Creative individuals are troublesome, as a rule. They tend to be impulsive (lacking in conscientiousness), and resistant to group-pressures...
Consequently creatives tend to be unsuited to functioning in modern bureaucracies - such as academia, sciences, law, the media, the institutional churches... all of which have become soul-destroying deserts of conformist dullness under a brittle veneer of fake fun and pseudo-significance.
My sense is that such individuals were integrated better, and functioned better, in the past.
In modern life a person with moderately high psychoticism is, on the one hand, excluded by the rigid and rule-filled operations of impersonal bureaucracies (i.e. pretty much all large organizations); while on the other hand outwith organizations their lives may lack sufficient structure so they are likely to go-off-the-rails (e.g engage in alcoholism, or promiscuity - in general, seeking short term pleasure and distraction).
What is needed is not to be found somewhere on a line drawn between conformity-to-bureaucracy and loose-cannon-license; but in an entirely different and older principle of social organization .
What is needed is on the lines of more characteristically medieval organizations: the monastery and the college.
This provided a compulsory, fairly frequent structure for life - by things like communal living, communal meals, and daily religious observances.
Some rules are inevitable and desirable; but rules constrain relations, and in essence authority should be personal, patriarchal and loving - like an ideal abbot or master.
Lacking natural submissiveness and docility, the main factor binding the high-psychoticism individual to society is loyalty - which is a kind of love.
One cannot love a bureaucracy, but one may love a monastery, a college, a guild - and one may be loyal to the patriarchal figures which head them.
Loyalty and love were the ties that used to bind traditional society; and modernity is hostile to, destructive of, loyalty and love.
And, as an interesting and profound aside; loyalty and love explain why the best Christians may not be (usually are not) the most conscientious, stable, submissive and altruistic of people.
Christian faith is defined in terms of love and loyalty, not obedience to law.
The best Christians are (surely?) those who love and are loyal to Christ and their fellow men; not those who are best at sticking to rules, nor those who sin least often.