View Full Version : Leveraging the “mad genius”


ginniebean
02-23-16, 10:08 PM
In this opinion article, I summarize the so-called “mad genius” debate and suggest a way to reframe the issue so that it can benefit the field rather than divide it. As others have pointed out, creativity cannot effectively be studied as an overarching entity; it must be broken into smaller pieces and studied from an individual differences perspective in order to provide meaningful results relating to brain function. I also try to frame the infant field of creativity-psychopathology neuroscience, and I end with the benefits this area of inquiry will provide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4179620/

I'm not sure if this opinion article should go in this section or in the philosophical section.

I found it interesting and it's fairly up to date.

One of the correlates for creativity and psychopathology is a high iq. This leaves most of us out.
I am interested in others thoughts tho.

acdc01
02-23-16, 10:37 PM
I didn't get the impression skimming through the article that they said a high iq was absolutely necessary for creativity. It just sounded like high iq can help with creativity.

Seemed like an interesting article skimming through it. I would think if they could show differences in the way creativity works with the mentally ill, it could help to both educate us on how we can access our creativity better AND it could indirectly make people believe that we are more creative (since they can understand why and how we are creative).

Think that leaky filter study someone else linked kind of does what the article describes. I do wonder if there really is a difference though between how mentally ill people create and how NTs do.

Ugh, I always wondering if I'm spouting nonsense on these science boards where I'm not sure if I read the way too wordy and technical articles correctly. I usually avoid these boards but the creativity topic interests me.

sarek
02-24-16, 05:09 AM
I do subscribe to the notion that creativity can be a function of brain chaos. There is a very thin golden line between the amount of disorder needed for maximum creativity and that moment where the system quickly collapses and starts to exhibit various modes of pathology.

Those people who exhibit the most creative abilities remain on the safe side of the chaotic abyss.

SB_UK
02-24-16, 10:13 AM
There's something a bit odd about imagining -- I've noticed as you travel into the edges maybe areas which aren't really safe ie where you could come up with novel stuff but where it could be nonsense - that there's a feeling of stress, losing your mind and also shortness of breath (asthma) ie I think the human mind has some dampener mechanism which keeps itself in place.

That change to the model of understanding must come sustainably.

Maybe why people with a strongly re-inforced view (some -ISM) find them so difficult to change ?

Must be hard to have your entire worldview disrupted ?

Perhaps the basis to our battles between those holding affinity to some belief system ?
Embrace them all - and you don't get caught up.

Even scientology's idea of thetan as metaphor for theta EEG is interesting.

ginniebean
02-24-16, 11:17 AM
I didn't get the impression skimming through the article that they said a high iq was absolutely necessary for creativity. It just sounded like high iq can help with creativity.

Seemed like an interesting article skimming through it. I would think if they could show differences in the way creativity works with the mentally ill, it could help to both educate us on how we can access our creativity better AND it could indirectly make people believe that we are more creative (since they can understand why and how we are creative).

Unfortunately they are not there yet, there is neither an understanding of creativity not of mental illness. When mental illness is understood it stops being a mental illness and becomes just an illness, like Alzheimer.

Think that leaky filter study someone else linked kind of does what the article describes. I do wonder if there really is a difference though between how mentally ill people create and how NTs do. Divergent thinking has been linked to novel ideas, we know that people with adhd have an abundance of divergent thinking, generally speaking, but what we don't know is whether this has anything to do with creativity. I suspect in some cases it does. In most, it's just re-inventing a less than wheel.

I don't find myself to be especially creative, of course there is that part of me that would like to be good at crafts or art but I have small motor issues with fine movements in my hands. Makes for crappy handwriting and even worse crafts or painting.

I may have an eye for beauty but the creation of it... not there.



Ugh, I always wondering if I'm spouting nonsense on these science boards where I'm not sure if I read the way too wordy and technical articles correctly. I usually avoid these boards but the creativity topic interests me.
The sheer quantity of nonsense spouted in these sections is truly magnificent, join in.

ginniebean
02-24-16, 11:19 AM
Those people who exhibit the most creative abilities remain on the safe side of the chaotic abyss.

Do they? Not a jumper then eh? I suspect those who traverse the unknown, blindly and without thought are able to meet the creative.

ginniebean
02-24-16, 11:26 AM
There's something a bit odd about imagining -- I've noticed as you travel into the edges maybe areas which aren't really safe ie where you could come up with novel stuff but where it could be nonsense - that there's a feeling of stress, losing your mind and also shortness of breath (asthma) ie I think the human mind has some dampener mechanism which keeps itself in place.

It is a finer substance that approaches this edge, yes, it's unnerving, like looking up to the stars and seeing one's own vast ignorance. The vastness of the unknown has always been more interesting (to me) than what is known.

Yes, the mind does have a dampening mechanism, my guess is 'thoughts' act in this way. There is never one so wrong as he who knows for sure, and nothing more blinding. Can you see that?



That change to the model of understanding must come sustainably.

Pressing your nose against the glass is never going to get you into anything. You enter, of you don't. (2 cents)

Maybe why people with a strongly re-inforced view (some -ISM) find them so difficult to change ?

Yeah, and our own are most especially devious. :)


Must be hard to have your entire worldview disrupted ?

Perhaps the basis to our battles between those holding affinity to some belief system ?
Embrace them all - and you don't get caught up.

Let's hug the crap out of all of them :)

Even scientology's idea of thetan as metaphor for theta EEG is interesting.

Most metaphor's are interesting. They're not so nailed down.

acdc01
02-24-16, 01:14 PM
Divergent thinking has been linked to novel ideas, we know that people with adhd have an abundance of divergent thinking, generally speaking, but what we don't know is whether this has anything to do with creativity. I suspect in some cases it does. In most, it's just re-inventing a less than wheel.
.

Did you see the thread in the below link. The study it talks about suggested the exact opposite. That ADHDers are not stronger (and actually weaker) in divergent thinking but we do show more actual creative achievement/results.

I question the study results myself (not the achievement part but the less divergent thinking part). I just can't imagine we aren't stronger in divergent thinking. I'm guessing their testing methodology was flawed.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175336

ginniebean
02-25-16, 11:54 AM
acdc, forgive me for not getting back to you sooner, this post slipped thru the cracks for me.

I did see that study, I'm not sure I fully understood it as I just skimmed it. It is wierd that we're being touted as less divergent thinking, as far as I know consensus has been the opposite of those results.

acdc01
02-25-16, 09:27 PM
acdc, forgive me for not getting back to you sooner, this post slipped thru the cracks for me.

I did see that study, I'm not sure I fully understood it as I just skimmed it. It is wierd that we're being touted as less divergent thinking, as far as I know consensus has been the opposite of those results.

No worries. I sometimes even forget to respond at all on the threads I start. Yes, the consensus is the opposite which is why I was surprised with what the study said (and daveddd read the same thing I did so I don't think I misread it after he corrected me).

I don't believe the study results about divergent thinking myself. Disappointing cause I do believe the greater creative achievement part but if part of a study is flawed, you can't really say the other part you like is valid.

daveddd
02-25-16, 09:55 PM
Divergent thinking is thought to rely on cognitive processes such as “the retrieval of existing knowledge from memory and the combination of various aspects of existing knowledge into novel ideas” (Paulus and Brown, 2007, p. 252; also see, Mednick, 1962).


I'm not super familiar with the theory

but if this definition is accurate, it would require high executive function

acdc01
02-26-16, 05:04 PM
Divergent thinking is thought to rely on cognitive processes such as “the retrieval of existing knowledge from memory and the combination of various aspects of existing knowledge into novel ideas” (Paulus and Brown, 2007, p. 252; also see, Mednick, 1962).


I'm not super familiar with the theory

but if this definition is accurate, it would require high executive function

I don't know. Still feels wrong to me. My working memory might be slow but it's not like it's nonexistent. And I am able to compensate for that weakness.

I've compared myself to people I believe are more naturally creative than myself without ADHD. They come up with their ideas very quickly. I come up with my ideas about a day later usually cause my working memory is slower but it still comes to me sooner or later and also because if I'm super interested in something, I'll keep thinking and thinking about it. I actually come up with better or more ideas sometimes than the creative folks I'm comparing myself to just because I've though more on the topic I'm highly interested in.

And it still is divergent thinking I think- we just diverge farther and reach more dead ends than naturally creative folks (though we eventually still develop the creative idea which non-creative people might not).

A leaky filter only describes the process for input. It doesn't describe the process for output. I think that output process is still divergent thinking. Like Einstein's theory of relativity, it took both a leaky filter and divergent thinking to come up with the creative idea.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm right on any of this. It just feels wrong to me.

daveddd
02-26-16, 05:40 PM
I don't know. Still feels wrong to me. My working memory might be slow but it's not like it's nonexistent. And I am able to compensate for that weakness.

I've compared myself to people I believe are more naturally creative than myself without ADHD. They come up with their ideas very quickly. I come up with my ideas about a day later usually cause my working memory is slower but it still comes to me sooner or later and also because if I'm super interested in something, I'll keep thinking and thinking about it. I actually come up with better or more ideas sometimes than the creative folks I'm comparing myself to just because I've though more on the topic I'm highly interested in.

And it still is divergent thinking I think- we just diverge farther and reach more dead ends than naturally creative folks (though we eventually still develop the creative idea which non-creative people might not).

A leaky filter only describes the process for input. It doesn't describe the process for output. I think that output process is still divergent thinking. Like Einstein's theory of relativity, it took both a leaky filter and divergent thinking to come up with the creative idea.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm right on any of this. It just feels wrong to me.

that could be

I'm not familiar with it

one thing says convergent thinking is black and white

that is fairly common in ADHD, but not 100% I'm sure

SB_UK
02-28-16, 08:25 AM
Leaky filter
Creativity
Diverent thinking

Presumably we're looking at some way of making something novel that is for the better.

So - all we need is the motivation to make something for the better (which comes with morality) and then the ability (which comes with specialization).

I'm arguing that specialization comes after generalization (wisdom) - otherwise any attempt to innovate unimaginable betterment will fail - we'll just end up with the usual genetic modification which doesn't work, fracking which poisons water supplies, transport systems which drive through and destroy ecosystems of individual nature.

Solution to (eg random 3 problems above)
1.Aquaponics - eliminates need for fertilizer, pesticide
2.Fracking - geothermal + passivhouse builds using natural energy sources
3.Disruptive roads - shift to only trains (not cars)

Can easily solve ALL of our problems if only people would try and work out what's for the collective best and not for their own best.

As long as people are paid (and are motivated by pay) to support their speciality - a world without their specialist cannot be introduced.

Core problem - doesn't require Einstein - is that we need morality and not greed to informa our decisions.

Morality informs our decisions if only we learn (from life/education) right from wrong.

Learning right from wrong results in people obtaining reward from doing what's right and results in pain when an individual attempts compliance in some behaviour which is (to the tune of an individual's mind) - incorrect/immoral.

The fundamental level of morality is freedom (from co-ercion).

Greatest problem we suffer - in the movement towards freedom is 'libertarianism' which markets itself as the capacity for anybody to do anything -

'freedom' requires morality before it (free will) operates.