Pretending you’re someone else can make you creative

One great irony(讽刺) about our collective fascination with creativity is that we tend to frame it in uncreative ways. That is to say, most of us marry creativity to our concept of self: We are either “creative” people or we aren’t，without much of a middle ground.

Pillay, a tech businessman and Harvard professor has spent a good part of his career destroying these ideas. Pillay believes that the key to unlocking your creative potential is to dismiss the conventional advice that urges you to “believe in yourself”. In fact, you should do the exact opposite: believe you are someone else.

In a recent column for Harvard Business Review, Pillay pointed to a 2016 study showing the impact of stereotypes(刻板印象)on one’s behavior. The authors, education psychologists Denis Dumas and Kevin Dunbar, divided their college­student subjects into three categories, instructing the members of one group to think of themselves as “eccentric(古怪的) poets” and the members of another to imagine they were “rigid librarians”(people in the third category, the control group, were left alone for this part). The researchers then presented participants with 10 ordinary objects，including a fork, a carrot, and a pair of pants, and asked them to come up with as many different uses as possible for each one. Those who were asked to imagine themselves as “eccentric poets” came up with the widest range of ideas for the objects, while those in the “rigid librarian” group had the fewest. Meanwhile, the researchers found only small differences in students’ creativity levels across academic majors—in fact, the physics majors inhabiting(寄生) the personas(伪装的外表) of “eccentric poets” came up with more ideas than the art majors did.

These results, write Dumas and Dunbar, suggest that creativity is not an individual quality, but a “malleable(可塑的) product of context and perspective.” Everyone can be creative, as long as they feel like creative people.

Pillay’s work takes this a step further: He argues that identifying yourself with creativity is less powerful than the creative act of imagining you’re somebody else. This exercise, which he calls “psychological halloweenism”， refers to the conscious action of inhabiting another persona—an inner costuming of the self. It works because it is an act of “conscious unfocus”, a way of positively stimulating the default mode(默认模式) network, a collection of brain regions that spring into action when you’re not focused on a specific task or thought.

Most of us spend too much time worrying about two things: How successful/unsuccessful we are, and how little we’re focusing on the task at hand. The former feeds the latter—an unfocused person is an unsuccessful one, we believe. Thus, we force ourselves into quiet areas, buy noise­canceling headphones, and hate ourselves for taking breaks.

What makes Pillay’s argument stand out is its healthy, forgiving realism: According to him, most people spend nearly half of their days in a state of “unfocus”. This doesn’t make us lazy people—it makes us human. The idea behind psychological halloweenism is: What if we stopped judging ourselves for our mental down time, and instead started using it? Putting this new idea on daydreaming means addressing two problems at once: You’re making yourself more creative, and you’re giving yourself permission to do something you’d otherwise feel guilty about. Imagining yourself in a new situation, or an entirely new identity, never felt so productive.

Title: Pretending you’re someone else can make you creative

The American self-image is spread with the golden glow of opportunity. We think of the United States as a land of unlimited possibility, not so much a classless society but as a place where class is mutable(可变的) -- a place where brains, energy and ambition are what count, not the environment of one’s birth. However, we are not who we think we are.

The Economic Mobility Project, an ambitious research led by Pew Charitable Trusts, looked at the economic fortunes of a large group of families over time, comparing the income of parents in the late 1960s with the income of their children in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Here is the finding: The “rags to riches” story is much more common in Hollywood than on Main Street. Only 6 percent of children born to parents with family income at the very bottom move to the top.

That is right, just 6 percent of children born to parents who ranked in the bottom of the study sample, in terms of income, were able to bootstrap their way into the top. Meanwhile, an incredible 42 percent of children born into that lowest are still stuck at the bottom, having been unable to climb a single rung of the income ladder.

It is noted that even in Britain -- a nation we think of as burdened with a hidebound(顽固的，死板的) class system(阶层体系) -- children who are born poor have a better chance of moving up. When the studies were released, most reporters focused on the finding that African-Americans born to middle-class or upper middle-class families are earning slightly less, in inflation-adjusted(扣除通胀后的) dollars, than did their parents.

One of the studies indicates, in fact, that most of the financial gains white families have made in the past three decades can be attributed to(归功于) the entry of white women into the labor force. This is much less true for African-Americans.

The picture that emerges is of a nation in which, overall, “the current generation of adults is better off than the previous one”, as one of the studies notes.

The median(中值的) income of the families in the sample group was $55,600 in the late 1960s; their children’s median family income was measured at $71,900. However, this rising tide has not lifted all boats equally. The rich have seen far greater income gains than have the poor.

Even more troubling is that our nation of America as the land of opportunity gets little support from the data. Americans move fairly easily up and down the middle rungs(横档) of the ladder, but there is “stickiness at the ends” -- four out of ten children who are born poor will remain poor, and four out of ten who are born rich will stay rich.

请认真阅读下面短文，并根据所读内容在文章后表格中的空格里填入一个最恰当的单词。

注意：请将答案写在答题卡上相应题号的横线上。每个空格只填一个单词。

Population Change

Why is the world’s population growing? The answer is not what you might think. The reason for the explosion is not that people have been reproducing like rabbits, but that people have stopped dropping dead like flies. In 1900, people died at the average age of 30. By 2000 the average age was 65. But while increasing health was a typical feature of the 20th century, declining birth rate could be a defining one of the 21st.

Statistics show that the average number of births per woman has fallen from 4.9 in the early 1960s to 2.5 nowadays. Furthermore, around 50% of the world’s population live in regions where the figure is now below the replacement level (i.e. 2.1 births per woman) and almost all developed nations are experiencing sub-replacement birth rate. You might think that developing nations would make up the loss (especially since 80% of the world’s people now live in such nations), but you’d be wrong. Declining birth rate is a major problem in many developing regions too, which might cause catastrophic global shortages of work force within a few decades.

A great decline in young work force is likely to occur in China, for instance. What does it imply? First, China needs to undergo rapid economic development before a population decline hits the country. Second, if other factors such as technology remain constant, economic growth and material expectations will fall well below recent standards and this could invite trouble.

Russia is another country with population problems that could break its economic promise. Since 1992 the number of people dying has been bigger than that of those being born by a massive 50%. Indeed official figures suggest the country has shrunk by 5% since 1993 and people in Russia live a shorter life now than those in 1961. Why is this occurring? Nobody is quite sure, but poor diet and above all long-time alcoholism have much to do with it. If current trends don’t bend, Russia’s population will be about the size of Yemen’s by the year 2050.

In the north of India, the population is booming due to high birth rates, but in the south, where most economic development is taking place, birth rate is falling rapidly. In a further twist, birth rate is highest in poorly educated rural areas and lowest in highly educated urban areas. In total, 25% of India’s working-age population has no education. In 2030, a sixth of the country’s potential work force could be totally uneducated.

One solution is obviously to import foreign workers via immigration. As for the USA, it is almost unique among developed nations in having a population that is expected to grow by 20% from 2010—2030. Moreover, the USA has a track record of successfully accepting immigrants. As a result it’s likely to see a rise in the size of its working-age population and to witness strong economic growth over the longer term.