6 ms·

The Relationship Between Creativity and Mental Illness

84 points by mikeleeorg 12y ago

dkhar 12y ago
That was an interesting article/book summary. The main idea (that there exists a correlation artistic creativity and mood disorders) is something I've observed anecdotally. I get the impression, however, that it serves the end of history and entertainment more than it does those of science. The examples in the article were light on sample sizes and heavy on speculation ("Is mental illness caused by creativity? Maybe it's the other way around! Who knows?"). I wonder if the book it's about offers more solid corroborating sources.
- theoh 12y ago
  The article definitely shows too much respect to psychiatry, which is much less rigorous than lay people often assume. Richard Bentall has written some accessible books debunking the supposedly scientific basis of diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. Compounding the lack of rigor, studies of creativity are generally at the frivolous and self-indulgent end of the field.
FireBeyond 12y ago
An interesting article, but certainly not a new theory. Dr. Kay Jamison is one of the foremost authorities on manic-depressive illness - and also suffers from it. She wrote a memoir, An Unquiet Mind (http://www.amazon.com/An-Unquiet-Mind-Memoir-Madness/dp/0679763309 http://www.amazon.com/An-Unquiet-Mind-Memoir-Madness/dp/0679...), and a non-fiction work of research, “Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament” (http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Fire-Manic-Depressive-Artistic-Temperament/dp/068483183X http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Fire-Manic-Depressive-Artistic...).
rectangletangle 12y ago
Although interesting, this isn't particularity surprising (at least not to me). Mood disorders have a high correlation with atypical brain morphology. This is due to the fact that abnormal brains often result in abnormal temperament. Although correlation doesn't always imply causation, in this particular case it probably does. Most individuals affected by these conditions likely express phenotypes on the edges of the bell curve (not necessarily just regarding intelligence).
hyp0 12y ago
> “Half of the human beings in history are women,” she noted, “but we have had so few recognized for their genius". There's an interesting view that while men aren't "better" than women, they are more distributed. That is, the distribution graph of talent (or any quality) is flatter for men than for women. So, you have more men at the extremes than women: more tall more, more short men; more geniuses; more idiots; etc. There's a fascinating argument for this observation: women have two X chromosomes, while men only have one. The presence of a second X chromosome has different effects depending on the gene, but often acts as a backup or an averaging. So, if there's some new gene going around that has wonderful properies, men get the full dose of it, women only get half. If the new gene has terrible properties or just doesn't work properly, men suffer the full blast, but women only get a half-blast (or, the other X completely compensates).
- k__ 12y ago
  > men aren't "better" than women, they are more distributed. source?
  - possibilistic 12y ago
    I've skimmed literature on this before. Did a quick search on my phone, though this doesn't look like the most reputable source: http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201101/how-can-there-still-be-sex-difference-even-when-there-is http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differ... I'd be interested to read any studies with alternative outcomes. This seems like a well-promulgated meme, regardless of its factuality or not...
    - streptomycin 12y ago
      This shows some data from one study: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/june-2010/are-there-more-girl-geniuses http://www.american.com/archive/2010/june-2010/are-there-mor... Men are overrepresented at the tails of the IQ distribution, women are overrepresented in the middle.
      - 12y ago
madaxe_again 12y ago
Intelligence and depression go hand in hand. The following isn't blowing my own trumpet, but is framing for my perspective. The last IQ test I had (for what it's worth, I put little stead in their worth, and was made to do it by a concerned employer) placed me in the "profoundly gifted" category - just north of 180. I have been outright miserable for my entire existence. As I've learned to better understand my own behaviour and impulses in the context of how humans generally work, it has become increasingly evident that my dissatisfaction stems from an excess of analytical thought, particularly when applied to "what if" scenarios. This leaves me usually exceptionally well prepared for most situations life throws at me, through my incessant internal roleplaying, however also results in me "experiencing" many negative situations and outcomes, in order to understand how to either mitigate against them or to deal with them when they arise - and the emotions that come with them. This results in a fixation on negative outcomes, which in turn feeds into anxiety, paranoia, and depression - as negative outcomes are far more common in most situations than positive - and mandate more attention so that they can be avoided. In any case - I'd argue that creativity doesn't stem from mental illness, and that in fact depression as reported in many of these individuals (particularly given the absence of schizoid traits) stems from a similar source, in overanalysing situations. It's a correlating factor, not a causative one. There's also the question of association, which is noted in the article, which I can to some extent vouch for. Much of my utility in what I do for my day job arises from being able to make associations from the aether that others don't seem to see, and posit solutions to multi-variable problems rapidly. It's a disconcerting feeling when you delve - something akin to turning off a chunk of rational thought, and letting the answers emerge from somewhere in my visual memory/thought processes. Also, outside of general problem solving, this results in strange associations, which usually emerge from me as baroque and obtuse metaphors - which again feed to the "mental illness" angle, it's somewhat inevitable that "this dude is nuts" is the conclusion others would and do take. Anyway, just my $0.02 autopsychoanalysis. Oh, and dysthymia was what they decided to diagnose me with when I last saw a shrink. Whatever. Edit: just occurred to me as relevant to this - I had my genome done last year, and I have completely buggered serotonin and dopamine systems, and an overamped oxycontin system. Whether this feeds into this, I don't know, but I would suspect so. I get no sense of achievement from anything, which pushes me to always do more, learn more, be more.
- 12y ago
michaelochurch 12y ago
Sometimes I wonder if the reason "we" are creative is not that we're blessed with preternatural creativity, but that we don't lose it in adolescence. Children are unskilled, but creative. Most adults are skilled but not creative. They learn that it's better for their jobs and social status and peaceful way of life to sacrifice that creativity and conform. We don't become conventional, boring, and uncreative because that life isn't an option. (Some mentally ill people destroy their creativity in other ways, but that's another story.) It's those of us who have absolutely no hope of winning the compete-to-conform game (we're going to lose if we play, so why try?) that keep our creativity intact. We need it if we're going to have a chance.
- prestadige 12y ago
  But note that conforming itself requires creativity. One has to (consciously or no) conjecture what is the appropriate, conformist thing to do in any situation. There's no easy way around this since most of the rules are unwritten. What really gets society's goat is innovation, most of which fails, and all of which encounters resistance. And I think the reason for that resistance, ironically, is that new ideas and new things require other people to re-direct their own dwindling creativity into understanding or at least coping with them.

84 points by mikeleeorg 12y ago

dkhar 12y ago

That was an interesting article/book summary. The main idea (that there exists a correlation artistic creativity and mood disorders) is something I've observed anecdotally. I get the impression, however, that it serves the end of history and entertainment more than it does those of science. The examples in the article were light on sample sizes and heavy on speculation ("Is mental illness caused by creativity? Maybe it's the other way around! Who knows?"). I wonder if the book it's about offers more solid corroborating sources.

theoh 12y ago
The article definitely shows too much respect to psychiatry, which is much less rigorous than lay people often assume. Richard Bentall has written some accessible books debunking the supposedly scientific basis of diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. Compounding the lack of rigor, studies of creativity are generally at the frivolous and self-indulgent end of the field.

FireBeyond 12y ago

An interesting article, but certainly not a new theory. Dr. Kay Jamison is one of the foremost authorities on manic-depressive illness - and also suffers from it. She wrote a memoir, An Unquiet Mind (http://www.amazon.com/An-Unquiet-Mind-Memoir-Madness/dp/0679763309 http://www.amazon.com/An-Unquiet-Mind-Memoir-Madness/dp/0679...), and a non-fiction work of research, “Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament” (http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Fire-Manic-Depressive-Artistic-Temperament/dp/068483183X http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Fire-Manic-Depressive-Artistic...).

rectangletangle 12y ago

Although interesting, this isn't particularity surprising (at least not to me). Mood disorders have a high correlation with atypical brain morphology. This is due to the fact that abnormal brains often result in abnormal temperament. Although correlation doesn't always imply causation, in this particular case it probably does. Most individuals affected by these conditions likely express phenotypes on the edges of the bell curve (not necessarily just regarding intelligence).

hyp0 12y ago

> “Half of the human beings in history are women,” she noted, “but we have had so few recognized for their genius". There's an interesting view that while men aren't "better" than women, they are more distributed. That is, the distribution graph of talent (or any quality) is flatter for men than for women. So, you have more men at the extremes than women: more tall more, more short men; more geniuses; more idiots; etc. There's a fascinating argument for this observation: women have two X chromosomes, while men only have one. The presence of a second X chromosome has different effects depending on the gene, but often acts as a backup or an averaging. So, if there's some new gene going around that has wonderful properies, men get the full dose of it, women only get half. If the new gene has terrible properties or just doesn't work properly, men suffer the full blast, but women only get a half-blast (or, the other X completely compensates).

k__ 12y ago
> men aren't "better" than women, they are more distributed. source?
- possibilistic 12y ago
  I've skimmed literature on this before. Did a quick search on my phone, though this doesn't look like the most reputable source: http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201101/how-can-there-still-be-sex-difference-even-when-there-is http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differ... I'd be interested to read any studies with alternative outcomes. This seems like a well-promulgated meme, regardless of its factuality or not...
  - streptomycin 12y ago
    This shows some data from one study: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/june-2010/are-there-more-girl-geniuses http://www.american.com/archive/2010/june-2010/are-there-mor... Men are overrepresented at the tails of the IQ distribution, women are overrepresented in the middle.
    - 12y ago

madaxe_again 12y ago

Intelligence and depression go hand in hand. The following isn't blowing my own trumpet, but is framing for my perspective. The last IQ test I had (for what it's worth, I put little stead in their worth, and was made to do it by a concerned employer) placed me in the "profoundly gifted" category - just north of 180. I have been outright miserable for my entire existence. As I've learned to better understand my own behaviour and impulses in the context of how humans generally work, it has become increasingly evident that my dissatisfaction stems from an excess of analytical thought, particularly when applied to "what if" scenarios. This leaves me usually exceptionally well prepared for most situations life throws at me, through my incessant internal roleplaying, however also results in me "experiencing" many negative situations and outcomes, in order to understand how to either mitigate against them or to deal with them when they arise - and the emotions that come with them. This results in a fixation on negative outcomes, which in turn feeds into anxiety, paranoia, and depression - as negative outcomes are far more common in most situations than positive - and mandate more attention so that they can be avoided. In any case - I'd argue that creativity doesn't stem from mental illness, and that in fact depression as reported in many of these individuals (particularly given the absence of schizoid traits) stems from a similar source, in overanalysing situations. It's a correlating factor, not a causative one. There's also the question of association, which is noted in the article, which I can to some extent vouch for. Much of my utility in what I do for my day job arises from being able to make associations from the aether that others don't seem to see, and posit solutions to multi-variable problems rapidly. It's a disconcerting feeling when you delve - something akin to turning off a chunk of rational thought, and letting the answers emerge from somewhere in my visual memory/thought processes. Also, outside of general problem solving, this results in strange associations, which usually emerge from me as baroque and obtuse metaphors - which again feed to the "mental illness" angle, it's somewhat inevitable that "this dude is nuts" is the conclusion others would and do take. Anyway, just my $0.02 autopsychoanalysis. Oh, and dysthymia was what they decided to diagnose me with when I last saw a shrink. Whatever. Edit: just occurred to me as relevant to this - I had my genome done last year, and I have completely buggered serotonin and dopamine systems, and an overamped oxycontin system. Whether this feeds into this, I don't know, but I would suspect so. I get no sense of achievement from anything, which pushes me to always do more, learn more, be more.

12y ago

michaelochurch 12y ago

Sometimes I wonder if the reason "we" are creative is not that we're blessed with preternatural creativity, but that we don't lose it in adolescence. Children are unskilled, but creative. Most adults are skilled but not creative. They learn that it's better for their jobs and social status and peaceful way of life to sacrifice that creativity and conform. We don't become conventional, boring, and uncreative because that life isn't an option. (Some mentally ill people destroy their creativity in other ways, but that's another story.) It's those of us who have absolutely no hope of winning the compete-to-conform game (we're going to lose if we play, so why try?) that keep our creativity intact. We need it if we're going to have a chance.

prestadige 12y ago
But note that conforming itself requires creativity. One has to (consciously or no) conjecture what is the appropriate, conformist thing to do in any situation. There's no easy way around this since most of the rules are unwritten. What really gets society's goat is innovation, most of which fails, and all of which encounters resistance. And I think the reason for that resistance, ironically, is that new ideas and new things require other people to re-direct their own dwindling creativity into understanding or at least coping with them.