

The Relationship Between Creativity and Mental Illness - mikeleeorg
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/07/21/creativity-and-mental-illness/

======
madaxe_again
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.

~~~
fatalness
So you just need to become more stupid I believe. After I have developed
slightly high blood pressure I quit smoking and I've started to do 2-3 hours
of extensive exercise every day (both weight lifting and aerobics) - my
anxiety/depression level have dropped significantly.

I couldn't generate streams of vivid ideas anymore, but I'm much less fuzzy
and kind-of "psychotic" I'd say.

I was great with words (In russian which is my native language) - I couldn't
write so cool and fast anymore. I guess I'm less funny now.

But I'm more steady and confident. I'm dumber, but I'm much more happier.

~~~
rooneel
I have a similar (albeit modified) theory. Let me clarify that stupid and
smart don't necessary mean the same as regular usage, but they're close
enough.

If you are 'stupid' (not necessarily intellectually, but in some ways), the
neurosis (psychosis is a strong word, no?) is less, you don't think about
things you shouldn't (bothersome, existentially) and you have a healthy and
comfortable intellectual-emotional life.

If you are _very smart_ /smart, you can get beyond the temporary plateau of
'thoughtfulness' that also brings neurosis. You think about things that are
bothersome, but you have enough mental strength to overcome and suppress them.
You're high-functioning intellectually, and it doesn't take a toll on your
psychosis.

If you're in the 'middle', you tend to think about things, and keep thinking
till you've found reasonable solution. It is bothersome, depressing, and often
not pleasant. But you have the gift of 'thinking', and you like using it. It's
a stimulating albeit mentally tiring existence.

When you say you're 'dumber', I interpret it as you saying you've trained
yourself not to ponder upon things that will lead to no obvious outlet. Maybe
you've genuinely trained yourself to _never_ think about certain things, maybe
you've trained to control your bothersome thoughts on command. Either way,
you've trained your thoughts to a 'different level'.

/armchairAnalysis

~~~
madaxe_again
Hm, there's another extreme that you're missing, which is that of not just
thinking about _a_ problem, but thinking about _all of the problems_ , and
just forward-projecting and forward-projecting until the cows come home,
branching and branching and branching until you start to find commonalities
and convergences between the outcomes of (the outcomes of the outcomes of)
various ongoing situations which either provide useful strategic insight, or
just satisfy curiosity. I see temporal and atemporal problems in much the same
light - it's all just causation, and tracing the patterns forwards or
backwards far enough to see the common causes.

I can, happily, quash general anxious negative outcome thoughts (i.e. fixation
on a specific negative thought) - but just having to go through them all, even
once, as part of the human path-finding algorithm still takes its toll.

Ultimately the benefit, in terms of having Seldon-esque pre-sight on many
matters (although I don't hesitate to admit that I do get things wrong, as the
imp of the perverse likes to roll the dice from time to time), outweighs the
toll - although I do, from time to time, worry that I will end up in a
straightjacket.

------
rectangletangle
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
> “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__
> men aren't "better" than women, they are more distributed.

source?

~~~
possibilistic
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-
differ...](http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-
differences/201101/how-can-there-still-be-sex-difference-even-when-there-is)

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
This shows some data from one study:
[http://www.american.com/archive/2010/june-2010/are-there-
mor...](http://www.american.com/archive/2010/june-2010/are-there-more-girl-
geniuses)

Men are overrepresented at the tails of the IQ distribution, women are
overrepresented in the middle.

~~~
danimalia
The evidence presented is IQ scores from 1932. Given historical gender biases
this not persuasive. Culling scientific evidence from conservative think tank
Op-Eds is probably not a best practice...

~~~
streptomycin
There are many other data sources, some are linked from
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence)
\- I just linked to the above article because it has a pretty figure and it's
not behind an academic paywall.

Maybe most notable is a 1995 paper in Science
[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5220/41](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5220/41)
but it is both behind a paywall and completely devoid of figures! You get the
main idea from the abstract, though: _Except in tests of reading
comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, males typically
outnumber females substantially among high-scoring individuals._

~~~
danimalia
Well here is something not behind a paywall:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689999/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689999/).
This study finds that gender differences among top performers varies by ethnic
and national background.

While there may be gender differences among high/low scoring individuals, I
resent that that this is treated as a scientific fact when there are limited
studies with contradictory findings.

~~~
streptomycin
That's an interesting article. I guess it's not as clear cut as many people
believe.

------
dkhar
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
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
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/0679...](http://www.amazon.com/An-Unquiet-Mind-Memoir-
Madness/dp/0679763309)), 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...](http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Fire-Manic-Depressive-Artistic-
Temperament/dp/068483183X)).

------
michaelochurch
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
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.

