Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 63–78 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp From madness to genius: The Openness/Intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex ⇑ Colin G. DeYoung a, , Rachael G. Grazioplene a, Jordan B. Peterson b a University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States b University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada article info abstract Article history: A novel theory of Openness/Intellect is proposed, which integrates intelligence and positive schizotypy Available online 16 December 2011 (or apophenia, false detection of patterns or causal connections) within the Big Five. Openness/Intellect comprises a simplex of subtraits arrayed along a single scaling dimension. Openness traits fall in one half Keywords: of the simplex, bounded by apophenia; Intellect traits fall in the other half, bounded by intelligence. The Openness to Experience simplex is paradoxical because intelligence and apophenia are negatively correlated despite both loading Intellect positively on the general Openness/Intellect factor. The model was supported in two samples and orga- Intelligence nizes theories of (1) the relation of intelligence and schizotypy to personality, (2) the psychological and Schizotypy biological mechanisms involved in Openness/Intellect, and (3) the costs and benefits of Openness, prox- Apophenia imally and evolutionarily. Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Men have called me mad; but the question is not yet settled, Openness/Intellect (one of the ‘‘Big Five’’ personality traits), which whether madness is or is not the loftiest intelligence—whether is the basic dimension of personality most related to many psycho- much that is glorious—whether all that is profound—does not logical phenomena that are quintessentially human, including art, spring from disease of thought—from moods of mind exalted imagination, creativity, and intellectual curiosity. at the expense of the general intellect. They who dream by Central to the theory is a novel model of the structure of Open- day are cognizant of many things which escape those who ness/Intellect as a domain of personality traits, locating both intelli- dream only by night. In their gray visions they obtain glimpses gence and the positive symptoms of schizotypy as facets within this of eternity, and thrill, in waking, to find that they have been domain. This may at first seem unlikely. Surely, schizotypy and intel- upon the verge of the great secret. ligence should be inversely related (the empirical evidence suggests Edgar Allan Poe (1848/1975, p. 649) as much), let alone conceived as part of the same broad trait dimen- sion. Nonetheless, madness and genius may be similar in their asso- ciation with unconventional perspectives on the world. Both the 1. Introduction negative and the positive associations between schizotypy and intelligence are intuitively plausible, and this creates a puzzle. Even Genius has long been associated with madness in the popular as Poe, in our epigraph, vacillates between linking madness to the ‘‘loft- well as the artistic imagination. What do madness and genius have iest intelligence’’ and suggesting that it comes at the expense of in common, and what separates them? We believe these questions ‘‘general intellect’’. Which is it? Can this paradox be resolved? may be related to two seemingly more mundane questions from We propose that the full extent of the Openness/Intellect do- personality psychology and psychometrics: What is the relation main forms a paradoxical simplex, extending from intelligence at of intelligence to personality? and What is the relation of schizo- one end to apophenia at the other. Apophenia is the perception typy to personality? The theory we present here addresses the lat- of patterns or causal connections where none exist. (We discuss ter two questions by suggesting that their solutions are linked and below why this construct may be a desirable replacement for the that the existence of each as a problem is due in part to the solu- construct of positive schizotypy in the context of personality the- tion of the other. Our theory is designed to explain the nature of ory.) Extreme apophenia might be seen as the epitome of madness. It is, at least, one important form of madness and the defining fea- ture of psychosis. A simplex is an arrangement of variables along a single dimension, with those closest together most related and ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Psychology Dept., 75 East River Rd., Minneapolis, those farthest apart least related. (Note that this is not a trait MN 55455, United States. Fax: +1 612 626 2079. dimension, which represents variability in a population, but a E-mail address: [email protected] (C.G. DeYoung). 0092-6566/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.003 64 C.G. DeYoung et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 63–78 scaling dimension describing the magnitudes of relations among and scales from personality questionnaires (John, Naumann, & Soto, variables.) In this case, the simplex is paradoxical in that its oppo- 2008; Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005)—with the other four being site ends are hypothesized to be unrelated or even negatively re- Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. lated, despite the fact that all of its elements load positively on The Big Five model captures most of the covariance among more the same latent trait. This situation would imply that intelligence specific personality traits. Although some argument exists as to and apophenia may share some cause in common related to Open- whether a six factor model might be more appropriate in lexical re- ness/Intellect, though some other force drives them apart. search (Ashton et al., 2004; Saucier, 2009), the five and six factor A key motive for developing this theory is desire for a structural models are very similar and both include Openness/Intellect as model that can integrate the growing literature on the psycholog- one broad domain including traits related to imagination, curiosity, ical and biological mechanisms that may be causes of traits in the creativity, intellectual interests, perceived intelligence, artistic and Openness/Intellect domain (e.g., DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, aesthetic interests, and unconventionality. Given the goal of a com- 2005; DeYoung, Shamosh, Green, Braver, & Gray, 2009; Jung, Graz- prehensive taxonomy and the content of Openness/Intellect, it is ioplene, Caprihan, Chavez, & Haier, 2010; Kaufman et al., 2010; reasonable to investigate whether intelligence and schizotypal traits Peterson, Smith, & Carson, 2002). The hierarchical organization of can be incorporated within this domain. personality traits indicates that causes need to be considered at As reflected in its compound label, the Openness/Intellect do- multiple breadths (DeYoung, 2010a). Some causal forces will influ- main has been the most difficult of the Big Five for which to pro- ence Openness/Intellect as a whole, whereas others will be specific vide an adequate concise description. One early suggestion, to lower-level traits within this domain. This principle has been Culture, has been deemed clearly inadequate, and the two most demonstrated in behavior genetics, where lower-level traits in common labels currently are Openness to Experience and Intellect. the Big Five hierarchy are found to be influenced by specific genetic The trend toward a compound label reflects the recognition that factors that are independent of the genetic factors influencing the Openness and Intellect reflect two equally important aspects of entirety of each Big Five domain (Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Rie- the broader trait, which are separable despite being correlated mann, & Livesley, 1998; Jang et al., 2002). The Openness/Intellect (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007; Johnson, 1994; Saucier, domain appears likely to have a particularly complex array of cau- 1992, 1994). In the hierarchical organization of personality, Open- sal sources because of the diversity of traits it encompasses, and its ness and Intellect can be considered distinct traits below the Big structure needs to be modeled in a manner reflecting this Five, whereas the Big Five domain itself (Openness/Intellect) re- complexity. flects the shared variance of these two lower-level traits. Saucier The incentive for integrating intelligence and apophenia with (1992, 1994) has proposed that ‘‘Imagination’’ might be a good sin- the Big Five model stems from two premises. First, the Big Five gle label for the domain as a whole, given the existence of both can provide a reasonably comprehensive taxonomy for all broad intellectual and aesthetic forms of imagination. However, we categories of variability in psychological function in which there maintain the more common, compound label ‘‘Openness/Intellect,’’ is substantial variation (e.g., reward sensitivity for Extraversion, when referring to the domain as a whole, because colloquially cognitive exploration for Openness/Intellect; DeYoung, 2010b; ‘‘imagination’’ has specific connotations that are too narrow to cap- Van Egeren, 2009). Given this premise, important traits such as ture the full extent of this complex trait domain. Whenever we re- intelligence and positive schizotypy must be integrated with the fer to ‘‘Openness’’ or ‘‘Intellect’’ alone, we are referring to a subtrait Big Five or else deemed to be unique to more specific categories that constitutes