Critical analysis of Is Creativity Sexy?
Critical analysis of Is Creativity Sexy? The Evolutionary Advantages of Artistic Thinking” by Sam McNerney (2012) is compelling because it relates to the human evolution puzzle. In more than 45,000 years ago, for no apparent reason, the human species took off. Populations started thriving, technology progressed rapidly, and humans started crafting and painting. From there, cities were built, and the human population became the most dominant on the planet. However, natural selection does not explain this change. Besides, our genetic make-up is identical to that of our ancestors who lived 100,000 years ago. Also, all these aspects of human success, such as language, culture, big brains, tools, and fire, have been in place for millions of years ago, but nothing happened. McNerney makes a good argument supported by scientific experiments. However, the effects associated with different sex drive for men and women, gender injustice and the varying research environments affect the results of the studies
Summary
The article aims to answer the question of the relationship between sex and creativity through a study conducted by Douglas Kenrick, Bob Cialdini, and Vlad Griskevicious. In the first experiment, the psychologists asked college students to write an essay about an ambiguous picture. However, before starting, they were divided into two groups. The first group was offered six photos of attractive females and thus put in a mating mindset. They were to pick the one they thought is the most romantic partner and imagine a late lunch with her. In the control group, they were offered street photos and wrote about the most pleasant weather for walking around the city and looking at the buildings. The results indicated that the first group was more creative than the control group. The mating effect, however, triggered men only to creativity. The researcher concluded that the temporary activation of mating motive inspires males to be highly creative. Kenrick also studied a relationship between creativity, non-conformity, and sexual selection. He studied whether sexual motivation caused males to stand out artistically from the crowd. To find out, he experimented on finding out how fascinating an artistic figure is. Before they started, they created two groups in which one was supposed to recall tragic murder stories, and the other one was to imagine spending a romantic day with their loved one. These different motivational states mattered a lot. The ones in the mating mindset were more creative than the ones in a fearful mindset. However, women did not share this effect. Without apparent reasons, human species took off. Technology has snowballed, populations thrived, and people started painting and crafting. The authors indicate that the answer lies in the link between sex and creativity.
Critical Response
The author is quite evident in representation and experiments to show the relationship between sex drive and creativity, majorly on males.
However, the researchers fail to realize that sex drive varies significantly between males and females. Research indicates that the first group was only exposed to pictures of attractive and romantic women; there was no male figure that could increase the sex drive for females. Therefore, concluding that females are not creative when in mating mood is not entirely accurate, the concept was not tested. The findings are, therefore, compromised since males are attracted to females, while females are attracted to males. There was no male figure represented to increase the females’ sex drive.
The second aspect is the presence of gender injustice depicted in the studies carried out. It is not possible that the psychologists carrying out the study did not know that at least most females are attracted to males only. The females in the first group could not be said to be under mating motive like the males since a picture of a fellow female; however attractive it is cannot bring about a mating motive, at least in straight ladies. Therefore, females did not have any sexual excitement before writing their essays.
Thirdly, the experimental environment was very comprising. The researchers invoked fear by reminding these individuals about tragic murder stories. Instead of invoking fear, the control group should have been left in normal conditions. The first group was supposed to think about a mating condition that was done correctly, but it failed to achieve its goal when the control group was compromised. Therefore, given the fear mindset, it is possible that the control group could not be creative.
Conclusion
McNerney uses scientific arguments and backs up his Research supporting that creativity is sexy. The work is quite captivating, and the relationship between sex and creativity may be one of the answers to the puzzle. However, he is biased in his gender representations in the study. Sex and creativity and compromised because of factors like gender inequality, different sources of sex drive, and the environmental setting. It is not a good idea generalizing the concept given that the female gender was not considered to have their mating mindset taken care of. The whole group was exposed to pictures of the attractive female, which catered for males and not females in the group. The relationship between creativity and sex that the author tries to create in this setting is compromised, given on several grounds. This makes the information less reliable.