I just don't think it's true. Funny, yes. But I don't think those skill sets are mutually exclusive.
I agree with DeeDee. This made no sense to me. It bugs me when vague generalities are presented about creative or smart or any group of people as if they are factual. While #1 may apply to my brother, who does tend to be wickedly creative and also quite self-absorbed
, there are plenty of innovators renowned for basic kindness and decency towards others. Maybe I'm just lucky, but the true geniuses I've been able to know personally have always been astonishing to me in their humility and decency. #2 and #3 are just bizarre. Innovators often rely on forming a cadre of folks who assist them, push them further, and help with aspects of a project. That often depends on social skills as well as finding a way to best use the skills of others needed for a major development.
In terms of being well-rounded, I always thought the major benefit of being PG was being able to do many things very well because so much less effort was needed to make all A's or whatever benchmark of success was used in other fields. Most of the folks I know who are truly creative and ridiculously successful at a given field could have done (and did) any number of other things and gave up music, chess, sports, physics, etc., at a late level (often after graduate school) in order to do the thing that brought the most success.
#5 states that creativity isn't hard work. I think creativity doesn't spring from chaos but rather from emergent properties from within a structure. If I think about Mozart, or Einstein, or Steinbeck -- these weren't yahoos playing music on tin cans but rather folks with deep training and deep understanding of the rules of their disciplines, who then went way beyond the traditional or typical using their own uniqueness and creative capacity. And finally, #7 baffles me. I find it so strange that someone could think creativity requires no training or work and thinking skills just show up spontaneously. I don't think the PG people in my life needed any repetition of stupid worksheets, but no question did math improve after AoPS training in thinking skills and problem-solving. Thinking skills taught the means to implement their creative ideas. Without the capacity to execute, they couldn't go anywhere with the thoughts. If creativity doesn't need training, I'd guess it hasn't been exercised at a high enough level yet to require discipline and work to create the outcome. The brilliant scientists I know still had to submit the R01 and grant writing is definitely work!
I've heard lots of generalities about PG kids and most of those didn't apply to the PG kids I know either. It's not necessary to have OEs, have difficulty socially, or have behavior issues to be PG. Some kids are just wicked smart and otherwise, quite pleasant, social, and eager to please adults and work hard. None of those other qualities say much to me about their learning or creative capacity, which can be quite extreme, even in kids who otherwise seem quite typical.
