Cameron,
I have rarely read a response that contained so biased a view of  
creativity or architects or that reflected so little understanding of  
the issues I sought to address. I will read your references but for  
now here are my immediate reactions to your discussion of them.

> Though the argument is not robustly put forward, it
> worth considering Chet Bower's claim that such per-
> sonality types, and the whole notion of 'individual
> creatives' to which Western liberal education remains
> committed, are perhaps a lot of the reason why our
> societies are currently so unsustainable. His (easily
> caricaturable) counter is to suggest that we need to
> educate for more humble forms of collaborative cognition
> (e.g., learning from and with your elders and others,
> rather than unquestioningly striving to demolish what
> they have evolved so that it can be replaced with your
> own project(ion).)
> http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx01401/
> http://tinyurl.com/mk6daz
>
This seems to reflect a narrow and old fashioned reaction to the  
"individual creative" as someone who destroys rather than reinterprets  
or advances what exists. The correlates of creativity are being  
discussed not old resentments.  More humble forms of collaborative  
communication (committee work for example) often leads to mediocre  
results without good creative group dynamics that evoke correlates not  
unlike those Mackinnon uncovered.  Groups have personalities too.
> Another version of the same argument is the late
> Neil Postman's _Teaching as a Conserving Activity_
> http://tinyurl.com/lzemdy
> If the world (of entertainment for example) is spend-
> ing all its time convincing us that we are creative
> individuals, it is the dialectical duty of education
> to critically teach the reverse; that all design is
> redesign for example:
> http://www.designaddict.com/essais/michl.html

I am not aware that the world of entertainment  spends all its time  
convincing us that we are creative individuals. Thankfully a great  
deal of it strengthens our understanding of our foibles and  
possibilities for good and evil. A design that is not a redesign: The  
Segway Personal Transporter is not a redesign of any previous form of  
transportation unless you consider roller skates in its league.
>
> In this context, the following sounds like a new
> pathology to be included in the next DSM:
> Architect Personality Disorder (what Deyan Sudjic
> calls 'The Edifice Complex').
>> "If I were to summarize what is most generally characteristic of the
>> creative architect as we have seen him (sic), it is his high level of
>> effective intelligence, his openness to experience, his freedom from
>> petty constraints, and impoverishing inhibitions, his aesthetic
>> sensitivity, his cognitive flexibility, his independence of thought
>> and action, his high level of energy, his unquestioning commitment to
>> creative endeavor, and his unceasing striving for creative solutions
>> to the ever more difficult architectural problems he constantly sets
>> for himself". end quote

I would say that the edifice complex has roots beyond the architect.  
If is his business to create the best edifice he can imagine, one that  
enriches culture and society as well as the individual occupant. If  
Mackinnon's summary describes a personality disorder or pathology  
please describe your version of an ordered personality without a  
pathology.

Have you ever taught a design studio? Do you have any idea what is  
involved?

Charles