Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘psychological tests’

 contributed by Tony Pankuch.

What kind of reader are you? Are you the type who enjoys psychological quizzes and assessments? Are you a seeker of personal introspection in the form of multiple choice, “Yes or No” style questions? Or do you find these exercises to be a trivial bore? Read on to discover whether you fit the profile of a personality test aficionado!

Today, most of us have taken some form of personality assessment. The Myers-Briggs Test is one popular example of this, sorting people into one of 16 psychological categories based on the theories of Carl Jung. Other examples can be found all over the internet; consider the multiple choice “Which developmental psychologist are you?”-style quizzes that you might see shared on social media.

This sort of testing has its roots in the early 20th century, and one of the early enthusiasts of the format was William Moulton Marston, a psychologist best known for his lie detector prototype and the creation of Wonder Woman, the popular DC Comics superhero. A regular contributor to popular psychology magazines, Marston created a number of tests and self-assessments for recognizing personal defects and psychological “types.”

Let’s take a look at a few. First up, how shy are you? Follow the instructions for “The ? Test” and find your score, from 0 (most shy) to 100 (most outgoing, presumably).

To test yourself, answer the following questions prepared by William Moulton Marston., distinguished psychologist, educator, and author. Each question may be answered in three different ways. If your answer is an unqualified "No", score yourself 10 for that question. If it is "Yes", score 0. If it is "Sometimes", score 5. When several examples of the same type of shyness are included in one question, you may score yourself separately on each example, then average those part-scores together to get your complete score for the question. To arrive at your total score for the test, simply add the ten question scores.
If you want to know what impression you make on other people get your friends to score for you. 
1. Do you dread meeting people for the first time, attending parties or other social functions, or making calls on comparative strangers?
2. Do you hate to ask favors of people, to ask for a	job or a raise in pay, or to ask strangers to direct you when traveling?
3. Do you look enviously at a group of people who are laughing and talking together without making any effort to join them, and do you feel awkward and tongue-tied when you are a member of such a group?
4. Do you hesitate to return articles that you have bought just because they are not just right, and does it make you feel small to insist upon the salesperson giving you exactly what you want?
5. Are you afraid of policemen, lawyer's letters, prominent people, or your superiors in business?
6. Are you afraid of what barbers, manicurists, or waiters may be thinking about you?
7. When you express an opinion or idea, and someone says authoritatively that you are wrong, do you thereupon believe your own ideas worthless?
8. Do you make misplays in golf, bridge, or any favorite game when you know people are watching you?
9. Do you agree politely with opinions contrary to your own in order to avoid an argument?
10. Do you let acquaintances or business associates impose upon you rather than take them to task and insist upon your rights?
1913. J. Gustav White papers, Test Center

What was your score? Are you feeling confident in your personality? If not, maybe the Inferiority Detection Test will help you to understand why.

Answer the following questions frankly: this test is worthless unless you do. You must acknowledge, at least, the symptoms of your favorite inferiorities before you can begin to play the exciting game of defeating them. 
1. Do you privately resent or despise some business superior?
2. Do you avoid social contacts with some person, or group of people, who have, in your opinion, more money or social standing than you possess?
3. Do you frequently belittle a successful person mentioned in conversation or in news reports?
4. Do you often feel rage or hatred against individuals with whose political principles you disagree?
5. Are you convinced that the opposite sex has more faults and weaknesses than your own?
6. Are you intolerant of any religious or racial group to which you do not belong?
7. Do you resent the success of another person in your own field of endeavor who has educational standing which you lack, or who lacks educational training which you possess?
8. If you're a girl or wife, do you flare up spitefully and critically against women who interest the man you love?
9. If you're a man, do you resent feminine heart-flutter­ing over male movie stars, fiction heroes or attractive men in your own social set?
10. Do you feel that the world or people in it are unjust to you, that you aren't getting a fair chance in life?
Your Personality magazine, Fall 1944, Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr. Popular Psychology Magazine Collection

According to Marston’s ratings, identifying 5-7 of these inferiorities in yourself should serve as a “warning,” while holding 8 or more is a sign that “your personality situation is precarious.” If you’re feeling like you need to take action, you might consider pursuing some of Marston’s “Suggestions for Self-Changing Practice” (featuring another short set of tests).

1. Observe these danger signals: Are you so filled with hatred and fear of marauding, map-changing nations that you are unable to concentrate upon the necessary changes to be made in our own national life? 
Do you associate and converse mostly with people whose opinions agree with yours? 
Do you rise and go to bed every day at the same time, eat the same things for breakfast and generally let the clock control you? 
Do you believe that your salary should be raised for staying in the same, unchanging job a long time? 
Do you avoid reading, radio and conversation on topics you are not in the habit of thinking about? 
2. If the above tests show your personality is ossifying, begin limbering up your character as follows: Change all your physical habits for a week and repeat the prescription once a month. Rise earlier or later, eat different meals, walk if you usually ride or vice versa, alter every item on your daily schedule which lies within your power to 'change. 
Expose yourself to new ideas. Buy a different newspaper, read unaccustomed books, attend lectures and hold conversations on subjects totally foreign to your present mental habits. 
Adapt socially to unfamiliar people. Invite new acquaintances to the house, share sports with new companions, make a card index of everybody you know and see a different person on your list every week. 
Do new work. Volunteer at the office to help on work in advance of your own. Do some business studying, reading, take some courses. 
Change your home attitudes. Give your wife or husband a treat they have always wanted but never had; visit some new place every day; let each member of the family, on Sunday morning, prescribe something for another member to do which he or she has not done for a month or more; spend one evening a week, in suitable domestic seclusion, without clothes.
Your Life magazine, September 1940, Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr. Popular Psychology Magazine Collection

Some of these suggestions may feel a bit outdated, unless you’re a big fan of card indexes. Alternatively, you might be eager for some more definitive personality “types,” rather than vague psychological weaknesses. In that case, you’re in luck.

Type D 
1. If your way through the woods were blocked by a bramble patch, would you force your way through rather than detour half a mile?
2. Would you rather be a prominent person in Skeedunk than a little known individual in New York City?
3. When you start a thing do you pride yourself on finishing it?
4. Would you break the string on a bundle, if you could do so easily, rather than go for scissors?
5. Do you get tired of hearing about much-publicized people and feel an impulse to belittle them? 
6. When someone says a thing is impossible do you want to do it?
7. If you fell going down hill on skis, would you want to try that hill again immediately?
(Alternative: If a closet containing something you want immediately were locked and the key lost, would you break the door open?) 

Type C:
1. Do you obey "Keep Off the Grass" signs? 
2. Do you like to make careful preparations before beginning a task? 
3. Would you rather keep a purchase that is slightly defective than go back and argue about it with the store clerk?
4. Would you wear an unbecoming hat, because it was stylish?
5. Would you rather keep your job at your present salary than risk it by asking for a raise?
6. Would you give in to a child rather than endure his temper tantrums?
7. Would you rather live in a less commodious house in a fashionable neighborhood, than in a more adequate one "across the tracks?"
(Alternative: If your boss wanted you to do something in a way you believed inefficient, would you do it without protest?)
Your Life magazine, September 1939, Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr. Popular Psychology Magazine Collection

This is Part One of Marston’s test to reveal “Your True Self.” Your answers above will reveal whether you are Dominant, Compliant, or Desireful.

  • If you answered “yes” to more of the “Type D” questions, you are a Dominant personality type–an independent master of your own fate. Marston writes that the “surest way to get you interested in something is to tell you it can’t be done.”
  • If you answered “yes” to more of the “Type C” questions, you are a Compliant personality type–timid and cautious. According to Marston, you “prefer security to prestige and safety to triumph.”
  • Lastly, if you answered “yes” to an equal number of both question types, you have a Desireful personality. Marston suggests that “your purposes in life should contain a happy blending of dominance and compliance.” He goes on to argue that those occupying this category have a blend of qualities suited to overcome most any obstacle in life.

Interestingly, two of these categories mirror Marston’s “DISC” model of behavioral expression, which sorted behaviors into four categories: Dominance, Inducement, Submission, and Compliance. DISC theory would later be adapted into a form of personality assessment, but not by Marston. The DISC model was used for personnel selection by industrial psychologist Walter V. Clarke, who slightly altered the four categories to describe four personality factors that he observed in his own studies.

So how are you feeling? Have you learned anything about yourself? Personality psychology has changed considerably since Marston’s popular work. Today, the APA recognizes personality assessment as a proficiency in professional psychology that involves “empirically supported measures of personality traits and styles.” Regardless, anecdotal tests like these, popularized by Marston in magazines, can be a fun way to pass time and think a little bit deeper about our personalities. They can help us to better understand how we and our friends function in our social environment.

Just don’t take them too seriously!

Citations:

Scullard, M., & Baum, D. (2015). Everything DiSC Manual (pp. 185–187). Wiley.

Read Full Post »

contributed by Lizette Royer Barton.

In case you haven’t been following along, we’ve been been highlighting the first five women presidents of the American Psychological Association for a series in honor of Women’s History Month. Working in reverse order we’ve blogged about Florence Denmark and Leona Tyler.

Up next: Anne Anastasi.

Anne Anastasi (1908-2001) served as the third woman president of APA in 1972 – a full 50 YEARS after Margaret Floy Washburn, the second woman president of APA, served in 1921.

Anastasi started college at Barnard at 15-years-old. She earned her PhD from Columbia in just two years at 21-years-old. She chaired the psychology department at Queens College CUNY before she was 35 and she was a full professor at Fordham University in 1951 at the age of 43.

Anne Anastasi was a BOSS. As illustrated by this photograph.

Anne Anastasi, 1967, David P. Campbell Still Images collection

Anastasi is most well known for her work in psychological testing and the psychology of individual differences. The New York Times dubbed her the “Test Guru of Psychology” in her obituary. She wrote THE book on psychological testing, titling it simply Psychological Testing (1954).

The Anne Anastasi papers contain lot about testing and a lot of material from her time in various roles of APA governance. But you guys already know that about her so how about something else?

In 1936 Anastasi started a research project titled, “An Experimental Investigation of Artistic Behavior in the Insane.”

Anne Anastasi papers, box M4812, folder 3

In 1938 she applied for additional grant funding to continue the project. She asked for $3,800. They gave her $1,000 and she made it work.

Anne Anastasi papers, box M4812, folder 2

“Experimental Approaches to the Psychology of Art” included 4 angles from which to gather materials. Let’s take a closer look at angle 4.

The fourth angle was an “experimental investigation of the drawing behavior of insane patients under controlled conditions….” The patients were provided with crayons and paper and asked to draw: (1) a free choice drawing; (2) an abstract subject; (3) a concrete subject; and finally (4) to copy a sample design.

Here are the specific instructions the investigators used.

Anne Anastasi papers, box M4812, folder 7

The abstract subject was danger and the concrete subject was a man.

During the years Anastasi was working on this project alongside fellow psychologist (and husband) John P. Foley, there was a lot of interest in art done by patients with mental illness, specifically those in asylums. There was interest in art as a form of therapy and also interest in the public exhibition of art created by patients.

In fact, the Federal Art Project, a division of the the Works Progress Administration, held an exhibition titled, “Art and Psychopathology” in Harlem in 1938. The art exhibited was created by patients at Bellevue Hospital and speakers at the formal opening included staff from Bellevue, the WPA, and the Harlem Community Art Center.

Anne Anastasi papers, box M4812, folder 7

Following the research project, Anastai and Foley eventually wrote a manuscript titled, “Artistic Behavior in the Abnormal” complete with numerous full-color examples of patient art. I was so excited to learn that but as I dug through the folder I saw rejection letter after rejection letter. Every publisher said the same thing, the book would simply be “too expensive” with all of the full-color art. Anastasi and Foley published several articles about the research but to the best of my knowledge a large-scale full-color manuscript never came to be. What a bummer.

Anne Anastasi did so much in her long career. I cannot even begin to scratch the surface in a blog. I didn’t even mention her work in vocational guidance and culture-free testing (to which she said there was no such thing!).

Instead I’ll end with this.

In 1967 Anastasi was granted an honorary doctorate from the University of Windsor and at the convocation she presented a paper titled, “The Special Role of Psychology in a Liberal Education.”

Anne Anastasi papers, box M4822, folder 12

The purpose of the paper, I think, was to convey the importance of the scientific method and how psychology can teach that to a variety of students in a variety of ways. And while I did read the whole paper I just couldn’t get that first paragraph out of my head.

It stuck with me though likely not for the reasons Anne Anastasi may have wanted. In describing the field of psychology she also perfectly describes womanhood. Just sub the word “women” for psychology and you’ll see what I mean.

It is a curious paradox that society expects both too much and too little from psychology. One one hand, too much is expected in ways that are fanciful and unrealistic….On the other hand, too little is expected insofar as the genuine contributions that psychology can make to the development of responsible and effective members of society remain largely unrecognized.

Happy Women’s History Month, Dr. Anastasi.

Anne Anastasi, 1992. Donald Dewsbury Still Images collection, V118, folder 3

Read Full Post »

contributed by Rhonda Rinehart

Humans are perhaps the only species that finds a need to not only define what love is, but to categorize it, measure it – and dare I say – celebrate it with cheap chocolates and stuffed animals.  In our search for meaning, love is at the top of the list.  And for all of our searching, we have a really hard time agreeing on what love is or how it’s manifested.

But wow do we try.

So let’s take a look at some highlights from Cummings Center collections on the topic of love and its many iterations.

 

What’s Love Got To Do With It?

Below are several visitor answers to “What Makes Us Human?” exhibit at the National Museum of Psychology at the Cummings Center.

 

The National Museum of Psychology invites museum visitors to delve into the human condition in an exhibit titled, “What Makes Us Human?”  Visitors are encouraged to write their thoughts and comments on what makes homo sapiens tick, and what separates us from other animals.  To date, there are 104 responses that include “love”, 63 instances of “empathy”, and 5 responses each for “sex” and “sympathy”.  There are no instances of Valentine’s Day yet. 

People have a lot to say about relationships, and where love fits into the human experience.  Feelings of love, empathy, sympathy, passion, and other forms of strong emotions and their manifestations toward other living (or not) things are quite arguably only attributed to people.  But don’t let that stop you from weighing in on this question!

 

Will This Be othe Test?

The Cummings Center test collection contains thousands of tests and assessments designed to help understand and determine human capabilities and functioning.  From popular self-assessment quizzes designed more for entertainment than self-discovery, to professional assessment testing, you can find most anything to satisfy your curiosity about yourself and others.

tests1_WM

This PsychoQuiz seems to attempt to determine a jealous personality type rather than how romantic a person might be.  How Romantic Are You?  From a regular column in Look magazine, 1947.

tests2_WM

With drawings by Walter Miles, this fill-in-the-blank story test boasts a battle of the sexes scenario with a twist answer!  Read the small print below the test to find out the answer.  How Well Do You Know the Opposite Sex? PsychoQuiz. From a regular column in Look magazine, 1947.

 

Can We Talk?

If it’s at a conference venue, and it’s about love and attraction – then yes, let’s talk!  The International Conference on Love & Attraction, held in 1977 at the University of Swansea in Wales, tackled such diverse and complex topics as sexual dysfunction, personality characteristics of types of desire, contraception, relationship equity, and non-verbal intimacy.

conference1_WM

International Conference on Love & Attraction program, G. Marion Kinget papers, Box M3307

 

Conference participant, G. Marion Kinget, discussed “a crisis” in the conceptions of modern romantic love as it pertained at the time to redefining gender roles.

 

conference2_WM

International Conference on Love & Attraction, G. Marion Kinget papers, Box M3307

 

Is It All Just Sex?

Nope.  Romantic love is the biggest part of selling Valentine’s Day, but certainly not the only kind of love to be celebrated.  So tell your step-mom, your kid, your dad, your friend and anyone else that means a lot to you how much you care for them.  Hug your pet, therapy animal, shelter animal, or any sentient being that brings you joy.  Talk to your plants if you want.  It’s been said that they respond to verbal communication, too!

parrot_valentine_WM

Postcard from the David B. Campbell postcard collection, Institute for Human Science and Culture, Drs. Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Center for the History of Psychology

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

-contributed by Ace Harrah.

Before we get into the nitty gritty, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Ace, and I’m a new intern here at CCHP. I’m the youngest intern here yet, being only 17 years old, which means that I’m still in high school. I have Bio-Med Science Academy to thank for the pleasure of being able to work with all of the wonderful people on staff here while still pursuing my diploma. I’m excited to share everything I’ve learned with you all!

My current project is researching psychologists who specialized in creativity. As you can imagine, this is a wide subject that requires a very niche interest to start researching. After all, what is creativity? How do you study such an abstract topic? I don’t have an answer to any of that, but I certainly can share what I’ve learned so far!

When I first started my research in our collections database, there was one name that kept popping up wherever I went: E. Paul Torrance. I’ve learned since then that Torrance was a psychologist who focused his studies on the creativity of children and looked to enhance the academic lives of the creative student. He felt that schools disregarded most of the students who were creatively gifted over students who are intellectually different. The main issue, he found, was that there was no way for schools to quantify a student’s inherent creative ability. Thus, he created the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), a standardized test that looked to objectively measure the creative potential of a child.

 

TTCT_MANUAL_W

Now, how does someone “grade” another’s capacity for creativity? After all, creativity is mostly immeasurable, right? Well, the TTCT supplies test subjects (or “pupils,” as the scoring sheet calls them) with different figures to build off of. The ambiguity (or lack thereof) in the shapes provides challenges for test takers and gives them an opportunity to create something entirely new with minimal constraints.

Torrance’s tests are still used today, although they are much more popular in Europe than here in the US. As a creator myself, I am personally a bit skeptical about how accurate Torrance’s tests really can be to measure one’s creativity. I think that creativity relies strongly on outside variables rather than one’s own innate ability. 

As a side thought, is creativity really something we should try to quantify? Being told at a young age that you aren’t especially creative could deter individuals from pursuing artistic education, even later in their life. Perhaps creativity is something you learn through practice. Sure, some people are born athletes, but does that mean everyone else should give up on making the team? That’s one of the best things about humans: we adapt.

What would you create based off of this image?

Read Full Post »

Contributed by Jodi Kearns & Cathy Faye.

On June 29, 2017, we participated in a teacher workshop on immigration at Stan Hywet Hall & Gardens. Stan Hywet offers an educational program called “Meet the Staff” for middle school students to come with their teachers and learn about the staff who, around a hundred years ago, did the baking, cleaning, groundskeeping, horse training, and other house and garden jobs. Stan Hywet is the name given to the mansion built and owned by the Seiberling family. F. A. Seibering  founded the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.

We prepared a lesson with portable, fabricated test kits to support teachers who bring their students to participate in “Meet the Staff.”

To begin our portion of the workshop, Cathy gave a brief history of psychological testing at Ellis Island and demonstrated with a volunteer each of the four tests we brought with us. Entry into the United States between 1892 and about 1942 required examinations of immigrants, including psychology testing. Cathy told the teachers

To be admitted to the United States in the early 1900s, immigrants had to be free from physical illness. They had to be capable of earning a living. But they also had to be free of “mental defect” and possess adequate mental ability. In the early 1900s, US immigration officials were therefore looking for a way to screen out “mental defectives” among the more than 5,000 immigrants that sought entry into the United States every single day. Congress had passed laws that barred “lunatics,” “idiots,” “imbeciles,” and “the feeble-minded” from entering the United States. These labels, used today as insults, were at the time diagnostic categories, indicating varied levels of intelligence. For example, a “moron” was anyone who scored 70 or below on standard intelligence tests of the day.

After initial inspection, some immigrants were triaged into a separate line for further inspection, which involved a battery of psychological tests that were designed to be useful in cases where language skills were a barrier. The three tests used at Ellis Island that we demonstrated for the teachers are Cube Imitation Test; Form Board Test; and Feature Profile Test.

6-28-17_10

An Akron-area teacher demonstrating the Form Board Test.

After a brief history and demonstration on the original artifacts, Jodi told the teachers that they would come to their classrooms and teach this lesson on Ellis Island psychological testing. In order to do this, we fabricated each of the tests using foam core and wood. Additionally, we recreated the tests with administration and scoring instructions on paper, so each students can have a turn being both tester and immigrant.

image2

To the left, a teacher works on the Form Board Test. To the top, another works on the Feature Profile Test. In the blue box, notice the edge of the Cube Imitation Test. This test kit shows examples of the fabrications of the original tests.

6-28-17_7

Teachers working on the Feature Profile Test.

Finally, we wrote a full lesson plan and mapped the learning objectives to the Ohio Department of Education standards for social studies, to the American Library Association standards for information literacy, and to the American Psychological Association standards for teaching high school psychology. Teachers can use the lesson and test kits on their own, or invite us to come join them. Have a look at the lesson plan: EllisIsland_LessonPlan_Final.

Read Full Post »

– contributed by Rhonda Rinehart.

April is National Poetry Month.  In recognition of all of those terrible poems you wrote in high school, and in honor of armchair poets everywhere, CCHP is posting a blog about creativity.

with painted clothes upon a bridge, she was not iodined with garnishes; those

passing there, seared and grotesque.  did she jump, or wail, or swing on other

clothes?  did she spread her teeth inventing whistles for the quaying bikes, or

stiff snouters turned in grey?  she did not, nor did she cow or pace about in

ruins, or tray her hiked up shoes more nearly like galosh or spidern heels she

cut among the grass.

[Excerpt from untitled poem written by ‘Larry’ (Laurence d’A. M. Glass), from the Silvan Tomkins papers, Cummings Center for the History of Psychology]

What makes “good” poetry, and how do you know when you see it?  Can poetry be judged on simple merits of being good or bad?

Whether the above poem elicits provocative imagery or just annoys the reader with a bunch of made-up words and awkward sentence structure (the spellcheck was practically shouting at me while typing), we can probably agree that something creative like poetry is indeed quite subjective.  And like other creative endeavors, writing poetry is an intensely personal act.  But so is reading it.  The exact elements of Glass’s poem that make us appreciate it or shrink from it, are creativity in action.  No rules.  No inhibitions.  As Dan Wieden so famously (and creatively) proclaimed for Nike, “Just do it.”

Plenty of CCHP collections possess poetry written by psychologists; still others contain poems from colleagues and family members, like this one from the L. Joseph Stone papers about adolescence, from the Cummings Center for the History of Psychology

If poetry is subjective and arcane, why would we attempt to judge it by a simple scale of good or bad?  Or by a right way or wrong way of writing it?  Maybe it’s an attempt to make the unscientific more scientific.  Perhaps the more pressing question is, should we judge it from those perspectives at all?

Two professors – one of education and one of English – developed “A Measure of Ability to Judge Poetry” in 1921, to assist students in acquiring an “increased ability to tell good [poetry] from bad, and increase preference for the good”.  To do this, original poems were sampled, accompanied by sets of varying versions of the original that represented sentimental, prosaic, and metrical forms of writing.  From there, it was simply a “which do you prefer?” choice.  Similarly, “Literature Tests to Accompany Adventures in Prose and Poetry”, a test developed by Rewey Belle Inglis, asks students to determine prevailing emotions of various poems from a given set of emotions.

Test preamble and sample poem for “A Measure of Ability to Judge Poetry (Exercises in Judging Poetry)” by Allan Abbott and M. R. Trabue, 1921; from the Cummings Center for the History of Psychology Test Collection

 

Test page from “Literature Tests to Accompany Adventures in Prose and Poetry” from the Cummings Center for the History of Psychology Test Collection

But making constrained decisions about something that is personal and subjective from pre-selected lists and writing samples feels a little restrictive.

Instead of right and wrong answers, or answers that are compared to regulated determinates, tests like “The Symbolic Equivalents Test”, allow for more fluctuation in the answers.  Rather than judging one’s ability to recognize the good and the bad from staid lists, the test-taker is asked to think of his or her own ways to answer each sample.  Answers might feel less like straight answers, and more like cleverness and ingenuity.  Indeed, creative writing (in the form of poetry or prose) should feel this way.

“The Symbolic Equivalents Test” with some imaginative notes, from the Frank X. Barron papers; Cummings Center for the History of Psychology

Throughout the 1960s and ‘70s, Elizabeth Starkweather conducted research on the subject of creativity, particularly in school children.  She describes creativity as something that cannot be coerced, and in order to take place, it must happen in an environment of free expression without inhibition.

Excerpt from a paper on creativity by Elizabeth Starkweather; from the Cummings Center for the History of Psychology Special Interest Collection

Whether taking a test on one’s own abilities or judging others’ creative abilities, we might be wise to ruminate on the ideas posed by Starkweather, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and others who recognized that creativity has a lot to with the act and less to do with judging other creators’ works.  Think, too, about how the act of creating serves an important purpose in those self-actualization theories.  Your poems may get published, you may get recognized for being a great talent; but probably not.  Write them anyway.  In the mechanized grind of life, creativity helps us to feel human.

Read Full Post »