectories
High Creative Early Bloomers Low Creative Early Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age High Creative Late Bloomers Low Creative Late Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation The equal-odds rule
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation The equal-odds rule Career landmarks
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation The equal-odds rule Career landmarks: First major contribution (f)
High Creative Early Bloomers Low Creative Early Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age High Creative Late Bloomers Low Creative Late Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation The equal-odds rule Career landmarks: First major contribution (f) Single best contribution (b)
High Creative Early Bloomers Low Creative Early Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age High Creative Late Bloomers Low Creative Late Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation The equal-odds rule Career landmarks: First major contribution (f) Single best contribution (b) Last major contribution(l)
High Creative Early Bloomers Low Creative Early Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age High Creative Late Bloomers Low Creative Late Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age
Journalist Alexander Woolcott reporting on G. B. Shaw: At 83 Shaws mind was perhaps not quite as good as it used to be. It was still better than anyone elses.
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts (a and b in model)
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Differential decrements (0-100%)
30 Percent of Total Lifetime Output 20 10 SCHOLARS SCIENTISTS ARTISTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Age Decade
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Differential peaks and decrements Differential landmark placements
First Major Contribution Best Contribution Last Major Contribution 60 Chronological Age 50 40 30 20 y gy ry ce s e cs gy om iolo mist ien atic dicin hysi olo on B he osc em e P chn str C Ge ath M A M Te DISCIPLINE
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors Negative influences
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors Negative influences: e.g., war
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors Negative influences Positive influences
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors Negative influences Positive influences: e.g., disciplinary networks
Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors Negative influences Positive influences: e.g., disciplinary networks cross-fertilization
Hence, the creative productivity within any given career will show major departures from expectation, some positive and some negative
Three Main Conclusions Age decrement a highly predictable phenomenon at the aggregate level Age decrement far more unpredictable at the individual level Age decrement probably less due to aging per se than to other factors both intrinsic and extrinsic to the creative process
Hence, the possibility of late-life creative productivity increments; e.g., Michel-Eug竪ne Chevreul (1786-1889)
References Simonton, D. K. (1984). Creative productivity and age: A mathematical model based on a two-step cognitive process. Developmental Review, 4, 77-111. Simonton, D. K. (1989). Age and creative productivity: Nonlinear estimation of an information-processing model. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 29, 23-37.
References Simonton, D. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119-130. Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66-89. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
test+ppt+2

More Related Content

test+ppt+2

  • 1. Aging and Creative Productivity Is There an Age Decrement or Not?
  • 2. Brief history: Antiquity of topic Qu辿telet (1835) Beard (1874) Lehman (1953) Dennis (1966) Simonton (1975, 1988, 1997, 2000, 2004)
  • 3. Central findings: The typical age curve Described by fitting an equation derived from a combinatorial model of the creative process
  • 4. Henri Poincar辿 (1921): Ideas rose in crowds; I felt them collide until pairs interlocked, so to speak, making a stable combination. [These ideas are like] the hooked atoms of Epicurus [that collide] like the molecules of gas in the kinematic theory of gases [so that] their mutual impacts may produce new combinations.
  • 5. p (t) = c (e at e bt) where p (t) is productivity at career age t (in years), e is the exponential constant (~ 2.718), a the typical ideation rate for the domain (0 < a < 1), b the typical elaboration rate for the domain (0 < b < 1), c = abm/(b a), where m is the individuals creative potential (i.e. maximum number of publications in indefinite lifetime). [N.B.: If a = b, then p (t) = a2mte at]
  • 6. 2.0 1.5 Productivity 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 Career Age
  • 7. Central findings: The typical age curve Rapid ascent (decelerating)
  • 9. Central findings: The typical age curve Rapid ascent (decelerating) Single peak
  • 10. 2.0 1.5 Productivity 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 Career Age
  • 11. Central findings: The typical age curve Rapid ascent (decelerating) Single peak Gradual decline (asymptotic)
  • 12. 2.0 1.5 Productivity 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 Career Age
  • 13. With correlations with published data between .95 and .99.
  • 14. Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real?
  • 15. Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity?
  • 16. Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity? But high correlation between two
  • 17. Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity? Differential competition?
  • 18. Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity? Differential competition? But survives statistical controls
  • 19. Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity? Differential competition? Aggregation error?
  • 20. Criticisms of findings: Is the age decrement real? Quality but not quantity? Differential competition? Aggregation error? But persists at individual level
  • 21. e.g., the career of Thomas Edison CEdison (t) = 2595(e - .044t -e ) - .058t r = .74
  • 22. 500 400 Observed Count Predicted Count 300 Patents 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Career Age
  • 26. Complicating considerations Individual differences Creative potential (m in model)
  • 27. 0.5 0.4 Gerontology/Geriatrics Geology Infantile Paralysis Proportion 0.3 Chemistry Psychology 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Decile
  • 28. In fact, 1) cross-sectional variation always appreciably greater than longitudinal variation 2) the lower an individuals productivity the more random the longitudinal distribution becomes
  • 29. Complicating considerations Individual differences Creative potential Age at career onset (i.e., chronological age at t = 0 in model)
  • 30. Hence, arises a two-dimensional typology of career trajectories
  • 31. High Creative Early Bloomers Low Creative Early Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age High Creative Late Bloomers Low Creative Late Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age
  • 34. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation The equal-odds rule Career landmarks
  • 35. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation The equal-odds rule Career landmarks: First major contribution (f)
  • 36. High Creative Early Bloomers Low Creative Early Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age High Creative Late Bloomers Low Creative Late Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age
  • 37. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation The equal-odds rule Career landmarks: First major contribution (f) Single best contribution (b)
  • 38. High Creative Early Bloomers Low Creative Early Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age High Creative Late Bloomers Low Creative Late Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age
  • 39. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation The equal-odds rule Career landmarks: First major contribution (f) Single best contribution (b) Last major contribution(l)
  • 40. High Creative Early Bloomers Low Creative Early Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age High Creative Late Bloomers Low Creative Late Bloomers 5 5 Creative Productivity Creative Productivity 4 4 3 f b l 3 2 2 f b l 1 1 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Chronological Age Chronological Age
  • 41. Journalist Alexander Woolcott reporting on G. B. Shaw: At 83 Shaws mind was perhaps not quite as good as it used to be. It was still better than anyone elses.
  • 42. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts (a and b in model)
  • 43. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Differential decrements (0-100%)
  • 44. 30 Percent of Total Lifetime Output 20 10 SCHOLARS SCIENTISTS ARTISTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Age Decade
  • 45. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Differential peaks and decrements Differential landmark placements
  • 46. First Major Contribution Best Contribution Last Major Contribution 60 Chronological Age 50 40 30 20 y gy ry ce s e cs gy om iolo mist ien atic dicin hysi olo on B he osc em e P chn str C Ge ath M A M Te DISCIPLINE
  • 47. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors
  • 48. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors Negative influences
  • 49. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors Negative influences: e.g., war
  • 50. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors Negative influences Positive influences
  • 51. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors Negative influences Positive influences: e.g., disciplinary networks
  • 52. Complicating considerations Individual differences Quantity-quality relation Inter-domain contrasts Impact of extraneous factors Negative influences Positive influences: e.g., disciplinary networks cross-fertilization
  • 53. Hence, the creative productivity within any given career will show major departures from expectation, some positive and some negative
  • 54. Three Main Conclusions Age decrement a highly predictable phenomenon at the aggregate level Age decrement far more unpredictable at the individual level Age decrement probably less due to aging per se than to other factors both intrinsic and extrinsic to the creative process
  • 55. Hence, the possibility of late-life creative productivity increments; e.g., Michel-Eug竪ne Chevreul (1786-1889)
  • 56. References Simonton, D. K. (1984). Creative productivity and age: A mathematical model based on a two-step cognitive process. Developmental Review, 4, 77-111. Simonton, D. K. (1989). Age and creative productivity: Nonlinear estimation of an information-processing model. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 29, 23-37.
  • 57. References Simonton, D. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119-130. Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66-89. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.