

Creativity Predicts a Longer Life - technology
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=open-mind-longer-life

======
tokenadult
It's important to note that this is a preliminary finding, based on weak
evidence, and that "creativity" is not necessarily the core concept of
"openness" in the OCEAN five-factor model of human personality. The "big five"
personality model is still developing,

<http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/2008chapter.pdf>

and "openness" is the most poorly defined of the five personality factors in
the model. It is plain, on stronger and better replicated evidence, that the
factor "neuroticism" is a risk factor for many bad outcomes, including shorter
lifespan. Some investigators have proposed specific interventions to reduce
neuroticism in the general population.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792076/>

The relationship of "openness" to creativity is still debatable, and still
more debatable is the relationship of openness (or creativity) to mortality.

I should also note that the study described in the article kindly submitted
here doesn't allow for the causal inference, or verify the proposed mechanism,
made in the quoted statements in the article.

------
tlb
That word "Predicts" is dangerous. It strongly suggests causation, though it
only reflects a statistical correlation.

Many external causes are known to negatively effect both creativity and life-
span. Most chronic illnesses reduce both. Alcoholism reduces both. Genetic
disorders such as Down's syndrome or Huntington's reduce both.

Given many known mechanisms for external factors causing both factors in a
correlation study, and only speculative mechanisms for how one factor causes
the other, even hinting at causation is bad journalism.

~~~
dllthomas
> That word "Predicts" is dangerous. It strongly suggests causation, though it
> only reflects a statistical correlation.

REALLY? What do you WANT them to say? _Accuracy_ of a prediction implies some
sort of causal relationship, but not a direct one by any means. All of the
thing you suggest _are_ causal links. A genetic disorder causing a decrease in
both lifespan and creativity _is_ causation. "A predicts B" does NOT AT ALL
imply "A causes B" - tinsel, wreaths, and increased toy buying predict
Christmas.

~~~
tlb
"is correlated with".

If you're not convinced that the reporters are trying to suggest causation
with the word "predicts", try swapping the two terms. Would they write a
headline, "Longer life predicts creativity"?

~~~
meric
If the statistics show that creative people are correlated with longer life,
but that longer life is only correlated with creativity if factors X, Y, Z are
also present (but not necessarily just X, Y, Z without creativity), then it
would be correct to say "creativity predicts longer life" but not "longer life
predicts creativity"; while not implying any causation.

Also it could be that some long living people are creative and all creative
people are long living; while creative still not being a cause of the longer
life. (let's say all creative people eat peanut butter sandwiches, and it was
infact the peanut butter that caused a longer life.)

"The weatherman predicts the weather". Are you saying in this sentence,
causation is implicitly referenced?

...

------
lutusp
> Creativity Predicts a Longer Life

False! Creativity is _correlated_ with a longer life.

> A large body of research _links_ neuroticism with poorer health and
> conscientiousness with superior health. [Emphasis added.]

There's that word again -- "links". Neuroticism is not _linked_ with poorer
health, it is _correlated_ with poorer health.

And so forth -- frankly, the linked article is a piece of pseudoscientific
trash.

Psychologists would be so much happier if there simply wasn't any science at
all, rather than the kind they practice -- the kind that avoids control
groups, experimental discipline, can't seem to express correlations
accurately, and draw nonsense conclusions like this:

"...the results suggest that practicing creative-thinking techniques could
improve anyone's health by lowering stress and exercising the brain."

Without a control group, without a disciplined, prospective, double-blind,
replicated study, the "results" suggest no such thing. Isn't obvious that
creative thinking may be an effect, not a cause, of good physical and mental
health?

Reading articles like this, I begin to suspect that in school, psychologists
are told, "say the word 'science' a lot -- that's how you do science."

~~~
meric
Predict is something you can do if something is "correlated"!

Having creativity is highly correlated with a longer life, therefore,
creativity can be used as a factor to predict whether a person has longer
life.

It doesn't mean that if you get more creative you live longer, just that if
you look at the existing population, the more creative people are likely to
live longer also.

See?

Search for this phrase in this paper "We show how simple image statistics can
be used to predict the presence and absence of objects in the scene before
exploring the image."

<http://cvcl.mit.edu/papers/TorralbaOliva03.pdf>

You can see how "predict" is a word for an action you can take if something is
correlated.

~~~
lutusp
> Predict is something you can do if something is "correlated"!

This is false. I saw a puddle, so I predict that the puddle will cause rain.
See the problem? You can't "predict" until you have a cause-effect
relationship.

A correlation is not a cause-effect relationship:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

A quote: "The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical
fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-
and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as _cum hoc ergo propter
hoc_ (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. It is
a common fallacy in which it is assumed that, because two things or events
occur together, one must be the cause of the other."

> You can see how "predict" is a word for an action you can take if something
> is correlated.

You may be able to do that. Scientists require evidence.

~~~
dllthomas
Evidence of a correlation is all that's necessary to do that, scientist or
not. What a correlation tells me is that if I observe A, I am likely to
observe B. In the case of rain and puddles, there is a temporal component that
seems to be confusing you. Rain now is correlated with puddles for a while in
the future. Puddles now may not be correlated with rain now or in the
future[1]. Observing puddles now, I can't tell you anything about rain in the
future because there is no _correlation_ , not because there is no
_causation_.

[1] If the weather in the area tends to be the same day to day, then I can
absolutely predict rain tomorrow based on puddles today, to occasionally be
frustrated by weather change or sprinklers.

~~~
lutusp
> there is a temporal component that seems to be confusing you.

I am not confused. Confusing correlation with causation is a very common
logical error -- you are not alone.

~~~
dllthomas
Please respond to the point of my post, if you are going to respond. "I'm not
confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion - obviously, we both think
that. And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error
- one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are
spotting it where it doesn't exist. This, I thought, was already established
before your post here.

~~~
lutusp
> "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion

That might be true if anyone had said it (avoid rhetorical escalation).

> And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error -
> one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are
> spotting it where it doesn't exist.

The post that started this thread correctly identifies a case of touting a
correlation as though it represents a cause-effect relationship. This is very
common in popular science journalism, where data sets that barely represent a
correlation are described as though they were cause-effect relationships, and
begin to shape public policy well in advance of, and sometimes in the
perpetual absence of, any effort to establish a cause-effect link between some
A and some B.

~~~
dllthomas
The entirety of my objection is to the notion that the word "predicts" implies
causation. I didn't read the article closely, and assumed it was talking about
correlation primarily because of the title. If the article generally is making
stronger claims, by all means object, but object to the right thing.
"Predicts" carries no implication of causation. "Poll results predict the
election" is making a claim about a correlation. "The weatherman predicts the
weather" is making a claim about a correlation. Heck, even "the tarot cards
predict the future" is making a (false) claim about a correlation.
Correlations are real and useful things that do or don't exist in any given
case, and which can be used to make predictions. Where causation is necessary
is in predicting the results of a change or intervention. If I publish higher
poll numbers, that won't make my candidate win. If I make it rain, that will
make there be puddles.

------
paganel
Maybe we shouldn't be so scared about dying and instead try to make the most
out of our (supposedely short) lives. After all, a guy like Alexander the
Great was only in his early 30s when he had already conquered half of the
known-world (yes, this is a Euro-centrist view)

~~~
j_baker
It seems fairly simple to me: I like being alive. Therefore, I want to live
longer. What reason do I have to stop?

