Direct link to study: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A404241D8126664D0EDD1989288F431D/S2056472423006099a.pdf/psychotic-

Direct link to study: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A404241D8126664D0EDD1989288F431D/S2056472423006099a.pdf/psychotic-and-autistic-traits-among-magicians-and-their-relationship-with-creative-beliefs.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c... I skimmed through the paper, and I wish there was a nicer way of saying it, but this is the kind of bullshit non-replicable study that got kicked off the replication crisis in psychology. It really reminds me of the significant xkcd (https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/, if you test every colour of jellybeans/creative profession for p<0.05, eventually you'll find a jellybean colour/profession that's associated with acne/disorders). Select quotes: > A sample of 195 magicians and 233 people from the general population completed measures of schizotypal traits (Oxford– Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences) and autism (Abridged Version of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient), as well as the Short Scale of Creative Self. Magicians were also compared with other creative groups with respect to schizotypal traits, based on previously published data. One of the co-authors is a magician: > All magicians’ contacts were made by the third author, who served at the time as the Resourceress of the Society of American Magicians I couldn't find where they found the same statistics for other creative professions. Did they pull it out of another study? I can't tell. > Our study demonstrates that not all creative people are created equal. Magicians scored significantly lower than the general population and other vocational creative groups on most psychopathological traits, particularly those related to schizotypy