Research points to to conscientiousness as the one trait to rule them all (2014)

The article quotes the currently popular psychological "grit" literature more than once, to support the idea that creative people, notwithstanding their gifts, are often extremely annoying. For those who missed a recent drama, a psychological diagnosis called "Asperger's" was briefly popular, until people noticed that many very successful people met the diagnostic criteria (Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton among others). So psychologists, nothing if not flexible, unceremoniously dropped Asperger's and replaced it with the "grit" meme. The latter condition celebrates the same traits that the former condition condemned.

But the article is titled in a way that contradicts its own conclusion, which is that creative people may be seen only as uncooperative and antisocial, at least when they're young.

The article and all the quoted studies do indicate that conscientiousness is probably the most important positive trait (which I guess will elicit a few irreverent 'no duh's), but it also points out there are some equally powerful and opposite traits like neuroticism low agreeableness, which lower the utility of being conscientious. The title sort of omits the latter part.

> Conscientiousness is the state of being thorough, careful, or vigilant; it implies a desire to do a task well.

My coding is extremely clean, but my desk looks like crap. So what is the verdict?

"To be blunt, having your shit together is a respectable quality."

Not a native speaker, but I am surprised to see this kind of language in a magazine like Time. Is this normal for printed editions as well?

The article contrasts conscientiousness with creativity, saying perhaps we give short shrift to people who are actually creative.

is this the same thing as awareness?