The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

My guess is that artists and writers are more creative than scientists due to the randomness of a flawed brain.

But obviously we can get randomness from other sources such as computers. So maybe normal brains in combination with computers can be creative too.

Most mathematicians would probably not do very well in the open-ended creativity of writing a novel say.

One type of creativity is goal driven (e.g., prove this theorem), while the other not so much (e.g., write an interesting novel).

I was once a fairly talented writer, but coding is less effort and on average better paying, so that's the path I chose. In the end I really don't see that big of a difference in the creative process. Granted, once you focus on a specific path for several years you change your relative strengths so it's easy to confuse innate talent with effort.

Mathematical proofs require a lot of creativivty, too. There are many different ways to prove a given theorem, and it takes quite a bit of imagination to come up with one.

I'd say the main difference is emotional. Being creative in the humanities requires a certain emotional madness, which can be especially debilitating. Scientists and mathematicians mostly just need to be obsessive, focused, and good at ferreting out hard to recognize patterns.

What does that mean exactly and why does it not apply to mathematicians?

Yes, and I'd go further and say that it is specifically a much greater then average empathy intensity which leads to great and moving art.

And that can hurt emotionally just as much as being an elite athlete can hurt you physically.

Lewis Carroll

Don't you think that creating requires at least as much dedication as science ? After all, in art you never know that you're right, whereas in science you could verify it quite easily.

You hear artists say things like "This work isn't done yet, something is missing", as if that's some kind of exceptional state for the artist, yet they never actually complete it. Do legitimate scientists say that? I wouldn't think so, since continuous refinement the default state of science.

And I don't think that the only thing needed to be an artist is an "attitude".

However, if this were true, wouldn't that mean illnesses like Cancer would also have a survival advantage?

Maybe in a few hundred years with a society that stagnated with the exception of a strong stigma being placed on reproduction with people pre-disposed to cancer you'd see a natural reduction in the traits.

All we know is that these traits are survivable which says nothing of any advantage or disadvantage they may confer. The author (of the article and this comment) needs to understand evolution better.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=V5Ff8eAwO...