The Weisberg-Goldstein Syndrome

by by Paul Henrickson

tm.

2015

Comments on Byron, the film, with variable extrapolations

by Paul Henrickson

tm.

2015

When Byron surprisingly tells the intimate story of his nurse having seduced him
I wondered why at ejaculatory age he would still have need of a nursemaid....and
were society members aware that these girls would customarily sexually abuse
their charges?
And could such an experience have made it difficult for him to understand the
normal correlation between heterosexuality and domestic marriage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usuxB9lOGUA
That old and rather nasty question, to which Freud thought he had the answer, of
the possible causes for creative effort being related to unresolved ambiguities
between sexual experiences and our responses to them being the forming
agents for the types of creative results.
I am not rejecting that idea BUT I would like to proffer a possible enrichment. If
there are, as evolutionary theories suggest, aspects of individual development
which go through functional differentiations, such as fins into feet it seems not
illogical to consider that in some members of our species the procreative urges
(that is another way of saying I develop my myself both the male and female parts of me
morphs into the more mentally, or psychically generated impulse to form icons. An icon
being here used to designate a formed, and informed, significant image. This, in its

turn, suggests the concept, which, in consequence, expands and more

elaborately details the function and the responsibility of the art commentator. It
is the responsibility of the publishing art critic to find the language to use that
will bridge the gap between the visually graphic symbolic language the artist
uses and the final image appearing on the retina of the observer. That, in itself,
is quite a job.
My documents on Cezanne , Caravaggio and the more recent one Advice For The
Gullible and Imperceptive are essays in that direction. One in the throes of such an
emergence may be found irresistibly attractive to one not yet that far developed.
Such as, one might say, as may be illustrated in our admiration for discovering
adventurers.
Now, my understanding, from other reports, is that Byron used his own
experiences , not too well disguised, as vehicles of researching the big question
WHY? does this occur and what is it doing to the ME I had thought I was? His
reported sexual outrages such as sodomy, incest, homosexuality, menage a
trios, quartre or six were only, and, perhaps, merely, his testing of the
boundaries (parameters) of the experience. Is the world telling me that this is
what I must become, because it sees me in this light? In which case where is the
real (sic?) me, or is my reality nothing more than the worlds expectations or of
their perceived needs,...or thoughtless impulses? I am a hologram of the dreams
of other entities? Or, are they also holograms and nothing is anything more than
a reflection of a mental construct? And God said Let there be light and there
was light (Genesis 1:3)

Reef 1963

Newatead

Abbey

ADVICE FOR THE GULLIBLE AND IMPERCEPTIVE

[ THE REAPPEARANCES OF MATA HARI AND SIMON MAGUS]
In the film the director has Byron state [with some strongly emotional concern] when
his wife joins him in his bed {he had been reading a book} Im in Hell!

This image produced from the fecund Bougereau

mentality might fully blow the balance of many Muslims...men, that is.
My goodness...such conflict!...and how unconventional! Most normal men
would consider that a blessing and if they were Muslim it might be viewed as a
blessing ,before his time, from Allah.

This touches upon Byrons response to his wife when she asked him what it was
she might do to make him content and his answer was that he liked women to
laugh and, like so many, she said she would if he would say something
amusing...Well, that answer was not to the point, laughter is not merely a
response to something funny or ridiculous but a language of its own when they
essayed it on the run to the hill.
Are we to understand that Byron who seemed perpetuously concerned about
predestination felt the only proprer reponse to destiny was to embrace it. That
seems to imply that there must be some understsnding of divine speach...as
well,of course, the assumption that there is this sort of speach.
However, it is not at all unusual for creative thinkers to have thought they had
some sort of mission to fulfill. prhaps tha feeling has its origin in the experiencing
something pushing one toward an unknown end. An unknown end could well be
interpreted as some stranger knocking at the door.

.
ADVICE FOR THE GULLIBLE AND IMPERCEPTIVE
[ THE REAPPEARANCES OF MATA HARI AND SIMON MAGUS] Paul Henrickson

tm.

2015

WEISBERGs (an analysis for the

gullible)
and GOLDSTEINs (comments for the imperceptive)
The following is a rather unexpected response to the announcement
that Robert W. Weisberg of Temple University had published a book
am not at all sure that because of the rather quirky way my mind sometimes
works the analogies it somehow happened upon are not, in vital fact,
absolutely an accurate description of how I perceive the recent publication by
Wiley (the publishers) of Robert Weisbergs work with the long title implying
I

Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem

Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts.
universality.

I reserve some caution here for it may have been that Weisberg had not meant to imply
there was no difference between the so-called common mind set and the
extraordinary mindset, but the wording did, somehow, trigger that response.
Nevertheless, he does deserve correction when he also implies (by not referencing the
material)* that multi-ethnic studies have not been made in the area of creativity. E.Paul

Torrance did do such studies.

E.Paul Torrance

* THE FOLLOWING IS QUOTED FROM THE ON LINE WEBSITE: ordinarypeople

employ the same thought processes as the greats. Though used and developed differently by
different people, creativity can and should be studied as a positive psychological feature shared
by all humans.

Now, a vagrant thought of my own here. If we assume that the processes which
characterize creative thinking in its inception are the same for those who develop
creatively and for those who do not we then are left with the question as to why the

difference from this.

to this

or

or
This varying drawing
styles might well be covered by Weisbergs admission that common
minds and creative minds use the same material differently, But this
statement doesnt cut the cheese for the absence of a proper delineation
leaves some readers with the repulsive and hypocritically democratic
notion that after all we are all the same and I staunchly maintain that no
common mind could produce the above drawings.
My off the cuff response to that would be the differences lie in the reactions to social
pressures formed by early childhood experiences with discipline and reward and,
perhaps, a few other things. In short, a battle of dominance and survival between the
self and the many. Once that battle has been settled in favour of the individual THEN
we achieve creative differentiation. In sum, it is not very helpful to our understanding to
merely indicate that in the beginning the behaviours of the common and the

extraordinary are the same for when mature, they are not.
For whatever reason some individuals do exactly what they are told and appear content
to do so. Others do so and harbour resentment for the imposition of authority. Others
are openly rebellious and refuse outright, but seem to possess no alternative of their

own, or they might simply need the time to find it.

As a child, when I did experience praise for my efforts I silently rejected it and felt
irritated by the person providing it for not comprehending my reasons for the effort in
the first place. Of course, my language abilities at the time would not have made it
possible for me to express my disappointment...(nor do I think my audience would have understood it for
such an understanding is strongly forbidden by most societies I now of) but it was definitely there. As an
extension of that thought eight (8) decades later I am still bewildered by the occasional,
but temporary, non-appearance of what I seek. One present theory is that it is all a matter
of pleasure....I simply enjoyed the mental scratch and the product result is not all that
important but I do not really believe that was, in that sense, a pastime. There are
sometimes other things going on which urge the individual one way or another and at
the risk of offending my colleagues in research I favour a being of some type or
another...perhaps just another self that wants completion on the material level.
In a similar fashion, perhaps, I resent Weisberg and Scott Barry Kaufman for not being
able to express these complicated procedural efforts in nothing more than an
algorithmic, step by step fashion rather than more completely in a Wagnerian,
Beethovenly of Pucciniesk chord, but then, that is the inherent problem with the
literacy we know and use.
Kaufman, particularly, took, amazingly, credit for putting order in to the process of the
creative mind. What arrogance! The creative mind puts order into its own
process...that is why, (I hope you all get it) they are creative in the first place!
Cassius: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves,
that we are underlings

And this, our responses to social pressures, if we are not born as

underlings accounts for the various avenues the creative
personality, according to Drevdahl, takes in its efforts to escape
the controllers.
The major stumbling block in this process is the mind-set of the common psychologist
who, it seems, believes that everything has its place and that is where everything is, or, if
it isnt they will put it there. Amateur, (or otherwise) paleontologists like Charles
Dawson (11 July 1864 10 August 1916 (who created what he failed to find) the Piltdown Man

(-have

had that problem as well, and as an

interesting side note, Dawson first studied to be a lawyer, so for those interested in
possible psychological differences between those choosing one profession over another ,
for example, take note. That is, for the algorythmicist, it is in its place where it is after the book
gets published, and lawyers seem fascinated by the process of finding what legal niche to
place what human behaviour. If there is an action there has to be a law somewhere
prohibiting it.
But, as I see it, that is only the beginning, a re-beginning, actually.
My personal view is that reality is much more slippery than this given scenario suggests.
I also feel that we act as underlings when we allow anothers prestigious ego to overly
impress us whether that ego takes form in a 640 page book or, as in the cases of Koons
and Kopple public exhibition of their penile organs.
Mata Hari, it may be recalled, was executed at the age of 41 for being a double agent and
historians later tell us it was to cover up the double agenting of her handler.
Simon Magus approached Simon Peter to sell him Christs secrets for raising the dead. So, it
seems Magus was guilty of incomprehension.
The one benefit I have received from reading the publishing blurb for Weisbergs book was that
it, inadvertently validated my 1970 findings that creative thinkers do not lie. For this I give
Weisberg ex gracia thanks.

However, professional duty requires that I ask how it is that

Weisberg could have overlooked the volumetric research of E.
Paul Torrance and, most pointedly, its multi-ethnic character and,
in our face, imply it hadnt been done. An associated question
must also be asked what a head-surgeon is doing commenting

approvingly, in a knowledgably professional manner, on the work

of a psychologist. Could Weisberg not find a cooperative
psychologist?

And to ask a similarly related question to the matter of truth

speaking...could not Teresa Amabile have secured more appropriate
subjects, that is, a group less predetermined to support the originating
hypothesis?
And one other finger-pointing effort .One might assume that Runkos
urging that the creative personality become more discreet was
motivated by his concern for their social acceptability. But such a
position assumes that the majority is always right ( the current PR protocol in
support of supporting democratic revolutions) and I would maintain that for the
development of the individual the majority is always wrong. However,
out of their pressuring insistence to join the crowd he carves a self.
It is in these respects that Weisberg, Amabile, Runco remind me of the
two arch deceivers Mata Hari and Simon Magus
In any event, the final judgment, to date, must be that some
statements in the referenced blurb are , at least, misleading. And it
probably was for this reason it reminded me of the behaviour of Mata
Hari and Simon Magus, double agents, serving two masters and
speaking with forked tongue

Mata Hari and Simon Magus were both purveyors of untruths

the film titled
Mata Hari (1931) and starring Greta Garbo in the leading role. While based on real events in the life of Margaretha Zelle,
the plot was largely fictional, appealing to the public appetite for fantasy at the expense of historical fact (internet source)
The reason I have joined the two, usually (except when passing grades become the reward for student uncertainties) very
disparate, thoughts, academic discipline and effectively focused sexual seduction is to draw to the attention of the reader
their occasional motivational similarity.
It was Weisbergs introduction that set me off on this rant so I am inserting it here (with my comments in color when I think
they need extra attention). The mediating fact in this case is that Weisberg has a book to sell and Goldstein (a surgical
oncologist for the head and neck) wants to help. I think we all understand that.
The analogies, I think, developed in this way Garbo played Mata Hari in a film which was not historically accurate, but
effective theatre and Simon Magus tried to get St. Peter to sell the secret of how to raise the dead...or omits to include that

E.Paul Torrance always did (some fifty years ago) though it had not already taken place what Weisberg says he wants which,
he says, should include studies of different people, creativity can and should be studied as a positive psychological feature
shared by all humans....but not to the same extent, or similarly responsive to social pressures
(Oh my God, Weisberg just murdered the Bell Curve and nothing will ever be the same)
My comments follow:
The processes, in part, may be the same, but it should be the results that make the difference...yes? The only rationale
I can see for what appears to be a not too occult effort to democratize creative behavior is some sort of act of
pernicious envy, or a political agenda.
If it were true that the ordinary person is also creative one is tempted to ask why do the ordinary persecute the
extraordinary...which is also a matter of established fact? One might possibly think that the ordinary, in some
fashion, recognize an irritating difference between themselves and the extraordinary. I wonder what this might be.
I might also wonder why Weisberg, enthusiastically supported by Goldstein should appear so intent upon
communizing the rare. Harvards Teresa Amabile seems to have the same goal which is to deprive the distinguished
of what distinguishes them and, thereby. limiting perception to the parameters of political tolerance, ...such is the
finale of censorship.

In the case of Amabiles majors in business economics having been determined to lie just like the rest of us [now isnt
that a jolly conclusion? If were all bad together and all equally sinful, no one can get the blame. I would suppose Ms. Amabile may have forgotten
Near East history];or, for her to conclude that the creative mind can also be duplicitous and that, therefore, there are no
differences is, in addition to being an example of a conscious rejection of, or selective memory for, established facts it
is also 9(if one turns the coin) an example of convention dictated perception. Some refer to this as conventional
dissonance, a mystifying if not an unattractive disorder
Of course, one might try to forget that the population of subjects had already declared themselves ready to lie for a
buck and committed to duplicity as majors in business management. My subjects had no such bias (The Perceptive
and Silenced Minorities, on www.scribd.com).
From Weisberg we learn that conventional wisdom holds that creativity is a mysterious quality present in a select few
individuals. TRUE and it is true. The rest of us, the common view goes, can only stand in awe of great creative achievements:
we could never paint Guernica or devise the structure of the DNA molecule because we lack access to the rarefied thoughts
and inspirations that bless geniuses like Picasso or Watson and Crick. Presented with this view, today's cognitive psychologists
largely differ DO THEY INDEED! Who?finding instead that "ordinary" people employ the same creative thought processes
as the greats. Though used and developed differently by different people, creativity can and should be studied as a positive
psychological feature shared by all humans the same ....but not to the same extent, or similarly responsive to social
pressure

Of course, as my Maltese friend frequently reminds me one should reserve final judgement
until one evaluates the causes for behaviours And I, frequently remind him that after we
know the reasons for the behaviours...we still have the behaviours.
In this present case, that is the Weisberg/Goldstein syndrome we appear to have a
promotion, pure and simple, not too unlike that of ex-Congressman Wiener
who borrowed no ones assistance in the promotion

It was a quite extraordinary display

behaviour which may have been, we remain unsure on this point, misleading .

But Weiner is a politician and , somehow, we expect a politician to mislead...BUT NOT A

PSYCHOLOGIST!

My goodness, Junior does seem to have an extraordinary influence over its

owner. Would it be too out of line to suggest that this is the source of much
creativity? Certainly it does seem that some claiming to be artists find it of some
psychic satisfaction to invite others to come take a peak. Koons and Kopple
are examples. But what excuse does Wiener have? It seems it must be done for

him.
Others such as Kopple and Koons are more forward.

M goodness, Junior does seem to have an extraordinary influence over its owner. Would it
be too out of line to suggest that this is the source of much creativity? Certainly it does
seem that some claiming to be artists find it of some psychic satisfaction to invite others
to come take a peak. Koons Kopple are examples.

After such
a degrading comment it would be only fair to point up some aesthetic differences
berween Kopple and Koons which might be evidences of some real differences. Works by

Kopple:

While the correlation between narcissism and photogrpahic technical ability is

remarkably high withn many of the works,beyond thr subject mater the organization of
the formal elements is admirable. Jeff Koons work, on the other hand, never seems to

have left the five-year old mind set.

Well now, it would appear that truth and fact are basic for Koons and for this
gets an approving motherly kiss on the cheek for being a good boy. I have a
problem with this image...my mother never looked like that.
Weisberg tells us that the creative process is the same in the extraordinary as in
the ordinary and I would suggest that that may also be a valid comparison for
the shepherd who counts his sheep the divorcee who counts her alimony and the
priest who counts the value of the sins you have yet to commit. I think I suspect
some mischief here. Despite Koppels and Koons fascination with their penises I
cannot accept the Weisberg notion that the procedures are the same for, I
believe it obvious that Koppels work is superior to that of Koons even
considering the millions Koons has made titillating a stupidly arrested mentality.

In view of the thesis I am formulating this projected appearance, this

bed, this painful drawing is as the psychologist, Jean Piaget, would have
recogized are declarative indicators of very personal pain. I am almost
ashamed to ask what might be the next obvious question...Is this the
purpose of artistic production?
The unbiased response would be YES...however, I am uncomfortable
with that response. I feel compelled to point out that there are superior
examples of symbolic problem solving via the arts, Paul Cezanne being

one of them who went from this

to this

My theory holds that film and graphic productions and 3D realizations

as well and, to be bold,...any behavior...is an indication of psychic
concern and represents an individuals effort to either regain a lost
balance or an adventurouse act to produce an imbalance inorder to
experience the rush of a solution.
From this theory one might conclude that the painter Bougereau was a
social psyzophrenic who presented on one hand the unsullied texture
of virginity on the other hand and who aimed, he said, to produce a

painted surface as smooth as an egg shell

to a

Piaget studied areas of intelligence like perception and memory that arent entirely logical. Logical concepts are described as being completely
reversible because they can always get back to the starting point. The perceptual concepts Piaget studied could not be manipulated. To describe
the figurative process, Piaget uses pictures as examples. Pictures cant be separated because contours cannot be separated from the forms they
outline. Memory is the same way. It is never completely reversible. During this last period of work, Piaget and his colleague Inhelder also
published books on perception, memory, and other figurative processes such as learning. [22][23][24] Because Piaget's theory is based upon biological
maturation and stages, the notion of readiness is important. Readiness concerns when certain information or concepts should be taught.
According to Piaget's theory children should not be taught certain concepts until they reached the appropriate stage cognitive development.