Creative minds: the links between mental illness and creativity(independent.co.uk)
independent.co.uk
Creative minds: the links between mental illness and creativity
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/features/creative-minds-the-links-between-mental-illness-and-creativity-1678929.html
37 comments
I hate that quote. It makes "progress" seem inevitably adversarial, when in fact, most of the things that we see as "progress" in the world are evolutionary phenomena -- adaptive by nature.
[deleted]
I interpret the quote as applying to things I do, not to things I see; and as difficulties in general, not necessarily adversarial.
From the article: "Scientists were the least affected, while artists and writers had increased diagnoses of psychosis."
My guess is that artists and writers are more creative than scientists due to the randomness of a flawed brain.
But obviously we can get randomness from other sources such as computers. So maybe normal brains in combination with computers can be creative too.
My guess is that artists and writers are more creative than scientists due to the randomness of a flawed brain.
But obviously we can get randomness from other sources such as computers. So maybe normal brains in combination with computers can be creative too.
However, it seems like doing science requires at least as much creativity as writing or painting.
There are different sorts of creativity.
Most mathematicians would probably not do very well in the open-ended creativity of writing a novel say.
One type of creativity is goal driven (e.g., prove this theorem), while the other not so much (e.g., write an interesting novel).
Most mathematicians would probably not do very well in the open-ended creativity of writing a novel say.
One type of creativity is goal driven (e.g., prove this theorem), while the other not so much (e.g., write an interesting novel).
How is "write an interesting novel" not a goal?
I was once a fairly talented writer, but coding is less effort and on average better paying, so that's the path I chose. In the end I really don't see that big of a difference in the creative process. Granted, once you focus on a specific path for several years you change your relative strengths so it's easy to confuse innate talent with effort.
I was once a fairly talented writer, but coding is less effort and on average better paying, so that's the path I chose. In the end I really don't see that big of a difference in the creative process. Granted, once you focus on a specific path for several years you change your relative strengths so it's easy to confuse innate talent with effort.
It's a very vague goal. Moreover, there is no such thing as a "wrong" novel.
Well, there is: One that doesn't express your viewpoint well, for example. It depends on precisely what you are trying to accomplish in writing it, of course.
Mathematical proofs require a lot of creativivty, too. There are many different ways to prove a given theorem, and it takes quite a bit of imagination to come up with one.
I'd say the main difference is emotional. Being creative in the humanities requires a certain emotional madness, which can be especially debilitating. Scientists and mathematicians mostly just need to be obsessive, focused, and good at ferreting out hard to recognize patterns.
Mathematical proofs require a lot of creativivty, too. There are many different ways to prove a given theorem, and it takes quite a bit of imagination to come up with one.
I'd say the main difference is emotional. Being creative in the humanities requires a certain emotional madness, which can be especially debilitating. Scientists and mathematicians mostly just need to be obsessive, focused, and good at ferreting out hard to recognize patterns.
I'd say the main difference is emotional.
Yes, and I'd go further and say that it is specifically a much greater then average empathy intensity which leads to great and moving art.
And that can hurt emotionally just as much as being an elite athlete can hurt you physically.
Yes, and I'd go further and say that it is specifically a much greater then average empathy intensity which leads to great and moving art.
And that can hurt emotionally just as much as being an elite athlete can hurt you physically.
This is a subset of open-ended creativity. Another subset would be web 2.0 say and that rarely leads to "great and moving art".
> Most mathematicians would probably not do very well in the open-ended creativity of writing a novel
Lewis Carroll
Lewis Carroll
Most mathematicians are Lewis Carroll?!
My guess is that the average artists and writer is LESS creative then the average scientist. If for no other reason, then because the barrier to entry is much lower. Do you need anything besides attitude to be an artists? And science is hard and intensely creative work. And for that matter, so is engineering.
You've got an interesting vision of artists.
Don't you think that creating requires at least as much dedication as science ? After all, in art you never know that you're right, whereas in science you could verify it quite easily.
Don't you think that creating requires at least as much dedication as science ? After all, in art you never know that you're right, whereas in science you could verify it quite easily.
The creativity in science does not come from the verification stage, but from the stage where you figure out how to attack a problem and formulate theories.
Yes but in the end you know if your right or wrong.
Could you tell that Edgar Varèse was wrong when he composed atonal music ?
The "end" of science isn't the verification stage either. If you're wrong, you use that to refine your theories and research strategy, using creativity, and continue testing.
You hear artists say things like "This work isn't done yet, something is missing", as if that's some kind of exceptional state for the artist, yet they never actually complete it. Do legitimate scientists say that? I wouldn't think so, since continuous refinement the default state of science.
You hear artists say things like "This work isn't done yet, something is missing", as if that's some kind of exceptional state for the artist, yet they never actually complete it. Do legitimate scientists say that? I wouldn't think so, since continuous refinement the default state of science.
I didn't use the right expression.
I wanted to say that with science, there's an objective way to assess the validity of a method.
I play a bit of music, I suck, but I do play, and I can absolutely tell you I KNOW when it's wrong. Not just out of tune but WRONG. And as the grand parent poster pointed out, the creativity in science isn't in the verification part.
You should listen to some atonal music. It may sound wrong but it's because of our culture (western music is based on scales, atonal music is not).
The author states '. Evolutionary theory suggests that in order for them to be still here, there must be some kind of survival advantage to them.'
However, if this were true, wouldn't that mean illnesses like Cancer would also have a survival advantage?
However, if this were true, wouldn't that mean illnesses like Cancer would also have a survival advantage?
Your statement makes some unsafe assumptions. Mental state has a strong effect on ability to reproduce and raise offspring. Cancer rarely has an onset early enough to be a factor in this and the traits aren't something that can be "sensed" by potential reproductive partners. Evolution is blind to debilitations that don't impact reproductive ability (this is the same reason our natural healthy lives aren't much longer, on average, than the time it takes for us to be successful grandparents).
Maybe in a few hundred years with a society that stagnated with the exception of a strong stigma being placed on reproduction with people pre-disposed to cancer you'd see a natural reduction in the traits.
Maybe in a few hundred years with a society that stagnated with the exception of a strong stigma being placed on reproduction with people pre-disposed to cancer you'd see a natural reduction in the traits.
I found this claim dubious as well. It incorrectly assumes that evolution will cull 'bad' traits and reward 'good' ones. Tell me, what is the evolutionary advantage of the appendix? Fingerprints? The number of human chromosomes?
All we know is that these traits are survivable which says nothing of any advantage or disadvantage they may confer. The author (of the article and this comment) needs to understand evolution better.
All we know is that these traits are survivable which says nothing of any advantage or disadvantage they may confer. The author (of the article and this comment) needs to understand evolution better.
"Disposable Soma" theory of aging: in species subject to high levels of predation or death due to other random events, it may be more adaptive to pump energy into reproducing rather than fighting cancer and otherwise maintaining the body.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=V5Ff8eAwO...
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=V5Ff8eAwO...
Now I have an important question.
How should I properly take myself to the brink of insanity in order to boost creativity and flexibility of thought? Something to think about ...
Haven't a whole lot of ideas been attributed to drugs over the years? It would seem like a effective starting point for insanity with the added benefit of reverting to your sane old self when it's over. Or so I'd assume, I've never done drugs (beyond caffeine, nicotine and alike).
Speaking of creativity - contact me to brainstorm a brand name, product name, slogan or even strategy to a certain extent. No fee charged - a HN special.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw