View Full Version : ADHD = Creativity


Tyler Durden
03-19-13, 08:41 PM
"Children with attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD) exhibit a delay in cortical maturation that is most prominent in PFC (Shaw et al., 2007). In contrast, children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) undergo early maturation of PFC (Carper, Moses, Tigue, & Courchesne, 2002).

....

Creativity—the ability to approach an object or a situation from an alternative perspective—may benefit from the unsupervised competition that occurs absent prefrontal control."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855545/

Lower frontal lobe activity => Lower inhibition => Higher creativity.

There seems to be a link between creativity and many of what are currently referred to as psychological 'disorders'.

So ADHD as a 'disorder' of executive function could be linked with relatively higher creative capabilities.

So what is often referred to as impaired executive function could also be referred to as increased creativity.

So disorders such as 'adhd' could instead be referred to as 'creative' in environments with lower conformity (executive function) requirements...

APSJ
03-19-13, 09:05 PM
It's an interesting theory, and this topic has come up quite a few times here, with many seeming to attribute their creativity to ADHD. My understanding is that research hasn't found a correlation between ADHD and creativity (though, creativity is a hard concept to quantify) and I tend to be skeptical of the link. My experience of ADHD certainly couldn't be confused with creativity, and I'm significantly more creative when medication keeps the ADHD somewhat at bay. In contrast, the most creative people I know are 'neurotypical' (or, at least, lack mental disorders..hard to think of them as 'typical' in any respect.)

daveddd
03-19-13, 09:06 PM
i can see this

i think creativity is highly driven by emotion(i think)

without the ability to regulate our emotion , wouldnt our creativity be unregulatable as well

it seems like i lost any creativity i had when i killed away my emotions, so its makes sense

mildadhd
03-19-13, 09:25 PM
It's an interesting theory, and this topic has come up quite a few times here, with many seeming to attribute their creativity to ADHD. My understanding is that research hasn't found a correlation between ADHD and creativity (though, creativity is a hard concept to quantify) and I tend to be skeptical of the link. My experience of ADHD certainly couldn't be confused with creativity, and I'm significantly more creative when medication keeps the ADHD somewhat at bay. In contrast, the most creative people I know are 'neurotypical' (or, at least, lack mental disorders..hard to think of them as 'typical' in any respect.)



I am much less creative in some ways when I take medication.

I prefer to be non medicated if I could make enough money as an artist.

I noticed some of my own personal strengths,

that I developed during 35 years of being undiagnosed and unmedicated,

where "dulled" by the medication and my ability became slightly less,

while other abilities like focus while reading,

and working with other people improved.


None medicated I am right out of the box sometimes.

I describe it as being, "in between the boxes".

Even before I knew what ADD was.



Interesting thread topic!

mildadhd
03-19-13, 09:42 PM
Sensitivity?

Tyler Durden
03-19-13, 09:49 PM
APSJ, as Dave said, without ability to somewhat regulate emotion there may be an inability to harness the creativity...

I would tend to agree Dave, if creativity is driven by emotion, and being emotional or sensitive (stress sensitive) as Peripheral puts it, is equivalent to being uninhibited ( as I understand it ), then could lack of inhibition and sensitivity (and therefore creativity...) be treated as somewhat synonymous in this context?

ana futura
03-19-13, 10:19 PM
More to consider-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/08/adhds-upside-is-creativity-says-new-study.html
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/pressreleases2010/adhdandcreativegenuis.aspx
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201106/is-the-adhd-brain-more-creative

And on mental illness and creativity-
http://www.stanford.edu/group/co-sign/Sussman.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19959565

Notice that ADHD was not looked at in that last study- as it was looking at "working artists". We are all to busy not making things to be included, but if we did make things, watch out!

Tyler Durden
03-19-13, 10:20 PM
http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/06/12/the-essential-psychopathology-of-creativity/

Thanks Ana, lots to look through!

I just found the one, but it looks good...

ana futura
03-19-13, 10:37 PM
http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/06/12/the-essential-psychopathology-of-creativity/

Thanks Ana, lots to look through!

I just found the one, but it looks good...

That does look good.

This bit is odd though-
Now, I don’t know how many of you creative-types out there began to panic when you started reading this list of defining criteria, but I know I did. In fact, of all the creative people I know in various fields of work and study (and I know a lot), I don’t know too many who don’t meet these criteria. It’s called being In The Zone, or Flow, as defined by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. This is usually that happy-productive-place that we all love to be in, and don’t seem to get enough of. However, according to the DSM criteria, it appears if you are too intensely creative, you might very well be suffering from Hypomanic Episodes.

What I consider to be flow and what I consider to be hypomania are very different. I did experience clear hypomanic symptoms when my drugs were getting figured out, and I've also experienced that ADHD hyper-mania we all seem to get when we are excited.

Flow is nothing like that. In flow, the brain does not speak to you, at all. It is silent, you are completely in the moment. In hypomania your brain is like Super Genius Chatty Cathy that will not shut the hell up (but her ideas are sooo good!)

So, either this writer actually has BP, or has never experienced flow.

Totally neither here nor there, but I thought it was curious.

ana futura
03-19-13, 10:41 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10154775

Brain scans reveal striking similarities in the thought pathways of highly creative people and those with schizophrenia.

Both groups lack important receptors used to filter and direct thought.

It could be this uninhibited processing that allows creative people to "think outside the box", say experts from Sweden's Karolinska Institute.

In some people, it leads to mental illness.

But rather than a clear division, experts suspect a continuum, with some people having psychotic traits but few negative symptoms.

dvdnvwls
03-19-13, 11:51 PM
I wonder if this phenomenon relates to the classic example of the blind person's hearing.

It used to be said that blind people had a better sense of hearing, as some sort of compensation. It is now generally recognized that that's not the case; it's merely that hearing is what blind people have to fall back on in the absence of seeing, so they use it more.

Translation: Maybe I've worked hard at being creative simply because I'm not good at a lot of other things and I needed to do something. That my creativity is not more or better than anyone else's, but is simply my method for making the best of a bad situation.

salleh
03-20-13, 12:27 AM
some people say they lose their creativity when they take their meds .....I find that not only do my meds help my concentration, but those meds also let my ideas out...and I still have trouble prioritizing them .....but I have more ideas than I can ever even come close to following through ....

.....I also think that creativity involves viewing everyday objects with an eye to finding other uses for them ;....combining things that live in a groove and you put them together in ways that no one else has seen before ....

but hey now that I think of it,....that is the very definition of creativity

ah well, had my nose to the grindstone for the past couple of days and am giddy with mental exhaustion .....and my eyes are getting really blurry ....

Tyler Durden
03-22-13, 04:11 AM
Dvdnvwls, I don't think that would be an accurate comparison, inhibited and creative thinking are opposite ends of a spectrum, eyesight and hearing are not.

Translation: my understanding is being creative is not a compensatory mechanism for being less inhibited.

dvdnvwls
03-22-13, 04:19 AM
Dvdnvwls, I don't think that would be an accurate comparison, inhibited and creative thinking are opposite ends of a spectrum, eyesight and hearing are not.

Translation: my understanding is being creative is not a compensatory mechanism for being less inhibited.

Good point. In my own situation, I believe that being creative is a compensatory mechanism for having a lack of other skills, and that was where my flawed analogy came from.

Tyler Durden
03-22-13, 04:25 AM
Although I believe adhd can lead to inhibitory compensatory mechanisms that are referred to as comorbidities, anxiety and depression for example.

SB_UK
03-22-13, 04:27 AM
Dvdnvwls, I don't think that would be an accurate comparison, inhibited and creative thinking are opposite ends of a spectrum, eyesight and hearing are not.

Translation: my understanding is being creative is not a compensatory mechanism for being less inhibited.
Loving your recent comments - very intelligent, well worked through.
Logic which even a child would accept.

(ps typing with 1 finger and little sight hence brevity)

Tyler Durden
03-23-13, 11:23 PM
Another way of looking at it...

Creative thinking as 'broad' thinking, correlates with less centralized (pfc) control (ADHD) used to 'narrow' thinking.

Applies both anatomically and metaphorically.

MellyFishButt
03-24-13, 01:15 AM
This continues to be a thought provoking thread.

I was trying to find a way to communicate my [uneducated] theory and then you just commented again and I am trying to find a way that it fits with mine. Before I get to mine, I want you to elaborate while fine tuning yours.

If we are Big Picture people who can quickly create a solution (or piece of art to fill a 'need'), what exactly is preventing the NT to do so? What is the filtering function that we are missing? Further, do you think this is something we are actually born with or do you think it's a muscle that we have built from the endless challenges we have had our entire lives? (That last one is part of my theory, by the way.) And if there is a variable that can create narrow thinking but allow for execution, what could the opposite variable be? Will there ever be a creative medication? (I certainly thought LSD was in HS and I always painted when I was either drunk or angry, tee hee!)

I see my creativity as an adult closer to problem solving. I come up with some pretty cool stuff and very quickly. My NT peers are happy for someone to tell them how to solve their problems. I think my creativity is from a lifetime of trying to find a way to get around myself and succeed in a challenge. I haven't done anything visually creative since the wedding, but I did everything myself and I did it simply because it was a challenge. Had I had an endless budget and could have delegated or outsourced, I probably wouldn't have gotten around to planning it.

Does any of this make sense?

MellyFishButt
03-24-13, 01:25 AM
I just thought of something that conflicts with my theory and this might be your point. As a child I was ridiculously good at drawing. I was just sitting here and trying to understand how my mind/hands worked when I was doing it and what I was drawing. I think it was the actual challenge of it, more than anything. Getting something just right was my motivation so I did it better, which would be the skill. The actual creativity though....I got nuthin'. I use to design a lot as a kid: clothing, furniture, etc. I never did anything just for fun. It always served a purpose/need, even when it was communicating a thought or feeling. That's a little weird, isn't it?

SquarePeg
03-24-13, 04:18 AM
Itīs often said that ADHDers think outside the box.
This is because was are forced to, we find it very difficult to think inside the box, to follow the logical sequence of steps like NTs.
Personally, I cannot start at A and work through to Z. I will jump from A to Z and then go back and fill in the missing letters, type thing.

I realised this was how I was so good in primary school. I would skim a text (not really reading or understanding it), then look at the first question. If it contained a date or name, I would scan the text for this and then work out the answer from that. So totally half arsed backwards, which is how I think.

So because we "canīt" see what NTīs can, we are forced to look elsewhere and therefore come up with creative solutions that NTīs canīt see.

Do you ever watch those prison shows. I am always amazed at how creative people are, they have few resources and loads of time and motivation. They make alcohol out of spit and vegetable peelings, they have highly organised groups that function not only on the inside but outside. They can smuggle in contraband, make a chess set out of soap, make a lethal weapon out of a ballpoint pen. I have even seen a homemade gun.
So they are creative because they are forced to be.

someothertime
03-24-13, 06:03 AM
So because we "canīt" see what NTīs can, we are forced to look elsewhere and therefore come up with creative solutions that NTīs canīt see.

[snip]

So they are creative because they are forced to be.

This.

+ Emotional influence in thought processes present in many. Successful creative expression has at times given me emotional outlet and reward that I am not able to achieve in a social context.

Tyler Durden
03-24-13, 06:18 AM
Ignoring the fact that prison shows are fictional.

Why do people go to prison in the first place?

Going to prison in the first place tends to be a result of straying from the 'straight and narrow'.

How is being creative different to being narrow minded?

Nobody uses only one part of their brain but the more you use an area the better you will become with it, yes necessity does breed invention, but not all areas of the brain can be dominant, if you used creativity less than you will be far less creatively capable, whether it became necessary or not, just as the opposite is true.

So as the two forms of thinking must be somewhat mutually exclusive, to be extremely focussed and narrow minded actually means sacrificing creativity, and vice versa.

Also as this trade off tends towards narrower thinking with ageing, it is the significant factor in why those with ADHD are considered "young" for their age, due to this tendency towards a "younger" more creative/broader pattern of thinking than the majority.

As another though I see OCD as a potential compensatory mechanism, extreme narrow thinking which i guess you could refer to as more mature in this context.

SB_UK
03-24-13, 04:47 PM
'adhd' could instead be referred to as 'creative' in environments with lower conformity

We 'daydream' think naturally.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-daydreaming

"The Power of Daydreaming is a provocative blog about tapping into the "wandering mind" for ideas, energy, and solutions. It examines both the research that highlights the connection between daydreaming and creativity ... ..."

Thing is - is that when there're peas tucked at the bottom of our mattress - it takes daydreaming to realise, find and remove 'em.

So - we've all had the experience of something 'irking us' ... not knowing what ... and then all of a sudden - knowing exactly.

That's creativity - and it's just a closer sensitivity to the logical structure (or illogical structure) of our understanding.

Logical (and not illogical) structure is what 'floats' our boat.

Driven mad by inconsistency.

-*-

If people don't like to call it creativity - then a nice boring way of putting it, is that we're masters of curation of information within our own minds.

Constantly sweeping through it - we wipe out the nonsense, with each and every sweep - leaving deep and clear understanding after we've shifted the Mercedes Super class sports cars, one season only Gucci ensembles and pate de foie gras out of the way.

Cycle using a bike without gears and brakes to service (eg the foldable mu uno with chain cover - yay!!), one set of cold water wash clothes and it's not good for you and not nice for the poor old animal.

Scrap the bike and shift to foot if there's no sustainable way of laying a road, or re-treading tyres (http://www.instructables.com/id/Bicycle-Tyre-Retreading-almost-infinite-miles-fr/).

AshT
03-24-13, 08:09 PM
It's an interesting theory, and this topic has come up quite a few times here, with many seeming to attribute their creativity to ADHD. My understanding is that research hasn't found a correlation between ADHD and creativity (though, creativity is a hard concept to quantify) and I tend to be skeptical of the link. My experience of ADHD certainly couldn't be confused with creativity, and I'm significantly more creative when medication keeps the ADHD somewhat at bay. In contrast, the most creative people I know are 'neurotypical' (or, at least, lack mental disorders..hard to think of them as 'typical' in any respect.)
There's been quite a few of papers and research showing correlation to ADHD and creativity...
Also that ADHDers prefer creating ideas rather than solidifying current ones which non-adhders seem to prefer.

Also, information suggests links due to memory - i.e, by depending less on memory, new ideas are better formed.

Finally, when looking at 'creative' moments, brain scans show that the pre-fontal cortex activity reduces. And which we're generally **** at using that anyway.

For those interested in how creativity comes about:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rbynt/Horizon_20132014_The_Creative_Brain_How_Insight_Wo rks/

Conman
03-27-13, 11:34 AM
i am not creative at all. i cant say for my childhood since im prone to bias, id have to hear it from somebody else about that time.

i think lack of creativity is one of my main traits to those who know me well enough. i can be innovative at times, but that's not creativity (or is it? i dont know). i typically just have crazy and stupid things to say, do, fantasize about, dream about, predict for my future, etc.

SB_UK
03-27-13, 12:26 PM
i am not creative at all. i cant say for my childhood since im prone to bias, id have to hear it from somebody else about that time.

i think lack of creativity is one of my main traits to those who know me well enough. i can be innovative at times, but that's not creativity (or is it? i dont know). i typically just have crazy and stupid things to say, do, fantasize about, dream about, predict for my future, etc.

I think that any state of mind which diverges from military-like docility - that is - happily stamping the same document fro 20 to 60, and thereafter queuing for death
- can be taken as a sign of creativity.

The antithesis of creativity then as docility.

Happily doing what you're told to do.

I can't do anything unless I know why and agree with it.

Which is a problem - because I can't find anything in this current world (of the workpalce) - which people do - which I agree with.

SB_UK
03-27-13, 12:31 PM
From some place on the Internet - the same basic connection is made.
I think ... is often confused with docility or lack of creativity.Docility as lack of creativity.
It doesn't matter whether creativity drives us into insanity or changing the system - what matters is that docility - happily standing in line for one's own execution - raises personal dissent.

As such - creativity can be nurtured - or just as seen in the military or professional sportsman
- destroyed
... ... by relieving the individual of the capacity to think for themself.

Just do what you're told - or else - reward re-inforced destruction of the human mind.

Epidemiological study reported on the radio last week that not only are the people taken into the military more violent - but this tendency is vastly amplified by being in the military.
We're given insight into the two directions of mind - in one direction (corrupted) towards psychopathy and in the other direction (the free thinking conscientious objector) in to social-mindedness.

One of these paths is good -- the other is really, really bad.

Conman
03-27-13, 01:03 PM
now im confused. what does creativity have to do with docility? doesnt mean you cant be both. you can do your own thing when youre not doing something youre being told to do

SB_UK
03-27-13, 01:41 PM
now im confused. what does creativity have to do with docility? doesnt mean you cant be both. you can do your own thing when youre not doing something youre being told to do

We're just looking at a slightly different definition of creativity to the usual definition.
I'm not looking for anybody to produce something creative - in order to be labelled as creative.
I'm simply looking at the inability to conform to illogical systems as the mark of creativity.

Where the mark of creativity could be as simple as inability to concentrate on an illogical system -that is- simply the reactive incapacity to pay attention (to a system which is stupid - so the individual would find - if s/he chose to look into it) as a mark of creativity.

SB_UK
03-27-13, 01:50 PM
[1] i can be innovative at times ... ...
[2] i typically just have crazy and stupid things to say,
[3] fantasize about, dream about, predict for my future

[1] innovative is very definitely an expression of creativity.

[2] 'crazy/stupid things to say' - a different way of looking at things - conditional on what they are - consistent with an expression of creativity.

[3] 'fantasize/dream about/future consideration' - consistent with 'escaping' your current situation - the mind reacting against a docile existence by imagining a better one - consistent with an expression of creativity.
The point I was trying to make above - was that insanity in an illogical system is compatible with an underlying creative disposition - because the docile (lacking in creativity) individual simple complies.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society".

Although I gave the example of insanity - daydream-type dissociation is just a more gentle form of dissent thrown by the creative mind, at the distaste of its present predicament.

So - just to re-iterate - whether insanity or incapacity to pay attention - are an underlying sign of creativity in a mind, a mind without creativity (the docile mind) - simply being able to comply without reservation.

The quote nails my point, I think.

Essentially - what we're looking at is subtly different perspectives on 'creativity'.

Conman
03-27-13, 05:16 PM
i only got some of that. it hurt my head a little bit, not bad though.

all i can say for sure is that i am definitely NOT docile

SB_UK
03-28-13, 03:53 AM
all i can say for sure is that i am definitely NOT docile

:)

And so by the definition I'm using - you're ... ... ... c.......

Conman
03-28-13, 08:25 AM
by YOUR definition anyway

Tyler Durden
03-28-13, 08:39 AM
Are you stretching the definition a little SB_UK? :)

Are you looking at what stifles creativity as opposed to creativity itself?

SB_UK
03-28-13, 10:08 AM
Are you stretching the definition a little SB_UK? :)

Are you looking at what stifles creativity as opposed to creativity itself?
:p

Definitely - environmental influence serving to stifle creativity.
Reactionary streak in those who exhibit it to its 'repression'.

All of us here must walk from observation, conversation, idea etc - with the reaction - 'no, no, no - that's not it at all'.
Presumably the 'eyes' to see the error in systems is a pointer in on a more creatively (more highly organized) imbued mind conferring vision.

We had nothing in our mind as of a few thousand years ago.
We've subsequently poured information into it - with respect to the nature of reality.
The generation of a model of reality which understands is perhaps the closest we can get to a model for what creativity means to moden man.
And the reactionary streak to moronically immoral systems which I'm suggesting is exhibited by ADDers - is a sign that we're extending that model of reality (ie showing creativity) by virtue.

Thing is though - that this property is innate to us - we don't have to work at it - and from one of our previous threads - it's just down - I'm pretty sure - to a slightly different component of logic comprising our (vs. nonADDer) mind.

SB_UK
03-28-13, 10:13 AM
Are you stretching the definition a little SB_UK? :)

Are you looking at what stifles creativity as opposed to creativity itself?

So ... ... it's a bit like saying ADDers like hopping (creativity) and nonADDers don't.
Society chains our feet together.

We're the ones that report disorder because - like it or not - we're the ones who're innately predisposed to hop.

It's not as though we can do anything about it.

And of course in a society where we're chained to the floor - we feel a considerable amount more pain through this innate quality - and so it's not as though we can pass the quality off as an advantage in the $ociety we're cursed with.

Not a society at all though - just several billion heroin (money) addicts looking for their next hit.

SB_UK
03-28-13, 10:23 AM
So ... ... I'm looking at a definition of creativity which takes us from emergence of man (or first mind at 3 or 4 yrs of age) to a global model of understanding of reality (where we came from, where we're going etc).

I'm tying it (creativity) to the process of development of our latest emergent property (mind) from nothing ->- to ->- 'complete'; where ADDers are helping to fast-track people (nonADDers) in the right direction.
All people can be creative - it all depends on how far and how correctly the profile of education one has - constructs the mind.

So - imagine we're taking a lift from 1st to 21st floor in a building.
We see more as we ascend higher by virtue of ascending higher.
Arrest on 1st floor and there's little to be seen.
Where the journey is from 1st psychopathy-tendency to 21st fixed social-tendency.
The closer to 21st level ... ... the 'more' of reality can be seen (can be made to make sense).

And am discarding any of the usual definitions of creativity - the ability to draw a nice picture, to see a hole in the 'market' and make a killing.

someothertime
03-28-13, 10:25 AM
Taking a stab in the dark here......... would it have something to do with our inability to accept

or

Do we have to always have to restructure things for them to work for us....... have we just trained up those parts of the brain that are needed to twist, challenge and innovate in order to make something gel.

Trooper Keith
03-28-13, 11:11 AM
Okay gonna try to play this game without just digging up the research, because that's no fun:

How are you defining creativity? What measurable factors of behavior are you considering indicators of creativity? And what kind of creativity are you claiming? Inventiveness? Problem solving? Divergent thinking? Counterfactual thinking? What exactly is the "creativity" that you are saying ADHD is functionally equivalent to or even just contributes to?

Amtram
03-28-13, 12:26 PM
And if you bring up Jonah Lehrer, you lose the game.

To me, creativity involves more than thinking - it involves producing. Whether it is something tangible or not, artistic or practical, a solution or a new way of approaching a problem, whatever. . .if it never leaves your head, it's not creative. It's ruminating.

This is the problem for most people with ADHD. Regardless of how they might be able to think in a creative way, they are thinking of too many things most of the time to actually put that creativity into practice. Hence, it's not creative, and it's also pretty darned frustrating.

Often those who do try to put their thinking to use end up with piles of unused materials, partially finished projects, and possibly a public perception as someone who communicates poorly, doesn't work well with others, and can't be depended upon. If that's the end result, then being a "creative thinker" isn't a beneficial trait.

Trooper Keith
03-28-13, 12:44 PM
There has been considerable research, I suppose, indicating a type of divergent thinking in ADHD populations and many are claiming this is "creativity." Unfortunately it is not really creativity. The form of divergent thinking discussed in these studies tends to indicate that when faced with a door, a person with ADHD might break a window or try to pickaxe through a wall next to the door. Sure, that's a "creative" way to get into the house, but, you know, the door isn't locked. Try the door.

There's some arguments, too, regarding fixedness of functionality and other hallmarks of inefficiencies in applying cognitive heuristics to problems. It is sometimes argued that ADHD does not always employ the same heuristics and so is "creative." Again, though, this is perhaps a different way of looking at a thing, but cognitive heuristics in fact aid creativity by preventing "wasted cycles" while one figures out what to do with immediately evident information. Top down processing is faster and more efficient at determining what the situation actually is, with an occasional error that can be corrected on the fly, and so benefits creativity because a person isn't wasting time with bottom up processing.

Basically, there is a lot of literature out there trying to find an "advantage" in ADHD, usually promoted by the feelgood crowd that wants us all to be special snowflakes. They want people with ADHD to be able to convince themselves that they are "better" or that it's not "disability" it's a "different ability" or whatever. Sadly, these people promote these hypotheses as science when they are not. Describing impulsivity and disinhibition as "spontaneity" is not in fact benefiting people with ADHD by reframing their impairment as a blessing, it is hurting people with ADHD by deceiving them about where their weaknesses lie. Similarly, reframing cognitive inefficiency and "divergent thinking" (code for "doesn't approach problem solving linearly and so frequently misses critical information") as "creativity" is a great way to lie to people.

Incidentally, there has been research done on populations with ADHD and creativity, and this research indicates time and time and time again that creativity is normally distributed, as can be expected, in the ADHD population. There are extremely creative people with ADHD. These people tend to compensate better because they can solve problems that their ADHD presents them in creative ways. Similarly, intelligence is also normally distributed in ADHD populations and, once again, intelligent people with ADHD tend to compensate better. The uncreative, unintelligent people with ADHD don't compensate as well, and the vast majority are average creativity, average intelligence, and have mixed outcomes. This is where the actual science lies.

The main mistake made in the OP of this thread is taking a neuroscientific study, trying to make assumptions in general based on very narrow findings (perhaps a byproduct of the mandatory "call for further research / statement of importance" found in most research to secure future funding), and trying to assume actual behavioral correlations to neuropsych findings. Neuroscience and behavioral science aren't quite on the same page yet, and while we have a pretty good idea how gross deformities and gross deficiencies impact various psychological systems, we also have a very limited understanding of how subtle things correlate between brains and behaviors.

The OP's discussion of the prefrontal cortex as "where creativity occurs" for example is utterly misplaced. The prefrontal cortet is largely responsible for executive control. Creativity is a poorly understood process that the state of the art indicates is based in plasticity and the ability to draw connections between related fields and apply solutions for one type of problem to a new type of problem in novel ways. It is not a prefrontal function. It may be associated with prefrontal function, but only inasmuch as most of conscious executive decision making is located there.

So, once again, poorly understood science leads to a poorly drawn conclusion on a poorly contrived topic that has been hashed out here again and again and just needs to stop. It is not your fault, Durden, it is the fault of a cancerous plague of feelgood ******** that tries to sell books. People with ADHD don't like to read books that say "you gon' be po' and you're at best average, unless you're really struggling in which case maybe you're dumb too." They do like to read books that say "you're a special creative snowflake that just is too amazing for this world of drudgery." But the latter is deceptive, perhaps even deceitful, and in any case certainly doesn't belong in the scientific discussions forum, no matter how much that wolf wraps itself in the sheep's clothing of neuroscience.

mildadhd
03-28-13, 12:56 PM
We face no such difficulty if we see that what is being transmitted genetically is not ADD or its equally ill-mannered and discombobulating relatives, but sensitivity.

The existence of sensitive people is an advantage for humankind because it is this group that best expresses humanity's creative urges and needs.

Through their instinctual responses the world is best interpreted.

Under normal circumstances, they are artists or artisans, seekers, inventors, shamans, poets, prophets.

There would be valid and powerful evolutionary reasons for the survival of genetic material coding for sensitivity.

It is not diseases that are being inherited but a trait of intrinsic survival value to human beings.

Sensitivity is transmuted into suffering and disorders only when the world is unable to heed the exquisitely tuned physiological and psychic responses of the sensitive individual.



Gabor Mate M.D., "Scattered", p 62.

Trooper Keith
03-28-13, 12:57 PM
On re-reading, by the way, I just want to clarify that saying "divergent thinking isn't creativity" is not me attempting to move the goalposts. Divergent thinking is certainly an aspect of creativity. That is to say, it is present in the creative processes of some creative people. Because it pursues problem solving by branching out and approaching in non-conventional, non-linear ways, it does occasionally result in faster solutions to problems because the person lands at a solution quicker. In the example I used, the guy with the pickaxe might well be solving the problem better if the windows are too high to climb into and the door is barred and blocked shut. Sadly, we'll never know because he never tried the door.

Creativity can be operably defined as a process of developing novel solutions to problems. Even artistic, aesthetic creativity is a problem solving application ("how do I take my medium and create an art"). Some artists are very creative with it ("I'll literally throw my paint around the room and then emphasize emergent patterns on the canvas") and some are less so ("I will paint a tree that looks nice") but this is ultimately still a problem solving thing.

The issue, however, is that not every problem needs a solution. Some do, and some creative people have done well to solve them. But in general even this kind of creative person requires a foundation, a basis from which to apply their knowledge in novel ways. Many of the great inventions of our time have been created by engineers and scientists who are solving a problem in a new field to them. Electrical engineers develop great computers. Aeronautic engineers design solutions for architects. Psychologists make great marketers. The reason is that we often build ourselves into fixed approaches based on our training, and engineering fields tend to learn "these kinds of problems require these kinds of solutions." New information may be gleaned by a novel perspective (the "beginner's mind" of Zen practice, for example) and so creativity often involves having a working framework and applying it to a new domain.

This is not present in the kind of divergent thinking seen in ADHD and sometimes called "creativity." The divergent thinking that studies show in ADHD doesn't apply functional frameworks in novel scenarios to come up with ingenious solutions. In fact, it doesn't solve the problems efficiently at all. Divergent thinking without structured and intentional application fails to solve problems, or solves them inefficiently, because it doesn't do what human brains do best: apply available informational heuristics to solving problems.

"Thinking outside the box" is a meme that is misplaced. In context it means approaching a problem from an angle or domain that is not part of the standard operational template. It does not mean "eschew the tried and proven methods." It means "use tried and proven techniques in new ways." Creativity is not a process of inventing from whole cloth, it is a system of novel application of well tested methods. Even artists, even modern artists, yes even the Jackson Pollocks of our world, started with paint.

SB_UK
03-28-13, 12:58 PM
by YOUR definition anyway
The secret world of words.

We all use words to our own definition.

It's a wonder that actual communication ever takes place.

Though - a large part of my presentation is that communication fails more than we acknowledge.

What's the solution to ensuring effective communication ?

Completion of mind (= the transition to wisdom).

Explain why ?
Because all minds at state wisdom are defined as collaborative.

Prior to wisdom (cf the adversarial legal system) - minds compete to win - and not to arrive at the correct answer.

-*-

Examine the language of conversational partners - and leave those who attempt to 'win' well alone.

Trooper Keith
03-28-13, 12:59 PM
Gabor Mate M.D., "Scattered", p 62.

It is not your fault, Durden, it is the fault of a cancerous plague of feelgood ******** that tries to sell books. People with ADHD don't like to read books that say "you gon' be po' and you're at best average, unless you're really struggling in which case maybe you're dumb too." They do like to read books that say "you're a special creative snowflake that just is too amazing for this world of drudgery." But the latter is deceptive, perhaps even deceitful, and in any case certainly doesn't belong in the scientific discussions forum, no matter how much that wolf wraps itself in the sheep's clothing of neuroscience.

This book is a terrific example of my point, thank you.

It's also an amazing example, based on the particular quote you chose, of how evolutionary psychology is a trainwreck of a science that has done far more harm than good to the field and should probably be abandoned at this point.

SB_UK
03-28-13, 01:09 PM
We face no such difficulty if we see that what is being transmitted genetically is not ADD or its equally ill-mannered and discombobulating relatives, but sensitivity.

The existence of sensitive people is an advantage for humankind because it is this group that best expresses humanity's creative urges and needs.

Through their instinctual responses the world is best interpreted.

Under normal circumstances, they are artists or artisans, seekers, inventors, shamans, poets, prophets.

There would be valid and powerful evolutionary reasons for the survival of genetic material coding for sensitivity.

It is not diseases that are being inherited but a trait of intrinsic survival value to human beings.

Sensitivity is transmuted into suffering and disorders only when the world is unable to heed the exquisitely tuned physiological and psychic responses of the sensitive individual.
Gabor Mate M.D., "Scattered", p 62.

So all we need do is connect sensitivity to creativity.

Remember the 'princess and the pea' - driven mad by the presence of a small object buried deep below her.

That's what it's like being an ADDer - as mind builds
- we're driven mad by logical inconsistency - which the nonADDer can happily sleep 'through'.

That's it at a superficial level
- at a deeper level (as in how?) we get into the nature of the logical unit from which nonADDers and ADDers minds are constructed.

I think we're AND rather than eOR minds and so are predisposed to seeing that both sides of an argument can easily be true.

Barkley (-) and Mate (+) are simultaneously correct about ADHD.

mildadhd
03-28-13, 01:21 PM
Barkley (-) and Mate (+) are simultaneously correct about ADHD.

Or Barkley (+) and Mate (-) are simultaneously correct about ADD.

To much positive (+) is as bad as to much negative (-)

Tyler Durden
03-28-13, 01:21 PM
Trooper your posts seem to be somewhat confused, at least in my interpretation of them.

I am speaking of creativity in its purest sense, within the context of the mind, not using any preconceived limited artistic or other definitions of the term.

As essentially recombining already existing pieces of information in novel ways.

If you are filtering out more information through a dominant PFC you are naturally going to have less opportunity for novel recombinations, and hence lower potential creativity.

You cannot have it both ways.

Trooper Keith
03-28-13, 01:26 PM
I am speaking of creativity in its purest sense, not using any preconceived limited artistic definition of the term.

As essentially recombining already existing pieces of knowledge in novel ways.

I've mentioned artists a few times, but I mainly speak of creativity in engineers and such. I suppose you could call creativity "recombining knowledge in novel ways" but I would caution that you very much need to qualify this with "towards solution of a problem." Otherwise the most creative act in the world would be word salad.

If you are filtering out more information through a dominant PFC you are naturally going to have less opportunity for novel recombinations, and hence lower potential creativity.

Brains do not work this way.

Tyler Durden
03-28-13, 01:30 PM
Some brains have more distant neural pathways than others yes or no?

You keep disagreeing without explaining how or why.

I have a feeling we aren't so distant in our understanding as you seem to be trying to make out...

SB_UK
03-28-13, 01:31 PM
Or Barkley (+) and Mate (-) are simultaneously correct about ADD.

To much positive (+) is as bad as to much negative (-)

It's very true - that ultimately - evolutionary systems are neither positively nor negatively regarded - there's just a system which is or isn't functional.
The 'judgemental' aspect of the researcher - is eOR mind dependent
- AND dispels a conception of ADHD as good or bad.

It's simply (or at least the sensitivity) an evolutionary property which goes badly wrong in an insensitive environment.

Which I think is what GM is suggesting.

SB_UK
03-28-13, 01:39 PM
sensitivity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_and_the_Pea
For Andersen, she indicates, "true" nobility derived not from an individual's birth but from their sensitivity.Why should sensitivity be so highly considered ?

It's a clear path into quality.

To be able to 'know' quality (a character which is considered highly in society) is sensitivity (by some definition).

SB_UK
03-28-13, 01:58 PM
Note SPS = HSP
sensory processing sensitivity = highly sensitive person (http://mindfulnessauthenticityintroversion.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/highly-sensitive-person-trait-or-sensory-processing-sensitivity/)

It was exciting to read that recent research (Jagiellowicz et al., 2011) detected neural differences associated with SPS for the first time.Jagiellowicz, J., Xu, X., Aron, A., Aron, E., Cao, G., Feng, T., et al. (2011). The trait of sensory processing sensitivity and neural responses to changes in visual scenes. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 6, 38- 47.This exploratory study examined the extent to which individual differences in sensory processing sensitivity (SPS), a temperament/personality trait characterized by social, emotional and physical sensitivity, are associated with neural response in visual areas in response to subtle changes in visual scenes. Sixteen participants completed the Highly Sensitive Person questionnaire, a standard measure of SPS. Subsequently, they were tested on a change detection task while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). SPS was associated with significantly greater activation in brain areas involved in high-order visual processing (i.e. right claustrum, left occipitotemporal, bilateral temporal and medial and posterior parietal regions) as well as in the right cerebellum, when detecting minor (vs major) changes in stimuli. These findings remained strong and significant after controlling for neuroticism and introversion, traits that are often correlated with SPS. These results provide the first evidence of neural differences associated with SPS, the first direct support for the sensory aspect of this trait that has been studied primarily for its social and affective implications, and preliminary evidence for heightened sensory processing in individuals high in SPS.-*-

Extremely strong connection to an opening of the 'doors of perception'.

~s (http://www.squidoo.com/highly-sensitive)~ Highly sensitive people are very aware of their environments. Whether we like it or not (and I don't always), we're princess-and-the-pea types; things that many people don't notice, or can't even perceive, will drive us absolutely nuts.

Trooper Keith
03-28-13, 02:05 PM
Some brains have more distant neural pathways than others yes or no?

Yes but this is not at all relevant. Neural pathway distance refers to the distance from the brain via neural pathways to remote areas of the nervous system (for example, from the brain to your foot). These pathways are generalized in the CNS and don't represent anything to do with particular cortices. Further, they are myelinated, giving an action potential propagation velocity of roundabouts 80-120 meters per second. The longest neural pathway in a human is the axon connecting the big toe to the brainstem, and this is only 2 meters long. At 80 m/s this action potential propagates in 0.025 seconds. This is a negligible amount of time and it isn't even involved in processing, rather it transmits nociceptive and proprioceptive signals for motor reflex.

The whole question of distance in neural pathways is utterly irrelevant to anything having to do with executive processing (and creative function, and in any case the prefrontal cortex) because neural pathways refer to the axonal connections between the CNS and the PNS.

You keep disagreeing without explaining how or why.

I have a feeling we aren't so distant in our understanding as you seem to be trying to make out...

I keep disagreeing without explaining why because you're not actually making any statements that can be refuted. They're just plain outlandish. For example, the bit up there about neural pathway distances. It's not only irrelevant, it also betrays an unfamiliarity with the field of neuroscience.

We're fairly different in our understanding because you're making scientific claims about neuroscience without actually knowing about neuroscience.

Take for example this statement:

If you are filtering out more information through a dominant PFC you are naturally going to have less opportunity for novel recombinations, and hence lower potential creativity.

What does this even mean? Do you think that each action potential in the PFC represents a thought? Do you think that PFC information filtering (I don't know what this is but I assume you mean the dopaminergic downregulation of action potential in the PFC typically understood to be impaired in ADHD) occurs because those are thoughts being blocked? They aren't. They are spontaneous action potentials.

Inhibition of errant action potential in the PFC prevents irrelevant white noise from errant electrical activity. It is not a thought filter that prevents you from thinking in new ways, it is an attentional redirection filter that prevents your PFC from re-orienting towards information that is not relevant to the task at hand. It's the "attention deficit" part, which does not imply an inability to attend, but rather describes a deficiency in maintaining attention willfully in the face of irrelevant stimuli. So, for example, if you're trying to study, the tick tock of the clock is not relevant information. Normal populations with properly functional PFCs can unconsciously filter the noise of the clock and unconsciously screen it from conscious awareness and therefore from attentional redirection. People in ADHD populations, with dysfunctional PFCs, fail to be able to downregulate those signals (through dopaminergic inhibition of the action potential at the synaptic level, but I think too often bringing these discussions down to the neuronal level distract from the bigger picture). Because they fail to downregulate the signal, the ticking clock is not filtered and so depending on its volume and proximity and other factors it becomes a distraction as the PFC is unable to stop an attentional shift.

Do you see how this has absolutely nothing to do with creativity, and therefore why going "oh PFC impairment, creativity happens in the PFC, this must mean they are related" is not prudent? There is no foundation for a hypothesis that executive attentional dysfunction present in ADHD blocks creativity because the kinds of connections being made in creative thought are abstractions based on connections between knowledge domains. It's a cognitive process that cognitive neuroscience has not yet approached.

This is, amusingly, one of those examples of why making connections between two things is not a meaningful definition of creativity. You have uniquely made a connection between one domain of information (your experiences with ADHD) and another domain of information (some stuff you read about brains). That connection is novel, but it's not productive, not useful, not able to solve a problem. Hence it's not creative, or if it is creative, it is not creative in a way that could be seen as a benefit. It is a beautiful example of exactly why merely connecting two concepts is not creative or at the very least, not in a positive way. Merely making connections is not beneficial; connections must be meaningful.

Tyler Durden
03-28-13, 02:33 PM
Yes but this is not at all relevant. Neural pathway distance refers to the distance from the brain via neural pathways to remote areas of the nervous system (for example, from the brain to your foot).


I meant neural network, i did specify IN the brain.



These pathways are generalized in the CNS and don't represent anything to do with particular cortices. Further, they are myelinated, giving an action potential propagation velocity of roundabouts 80-120 meters per second. The longest neural pathway in a human is the axon connecting the big toe to the brainstem, and this is only 2 meters long. At 80 m/s this action potential propagates in 0.025 seconds. This is a negligible amount of time and it isn't even involved in processing, rather it transmits nociceptive and proprioceptive signals for motor reflex.



Again apologies, wrong term, all of this was wasted text, i specified within the brain, i hoped you would know what i meant considering the title of the thread.



The whole question of distance in neural pathways is utterly irrelevant to anything having to do with executive processing (and creative function, and in any case the prefrontal cortex) because neural pathways refer to the axonal connections between the CNS and the PNS.


All of this is irrelevant, this thread is about creativity.


I keep disagreeing without explaining why because you're not actually making any statements that can be refuted. They're just plain outlandish. For example, the bit up there about neural pathway distances. It's not only irrelevant, it also betrays an unfamiliarity with the field of neuroscience.

We're fairly different in our understanding because you're making scientific claims about neuroscience without actually knowing about neuroscience.

Take for example this statement:



What does this even mean? Do you think that each action potential in the PFC represents a thought? Do you think that PFC information filtering (I don't know what this is but I assume you mean the dopaminergic downregulation of action potential in the PFC typically understood to be impaired in ADHD) occurs because those are thoughts being blocked? They aren't. They are spontaneous action potentials.

Inhibition of errant action potential in the PFC prevents irrelevant white noise from errant electrical activity.

It is not a thought filter that prevents you from thinking in new ways, it is an attentional redirection filter that prevents your PFC from re-orienting towards information that is not relevant to the task at hand.

It's the "attention deficit" part, which does not imply an inability to attend, but rather describes a deficiency in maintaining attention willfully in the face of irrelevant stimuli. So, for example, if you're trying to study, the tick tock of the clock is not relevant information. Normal populations with properly functional PFCs can unconsciously filter the noise of the clock and unconsciously screen it from conscious awareness and therefore from attentional redirection. People in ADHD populations, with dysfunctional PFCs, fail to be able to downregulate those signals (through dopaminergic inhibition of the action potential at the synaptic level, but I think too often bringing these discussions down to the neuronal level distract from the bigger picture). Because they fail to downregulate the signal, the ticking clock is not filtered and so depending on its volume and proximity and other factors it becomes a distraction as the PFC is unable to stop an attentional shift.



This is more relevant, i will have to give it some thought when I am less distracted.



Do you see how this has absolutely nothing to do with creativity, and therefore why going "oh PFC impairment, creativity happens in the PFC, this must mean they are related" is not prudent? There is no foundation for a hypothesis that executive attentional dysfunction present in ADHD blocks creativity because the kinds of connections being made in creative thought are abstractions based on connections between knowledge domains. It's a cognitive process that cognitive neuroscience has not yet approached.

This is, amusingly, one of those examples of why making connections between two things is not a meaningful definition of creativity. You have uniquely made a connection between one domain of information (your experiences with ADHD) and another domain of information (some stuff you read about brains). That connection is novel, but it's not productive, not useful, not able to solve a problem. Hence it's not creative, or if it is creative, it is not creative in a way that could be seen as a benefit. It is a beautiful example of exactly why merely connecting two concepts is not creative or at the very least, not in a positive way. Merely making connections is not beneficial; connections must be meaningful.



No, I only see how it has nothing to do with what you define as creativity and quite ironically you have a narrow view on what constitutes "creativity".

It was a thought i had for a thread after seeing some research, it was intended to provoke some interesting discussion.

thankyou for your contribution.

Just because you consider something not useful does not necessarily make it so.

SB_UK
03-28-13, 03:12 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_sensitive_person


Depth of processing.
Over aroused (easily compared to others)
Emotional reactivity and high empathy
Sensitivity to subtle stimuli.

So - we've -
[1] Increased sensory sensitivity <- yes
[2] Increased empathy <- yes
[3] Altered metabolic profile <- yes

But where the mind doesn't seem to hold us in awe.
I can't find any question which I want to have answered.

I can see plenty of 'mind' types collecting useless knowledge contributing to the demise of the species and planet.

We're post-mind ... ... find it easy to prune back the mind to a model which makes sense - doesn't particularly reward though - more something we're required to do, to stop people throwing themselves at useless ventures.

So - what do we want ?
I don't think we want anything other than to be left alone.

And what stops us living that life ?
A poorly constructed world in which everything we need to survive breaks and requires that we earn money in order to fix.

Well, if we don't want anything - why're we falling over ourselves to acquire 'stimulant' ?
We're not - the stress sensitive are falling over themselves for stress-relief.
Without stress (ie allowed to live the life we desire) - there'd be no reactive response to sourcing 'addictive' stimulant.

SB_UK
03-28-13, 03:23 PM
Post-mind sensory world immersion desiring social (empathic) aerobic energy efficient ADDers.

-- in a world:

- which is dominated by mind-types which chase the answers to meaningless (unanswerable) questions
- which doesn't allow us the silence to immerse in perception
- where anti-social practices are essential for survival (money,materialism etc)
- where food types available do not support ketogenic metabolism
- where there's no time to exercise

-*-

No wonder we're disordered.

At its heart - I think we're the product of the species transcending mind (understanding context) and moving on.
Where we've moved to - is a form of transition from the 'internal' world to the 'external' world.
No longer desiring to get our heads around anything in particular - we've moved on to a (dominant) social reward system - which places our onus on social living/sensory immersion.

It's not surprising that we're so quiet (in the 'real' {{{shudder}}} world).

It'd be nice to be able to turn that channel off.

mildadhd
03-28-13, 03:43 PM
Pooper.

I am not talking about playing a game.

I am talking about PLAY,

like in Affective Neuroscience.

Like playing in the toy box (imagination).

Primary Emotional Systems.

SB_UK
03-28-13, 03:50 PM
But are we creative ?

If the act (enquiry) of
empty mind [speciation of man - reprised at age 3/4 yrs] -> to -> full mind
is an expression of creativity
- as an evolutionaily mandated task which we were required to apply ourselves to.

And the next stage is the generation of a social from an anti-social individual/species societal infrastructure - which our mind appears to define a procedure for ... ...
... ... then using the same basic argument as above - we are demonstrating creativity in its most fundamental sense.

Completing an evolutionary imperative.

Empty mind (emergence of man) -> creativity -> Completion of mind (understanding)
Anti-social man/society -> creativity -> Social man/society

Creativity as completing an evolutionary abstraction layer.

-*-

So - using creativity as the process by which evolution generates increasing complexity (eg physics -> chemistry is an act of natural creativity)
- the specification for generation of a social individual/species is very definitely (as our next instantiation) an act of creativity.

However - there's a strong need to accept my definition of creativity - before this idea can be transposed into words and made to make sense.

SB_UK
03-28-13, 04:14 PM
The comical thing here is that the 'mind types' were persecuted in the previous abstraction layer (mind construction)
- and now - they've turned into the persecutors.

Always the same pattern - those in 'charge' are loathe to lose their power to a new paradigm.

From a ruling/religious elite to a ruling/scientific elite to a loss of hierarchy
- there's nothing in the realm of mind which is any longer of interest to us.

Tyler Durden
03-28-13, 05:19 PM
Troop you seem to have got me entirely wrong.

I just read an earlier post, which was good up until a point, I think that was the point at which your perspective on mine diverged.

"The OP's discussion of the prefrontal cortex as "where creativity occurs" for example is utterly misplaced. "

I never once said that, I never even implied it, in fact quite the opposite, i said the pre frontal cortex could impair creativity, this is what the paper proposes, and that is exactly what is said.

Hence the proceeding diatribe based on this misunderstanding was entirely unnecessary.

When i have more time i will look more into your previous post.

Tyler Durden
03-28-13, 05:57 PM
Troop there is no mention or suggestion of appreciation of the trade-offs involved here in any of your posts.

You seem to have come here with your own incorrect presupposition of the intention of this thread, highlighted by your misinterpretations.

I agree with much of what you say, but I suggest you read the article on which this thread is based as none of your posts reference it or suggest you have even looked at it.

Maybe then when we are both on the same page we can have a constructive dialogue.

mildadhd
03-28-13, 08:20 PM
Originally Posted by Peripheral
Gabor Mate M.D., "Scattered", p 62.

Originally Posted by Trooper Keith
It is not your fault, Durden, it is the fault of a cancerous plague of feelgood ******** that tries to sell books. People with ADHD don't like to read books that say "you gon' be po' and you're at best average, unless you're really struggling in which case maybe you're dumb too." They do like to read books that say "you're a special creative snowflake that just is too amazing for this world of drudgery." But the latter is deceptive, perhaps even deceitful, and in any case certainly doesn't belong in the scientific discussions forum, no matter how much that wolf wraps itself in the sheep's clothing of neuroscience.

This book is a terrific example of my point, thank you.

It's also an amazing example, based on the particular quote you chose, of how evolutionary psychology is a trainwreck of a science that has done far more harm than good to the field and should probably be abandoned at this point. -Trooper


Nice! Do you always use your own quotes, to back up your own opinions?

Without actually quoting the people you are putting down.

Imagine if a child was tied up in a harness and not aloud to explore the world,

verses a child that was not tied up in a harness?

That book has helped me, a lot more than your replies to my posts ever have.







.

Trooper Keith
03-30-13, 10:17 PM
You seem to have come here with your own incorrect presupposition of the intention of this thread, highlighted by your misinterpretations.


If the purpose of the thread is not to assert that ADHD and creativity are equivalent, or at least related, I would suggest "ADHD = Creativity" is rather a misnomer. Surely you agree?

Nice! Do you always use your own quotes, to back up your own opinions?

No, only when I have immediately prior described exactly what I was talking about, and I'm then presented with a perfect example thereof.

Without actually quoting the people you are putting down.

I have no need to quote "Scattered" or any similar book. There is literally nothing of scientific value within them.

Imagine if a child was tied up in a harness and not aloud to explore the world,

verses a child that was not tied up in a harness?

Is the harness in a moving vehicle? Because that matters. Anyways I'm not sure what your point is.

That book has helped me, a lot more than your replies to my posts ever have.


I'm glad you've found emotional support in that book, perhaps even a better worldview and some degree of happiness. That book is certainly capable of providing those things. That's why it sells. However, attempts to link ADHD to "highly sensitive persons" or to the equally ridiculous "hunter/gatherer hypothesis" and so on are misguided and have absolutely no place in a scientific discussion.

Scientific truth and "what makes you feel good" are not the same things. There is something to be said for encouragement and emotional support, but those things don't belong in the "scientific discussions" forum.

Tyler Durden
03-30-13, 10:54 PM
I agree the title could be a little misleading, but the idea was that you read the article in the OP and use the comments I made to spark discussion, not just jump in and start a keyboard war due to previous bad experiences on the general subject, we've had quite enough of those, but I guess my title didnt help matters there either.

I don't think this is the place to argue the validity of the work of Dr Mate.

We all have different knowledge bases and experiences, nobody here has the whole picture or a monopoly on wisdom.

I think if you read the entire article you may find it is not so objectionable.

slouchpotato
03-30-13, 11:52 PM
Some of the comments I've read so far, very true , soo funny. Theres plenty of people without mental restraints/issues who are creative, where as I wish I was creative, but just as I need it, mind blank ffs!

Patronising at best, "but you are special" etc, would add more comments but cant think, bloody typical!

These scientists need to start drinking, maybe then they'll start being creative themselves, and that coming from moi! pmsl

How the hell did I find myself in the sciency lounge, me lost!!!

mildadhd
03-31-13, 12:42 AM
If the purpose of the thread is not to assert that ADHD and creativity are equivalent, or at least related, I would suggest "ADHD = Creativity" is rather a misnomer. Surely you agree?



No, only when I have immediately prior described exactly what I was talking about, and I'm then presented with a perfect example thereof.



I have no need to quote "Scattered" or any similar book. There is literally nothing of scientific value within them.



Is the harness in a moving vehicle? Because that matters. Anyways I'm not sure what your point is.



I'm glad you've found emotional support in that book, perhaps even a better worldview and some degree of happiness. That book is certainly capable of providing those things. That's why it sells. However, attempts to link ADHD to "highly sensitive persons" or to the equally ridiculous "hunter/gatherer hypothesis" and so on are misguided and have absolutely no place in a scientific discussion.

Scientific truth and "what makes you feel good" are not the same things. There is something to be said for encouragement and emotional support, but those things don't belong in the "scientific discussions" forum.


Making up your own versions again I see.

Well done.

There is obviously no reason to try and have a meaningful discussion with you.

So I am not going to try.

Amtram
03-31-13, 12:11 PM
Perhaps this thread would be better in the Theoretical section, since its premise rests on contradicting the findings of peer-reviewed, published scientific evidence based on multiple large scale clinical trials?

Tyler Durden
03-31-13, 12:31 PM
It is a theoretical thread and I wouldn't be averse to it moving there, but if this should then the thread on the upside to finding the genes should most certainly be moved, at least this has some basis in the real world and there is actual reference to adhd.

andysmandy
04-22-13, 12:36 PM
I think some of you guys have touched on what Im going to say.

My definition of creativity is something NEW that WORKS in the current system.

ADHD people are not creative and here is my argument:

1. We have a ton of great ideas, very creative ideas, plans, thoughts on what we are going to do.
But those are ideas, they never come out play. Business plans, new foods, drawings etc that never get done. That is not creativity, that is just ideas.

2. Creative people have the ability to work hard on the same thing for a very long time, look at Walt Disney and what he did. Look at Michael Jordan and how he played, that was some creative moves. Look at any entrepreneur who has done something creative, they all worked hard on the same thing over a long time. Like Dr. Russell Barkley (1) says, that is the ability that ADHD people dont have the, the ability to stay motivated over a long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTuqqExgX3s


If ADHD people were creative, we would not have a problem in todays society, we would need pills. We would solve our problems using creativity, that is what creative people do. Its not limited to art, its everywhere, from solving business problems, planing a schedule, picking out clothes.
We are creative because we need constant stimulation, so we make up all this great ideas, while others actually do things. Well, it is not that creative, but at least they are doing something.

We (ADHD people) live in a dream world as rockstars, but in real life we are still lying in bed waiting for the next interview in our head to pop. Today Im going to talk about how I saved us from WW3 with CNN news. Cant wait, c ya guys.

atSWIMtooboreds
04-23-13, 09:29 AM
Perhaps this thread would be better in the Theoretical section, since its premise rests on contradicting the findings of peer-reviewed, published scientific evidence based on multiple large scale clinical trials?

Amtram, I was wondering if you could expand on this just a little bit, since I didn't see you explain it much elsewhere in the thread - I assume there have been other threads on this and maybe you discussed it there - anyway, this is a fairly important topic to me, so I wanted to see what you were getting at.

Amtram
04-23-13, 10:19 AM
I went looking to see if I could find older threads with citations that didn't turn into slugfests. . .not so easy! You could look at Empowerment for ADHD within the neurobiological disorder model (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91580&highlight=creativity)
or Creative and ADHD (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124741&highlight=creativity)
(but ignore what I said about Jonah Lehrer - turns out he was a fraud. He made up what he didn't plagiarize!)
or Creativity and intact executive function (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127363&highlight=creativity)

You can also peruse some of the articles in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=adhd+creativity+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=sZd2UeLpJenl4APq74DgBw&ved=0CC8QgQMwAA) and see that it's a complicated issue because regardless of tests that may measure for creative thinking, ADHD remains an output disorder, making an ADHDer's creativity more of an asset in testing for creativity than in being creative in real life situations.

Abi
04-23-13, 10:33 AM
I have not read this thread/posts.

I just came to say that the assertion in the title is false.

atSWIMtooboreds
04-23-13, 10:40 AM
I went looking to see if I could find older threads with citations that didn't turn into slugfests. . .not so easy! You could look at Empowerment for ADHD within the neurobiological disorder model (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91580&highlight=creativity)
or Creative and ADHD (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124741&highlight=creativity)
(but ignore what I said about Jonah Lehrer - turns out he was a fraud. He made up what he didn't plagiarize!)
or Creativity and intact executive function (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127363&highlight=creativity)

You can also peruse some of the articles in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=adhd+creativity+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=sZd2UeLpJenl4APq74DgBw&ved=0CC8QgQMwAA) and see that it's a complicated issue because regardless of tests that may measure for creative thinking, ADHD remains an output disorder, making an ADHDer's creativity more of an asset in testing for creativity than in being creative in real life situations.

Sorry to keep asking questions, but is the view of ADHD as an output disorder universally held? I was fairly sure that this was just one school of thought (probably the dominant one) exemplified by Barkley and that there was a fair amount of dissent on the issue. It's worth noting that this definition basically settles the creativity issue without even allowing it to arise. Everyone knows ADHD will tend to result in reduced output. The contention among those of us who think there's a link between ADHD and creativity tends to be that there is something different in ADHD perception - maybe a bit like what you see in low latent inhibition, but maybe very different; maybe even the opposite - that allows for certain kinds of "divergent" links to be made that aren't made otherwise.

I should note that the question of whether it's entirely an output disorder or partially a perceptual disorder as well is probably an empirical one: people are diagnosed with ADHD based on certain criteria, but it's still open to investigation what other things might be associated with those criteria, or with the neurobiological models developed to explain the disorder.

As regards the content of the links you posted, at the very least, there's reason to think that the "intact executive functioning" result that held for creativity in bipolar disorder would not generalize to ADHD. As I understand it, creativity in bipolars is associated with hypomanic episodes, which result from high dopamine levels. This is the opposite of our problem, neurochemically, and so I think there's every reason to think the mechanisms behind the "creativity" would be very different.

As a general point, there are certainly examples - perfect pitch and savantism (which you mentioned in one of the threads) come to mind - where what seem like physical "deficits" in the brain (i.e., something is missing compared with normal brain structure) lead in one way or another to enhanced perception.

Amtram
04-23-13, 11:53 AM
The biggest problem is that the measurements are made via tests rather than real-world performance. Besides the fact that test of creativity have many of the same flaws as tests of intelligence, very little has been done in large-scale clinical research to show evidence of higher rates of creativity being put to real-world use by people with ADHD.

The output nature of the disorder is what causes so many of us to think creatively, but not finish, to take up new pursuits and interests before mastering the previous ones. . .and it's a common complaint here on the forums. Thinking creatively and actually being creative need different systems of measurement - that's what I mean by output.

For example, it's all well and good to have an understanding of all the elements of painting and drawing, but if all that's come of it is a mountain of debt from buying materials and piles of unfinished sketches and canvases, then "being creative" isn't actually an advantage of having ADHD.