Flow on radio


This evening (sunday 27.03.) at 20:05 on “deutschlandfunk“:

Wenn alles im Fluss ist
Von Manuel Gogos
DLF 2011

Im Flow zu sein bedeutet, völlig im Einklang mit einer Tätigkeit zu sein, die sich selbst zum Ziel hat. Flow ist die Lust des reibungslosen Ablaufs, ist Schaffens- und Tätigkeitsrausch genau im richtigen Turnus zwischen Über- und Unterforderung.

Ein Mensch im Flow kann aus der Zeit treten, sich wie ein Surfer auf der Oberfläche des Seins fühlen. Im Flow ist der Segler, wenn sein Boot perfekt im Wind liegt, ein Schwimmer, der seine Schwimmstöße optimal mit seiner Atmung synchronisiert, ein Kind, das in seinem Turmbau alles um sich herum vergisst.

Flow kann im Computerspiel erlebt werden, in der Risikosportart, aber auch in der täglichen Büroroutine. Der Verhaltensforscher Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi hat die Flow-Theorie in den 70er-Jahren aus Tausenden von Interviews mit Menschen aus allen möglichen Berufsgruppen und Alltagskulturen erarbeitet.

Heute ist das Phänomen “Flow” bereits in den Fokus von Frauenzeitschriften geraten. Zugleich ist die Flow-Theorie eine der wichtigsten Trends in der Glücksforschung.”

Have a nice evening ;)


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Spread Nonsense Against Boredom”


I think you`ll like that!

Have a nice weekend


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Creativity in building instruments

Hello everyone!

I really enjoyed our seminar. A fiew of You mentioned that i didn’t use powerpoint presentation or similar options. Well, i decided to not play music, but now i want – just to fulfill the thing – post You some material for better understanding what i mentioned to concerning creative instruments. The first video shows the hangdrum, the instrument developed from the steeldrum; builded and invented in switzerland. The second video shows the reactable i mentioned too. So im sorry for not using this presentation stuff in the seminar, after all, i’m very happy that i didn’t die while presenting :-)

Have a nice day!


Posted in Creativity in Musicians | Leave a comment


You may have received the invitation to the “official” EvaSys evaluation (which, from my point of view, is not that good; but who would ask a psychologist about questionnaire design and evaluation anyway ;)). So there’s three questionnaires altogether (I’m sorry!):
– the “official” one (which is short, fortunately);
– the questionnaire about the blog, and
– the questionnaire about the seminar session, which is still in the making. I’ll keep you posted as soon as it is online, which will hopefully be the case in a few days.

I would like to use the latter two for a scientific evaluation of the combination of blogging/block seminar as a learning method if that’s okay for you. Except for teacher training, blogging has hardly been researched. I would like to make an exploratory study: Who profits from such types of seminars? Are there any personal characteristics (gender, age -> okay, we’ll probably have little variance here ;), creativity, personality … you name it) associated to it? It would be great if the result from the drawing creativity test and from the evaluation by your fellow students could be integrated into the questionnaire. Would that be okay for you? The questionnaires are anonymized and are matched by a code only; I will not make any attempts to reveal your “true” identity or whatsoever. It would therefore be great if you could

– compute your average grades for the five scales (organized, informative, engaging, entertaining, and overall grade) to two decimals, rounded
– evaluate the creativity test, based on the criteria described in the manual I handed out to you

so you can fill out the corresponding fields in the questionnaire, which I will set up asap. If you feel uncomfortable about the research in any way, let me know! The fields won’t be compulsory anyway, but I think such “solid” criteria might validate the findings a little further – we’re a small sample, after all ;-)

Posted in Course organization, Research in Creativity | Leave a comment

Final Reflexion

Hi all,

the weekend session was a real pleasure, and I enjoyed it very much to get to know the “fruits” of your work! I was very happy with the variety of your approaches and findings and had a really good time. So did you, I hope! :)

As I promised, here’s some information about the final reflexion, on which your grades will be based. This is NOT a scientific paper; it’s rather your personal summary of the seminar, so there is no “right” or “wrong”. I do not give any limits in length; but it’s probably easier to write than a scientific hausarbeit, where you have to find proof and evidence for everything! I therefore recommend to take some notes now that the experience is still fresh; please hand in the final version by March 15 at the latest.

So here’s some questions you might use as starting points for your reflection:
– What did you expect from this seminar, and in how far were your expectations fulfilled (or not)?
– What did you learn – what were the most striking points about your topic, what did you learn for yourself?
– Was learning different in this seminar, and if so, in how far?
– What did you enjoy in particular?
– What could be improved? [Critical comments are welcome and will not impact your grade negatively, I promise! ;)]
– In how far the things you learned in this seminar affect your view on creativity, on studying, on yourself, on life … on whatever? ;)
– Did the structure of the seminar (blog + weekend session) suit your learning needs, or would you propose any changes?
– … additions are welcome! You can post them in the Comments section.

Please also propose a grade you would give yourself, and give a brief reason for your choice. I am looking forward to reading from you! :)

Posted in Course organization | 4 Comments

The personality of actors

Hi there!

What do you guys think: Does the personality of professional actors differ from non-actors? And if it does is it in good or bad ways?

Often (rather in the past than today) actors are seen as being “different” from “normal” people. There have always been these stereotypes of actors which vary in claims like actors have poorly integrated, largely hysteric and schizoid personalities. They are narcissistic, passive, vulnerable to stress and they are more exhibitionistic and impulsive than non-actors. Plus they never pay their bills, swear terribly in public and drink way too much. Explanations of these behaviors have been the high unemployment in this domain, the temporary nature of work and the “vagaries of the acting profession” for example. Psychology has done little to reduce these stereotypes. Plus like I wrote in my last blog entry there is often the danger that the character´s personality and the actor´s get somehow mixed, that the actor gets confused about his or her identity.

On the other hand according to Goffman´s role-theory which says that every person is playing different roles in his life given by society (like a mother, a child, a brother, a friend, etc.) individuals in everyday life “act” as well as actors in dramatic roles.

So is there a different in personality of actors and non-actors or in their everyday behavior?

There is one popular study by Hammond and Edelmann, University of Surrey (1991) I want to introduce to you.

They examined 161 subjects of which 51 were professional actors, 58 were amateur actors and 52 were non-actors (teachers, back officials, etc.). The mean ages vary between 38 and 43 years. Each of them was given a set of 6 standardized questionnaires which they had to complete in 20-30 minutes:

1. The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism)

2. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (extend one values onseself)

3.The revised Self-Monitoring and Concern Appropriateness Scale (sensitivity to expressive behavior of others)

4.The Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale (need to respond in cultural sanction)

5.The Self-Consciousness Scale (private and public self-consciousness and social anxiety)

6.The Shyness and Sociability Scale (shyness and sociability)

The results showed that there are indeed personality differences between actors and non-actors. However the results do not support the negative stereotypes mentioned before. Professional actors (according to that study)

-are less shy

-are less socially anxious

-more extroversive

-are more sociable

-are more privately self-conscious

-less attentive to social comparison

-more honest

-more sensitive to the expressive behavior of others

The continual change of roles and the exploration of the psyche and behavior can be seen as one explanation of these findings. But of course there is not an actor personality type which describes all actors per se. By the way actors and amateur actors didn´t differ a lot from each other in that study. That might be because both feel the need to express aspects of their personality through dramatic roles.

Posted in Acting and directing | Leave a comment

Saturday Meeting

Hi all,

we’ll start at 12:15 p.m. on Saturday! Lars, our visitor, will talk about fostering gifted young actors by about 6 p.m., so including discussion, we’ll probably be finished by seven. Depending on how far we get, we’ll decide together on when to start the Sunday session. (Not before 10 ;))

I can bring my laptop (a MacBook), but you can also bring your own. An overhead beamer is available; if you need anything else, let me know. CU!

P.S.: Don’t forget to participate in the survey about the blog! I set it up in Stud.IP. If you need any assistance, drop me an email or stop by.

Posted in Course organization | Leave a comment