Locke on Individuation and the Corpuscular Basis of Kinds1

In this paper, I examine the crucial relationship between Locke’s theory of individuation and his theory of kinds. Locke holds that two material objects—e.g., a mass of matter and an oak tree—can be in the same place at the same time, provided that they are ‘of different kinds’. According to Locke, kinds are nominal essences, that is, general abstract ideas based on objective similarities between particular individuals. I argue that Locke’s view on coinciding material objects is incompatible with his view on kinds. In order for two material objects to be in the same place at the same time, they must differ with respect to at least one nominal essence. However, Locke thinks that it is impossible that x and y have the same real essence but differ with respect to any nominal essence; and coinciding material objects have the same real essence. Therefore, Locke cannot hold what he in fact holds, namely that distinct material objects can be in the same place at the same time.     

Knowledge as Masculine Heroism or Embodied Perception: Knowledge,Will, and Desire in Nietzsche

Two distinct doctrines of the will operate in Nietzsche. On one, each person has a will that grows out of their engagement with life. This view can be the basis for a feminist epistemology. On the other, the will must be stimulated through the creation of unattainable goals and games of seduction. This view of the will is misogynist, as it posits a self that must constitute for itself a dominated and silenced other.     

Ten Years to Expertise,Many More to Greatness: An Investigation of Modern Writers

The “ten‐year rule” suggests that it takes about 10 years of preparation to reach “expert” status. How long does it take, however, for someone to reach a level of creative greatness? Through an analysis of 215 contemporary fiction writers, we found that these writers took an average of 10.6 years between their first publication and their best publication, although there was a high degree of variability. This tentatively suggests that at least for modern fiction writers, a second phase after the first ten years may be crucial for achieving eminence. We discuss these findings in the context of results found in other domains of creativity, along with limitations and future directions.     

Non‐Cognitive Constructs and Self‐Reported Creativity by Domain

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which non‐cognitive constructs (personality, thinking styles, motivation, and psychological well‐being) would predict self‐reported creativity across different domains among 266 college students. Consistent with hypotheses, openness, legislative thinking styles, and intrinsic motivation were significant predictors of overall self‐reported creativity and across several domains. Extraversion was also a key predictor. Some other relationships consistent with past research (such as disagreeableness and math/science creativity) were also noted.     

Narrative and Paradigmatic Thinking Styles in Creative Writing and Journalism Students

How do creative writing students and journalists differ in their thinking styles? To investigate this question, 81 undergraduate participants (41 creative writing students and 40 student journalists) were asked to write sentences in response to a series of photographs. Their responses were then scored according Bruner's theory of Narrative and Paradigmatic thought. In addition, these students were assessed on the NEO Personality Inventory — Revised (Costa & McRae, 1992) to measure personality, the Work Preference Inventory, College Student Version (Amabile, 1995) to measure motivation, and the Mental Self‐Government Thinking Styles Inventory (Sternberg & Wagner, 1991) to measure a different theory of thinking styles. As hypothesized, creative writers scored significantly higher than journalists on Narrative thought, but an interaction occurred on Paradigmatic thought. Male journalists significantly outscored male creative writers, but a non‐significant trend in the opposite direction was observed for females; these results stayed significant when personality and motivation factors were controlled.     

The Construct of Creativity: Structural Model for Self‐Reported Creativity Ratings

Several thousand subjects completed self‐report questionnaires about their own creativity in 56 discrete domains. This sample was then randomly divided into three subsamples that were subject to factor analyses that compared an oblique model (with a set of correlated factors) and a hierarchical model (with a single second‐order, or hierarchical, factor subsuming all of the first order factors). After model refinement, both models were then tested on a confirmation sample. The hierarchical model had a better fit with the data than the oblique model, providing support for theories that have proposed a hierarchical structure to creativity, such as the Amusement Park Theoretical Model. The analysis provided evidence of both an over‐arching general factor and seven more specific General Thematic Areas of creative performance (Artistic‐Verbal, Artistic‐Visual, Entrepreneur, Interpersonal, Math/Science, Performance, and Problem‐Solving).