Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies


The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.


Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Skepticism and the Meaning of Life

Baby diapers inspired this new way to study the brain

This Milk Lasts Up to Nine Weeks Without Spoiling

A forgotten Space Age technology could change how we grow food

Moral Enhancement and Moral Freedom: A Critical Analysis

What will be the next big scientific breakthrough?


ieet books

Philosophical Ethics: Theory and Practice
Author
John G Messerly


comments

instamatic on 'The Community Delusion: “We” are not the world.' (Jul 28, 2016)

RJP8915 on 'The Community Delusion: “We” are not the world.' (Jul 28, 2016)

John G Mess on 'Transhumanist Hank Pellissier on Being an “Atheist Missionary”' (Jul 27, 2016)

instamatic on 'The Community Delusion: “We” are not the world.' (Jul 27, 2016)

Giulio Prisco on 'The Community Delusion: “We” are not the world.' (Jul 27, 2016)

dobermanmac on 'Beware the Rise of Gerontocracy: Some Hard Lessons for Transhumanism, Not Least from Brexit' (Jul 26, 2016)

instamatic on 'How our police became storm troopers, redux' (Jul 25, 2016)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Worst case scenario – 2035 and no basic income.
Jun 29, 2016
(7053) Hits
(0) Comments

Existential Risks Are More Likely to Kill You Than Terrorism
Jul 8, 2016
(4364) Hits
(1) Comments

Transparent Smart Chargepoints and the Internet of Things
Jul 16, 2016
(4135) Hits
(1) Comments

Reverse Turing Tests: Are Humans Becoming More Machine-Like?
Jul 21, 2016
(4064) Hits
(0) Comments



IEET > Rights > Disability > Neuroethics > Life > Innovation > Health > Affiliate Scholar > Andrea Kuszewski

Print Email permalink (5) Comments (22443) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


The Essential Psychopathology Of Creativity


Andrea Kuszewski
By Andrea Kuszewski
The Rogue Neuron

Posted: Sep 28, 2010

If we could identify a gene for creativity - let’s call it the “creativity gene” - you would be hard pressed to find many people who would consider it a negative gene or a hazard to possess or carry.

But what if, purely hypothetically, we could identify a gene for Schizophrenia?  Or Bipolar Disorder?  Or Depressive Disorder?  Or ADHD?  Would you select for those traits if you could genetically engineer your offspring at will?  If you want to give birth to a creative child, the answer should be yes.

The very traits that make someone creative, passionate, and likely to achieve a high degree of success in their domain, are the same traits that define psychological disorders such as Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, and ADHD.  So what is the difference between creativity and psychopathology?  Where do we draw the line between functional excess of extreme traits and the point at which they define a psychological disorder?  Is there a discriminating characteristic that separates these two groups?  Yes, there is, and it’s called cognitive control, or high executive function.  We’ll discuss this more in a bit.

An article in the New York Times titled, “Just Manic Enough: Seeking Perfect Entrepreneurs”, describes individuals who are unnaturally creative, passionate, energetic, charismatic, and those most sought-after by venture capitalists as “hypomanic”.  They go on to describe how these individuals, while successful and gifted at what they do, meet the criteria in the DSM as suffering from Hypomanic Episodes (one of the defining features of Bipolar Disorder).  From the DSM-IV:

Criteria for Hypomanic Episode:

A) Distinct period of persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood, lasting throughout at least 4 days that is clearly different from the usual nondepressed mood.

B) During the period of mood disturbance, three (or more) of the following symptoms have persisted (four if the mood is only irritable) and have been present to a significant degree:

  • Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity
  • Decreased need for sleep (e.g. feels rested after only 3 hours of sleep)
  • More talkative than usual or pressure to keep talking
  • Flight of ideas or subjective experience that thoughts are racing
  • Distractibility (i.e., attention too easily drawn to unimportant or irrelevant external stimuli)
  • Increase in goal-directed activity (at work, at school, or sexually) or psychomotor agitation
  • Excessive involvement in pleasurable activities that have a high potential for painful consequences (e.g. engaging in unrestrained buying sprees, sexual indiscretions, or foolish business investments)

C) The episode is associated with an unequivocal change in functioning that is uncharacteristic of the person when not symptomatic.

D) The disturbance in mood and the change in functioning are observable by others.

E) The mood disturbance not severe enough to cause marked impairment in social or occupational functioning, or to necessitate hospitalization, and there are no psychotic features.

F) The symptoms are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication or other treatment) or a general medical condition (e.g., hyperthyroidism)

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 very 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.

Is there a difference between being hypomanic and being extremely creative?  Yes, there is.  While being an intensely creative person may imply you are meeting most of those criteria a lot of the time when you are in that state of flow, that doesn’t mean you are dysfunctional.  This list also doesn’t specify a degree or intensity of the symptoms.  There is a big difference between “people notice the change in your behavior” and “people are freaked out by the change in your behavior.”  One seems a little bit more problematic than the other.
cartoon
Having untreated Bipolar Disorder or Hypomanic Episodes can be severely debilitating; let’s see how debilitating it is to be in a creative flow.  Do you get hyper-focused on your task?  Yes.  Stay up all night working on it?  Sure, at times.  Do other people notice a change in your behavior?  Well, I’d hope my colleagues and friends can tell the difference between me sitting around mindlessly working and me in my creative flow.  Definite change in attitude - yes, we get happy when those creative moments hit.

In fact, writing this very article, I have now stayed up all night, have been focused intensely on my work, yet easily distracted, AND I’m in a pretty noticeably good mood.  Oh, damn!  Someone call the psychiatrist!  Andi is having “an episode”!!!

This list from the DSM also doesn’t account for the balancing out of those traits by regulatory mechanisms that are present in successfully creative people.  You can have intense personality traits, while still maintaining control over them.  This is a mere checklist, which is one of the big problems I have with the DSM-IV in its current form.

To be honest, the Times article was pretty positive, and real “Yeah, you go, you crazy kids!” regarding this type of creative individual, but there was this disconcerting labeling of extremely creative people as having a “disorder”.  This bothers me, because I don’t think most people understand the bigger picture of genetics, balancing of traits, and the definition of a “disorder”.  We see items adding up on the handy-dandy DSM checklist, and we are quick to classify people as having a disorder.  Stigma ensues.

Yet another story, similar in message, has been circulating the last few days about Narcissists and their ability to convince people of their (not so) creative ideas.  I have many problems with that story for reasons I won’t get into right now (like the criteria for labeling subjects as Narcissists, for one), but the main point was that individuals identified as having a personality disorder were actually the most successful at the task that was being measured - one that involved coming up with creative solutions, then convincing a group of people of the value of those ideas.  These are good traits to have - don’t we define disorders partially by their degree of maladjustment and failure to function in society?  So why did the “pathological” individuals show more skill and have a higher rate of success?

Bigger question I have for you: Why is everyone so surprised at this?

The Essential Truth of Creativity

The truth is, in order to be truly exceptional at something creative in nature, whatever domain it may be, you need to have those extreme traits that get you labeled by the DSM as meeting the criteria for some kind of a personality disorder.  However (and this is the catch), in order to have those extreme, intense traits and not suffer from a disorder, you also need to have some sort of regulatory mechanism that helps to control those traits.

The psychologist interviewed for the Times article, John Gartner, author of the book The Hypomanic Edge, essentially describes this type of excessively-creative-yet somehow-able-to-function-normally individual.  He says that the “attributes that make a good entrepreneur are common in certain manias, but are harnessed in ways that are hugely productive.”  That harnessing, or cognitive control, is the one thing that really separates extreme, yet functional traits from dysfunction and psychopathology.

Let’s look at one more example involving the link between Schizophrenia and creativity.

The traits that define schizotypy: divergent thinking, mental flexibility, and over-inclusive thinking style (lack of latent inhibition, or attending to irrelevant details and stimuli), are also traits that are necessary (yet necessarily regulated) in order to have the most success in creative achievement.

Dr Liane Gabora, creativity researcher, described the phenomenon of having schizotypal traits while being functionally and successfully creative in her Beer Can Theory of Creativity.  A person with schizotypal traits with no cognitive control was like having all the cans of beer in the 6-pack, but no plastic thingy to hold them all together.  Divergence of thought without cognitive control doesn’t give you that ability to discern if your wild ideas are delusional, real, appropriate, or even good ideas to pursue.  That plastic thingy makes all the difference between those same schizotypal traits manifesting as a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, or as successful creativity.  Thus, we can think of creativity here as “optimally functional schizotypy”.

Creativity Across Different Domains

However, this distinction of functionality based on the presence or absence of cognitive control isn’t limited to just Schizophrenia, or Bipolar Disorder.  It applies to other DSM disorder classifications as well - Depressive Disorder (features high emotional sensitivity), Narcissism (features high confidence and charisma), ADHD (features lots and lots of ideas coming in at all times) even Autism Spectrum Disorders (features very focused attention to detail).  Taking into account the traits involved in those disorders, and looking at different types of creativity, we could define it as “domain-specific-optimal-versions-of-pathological-traits”, given the person has a high level of cognitive control.

We Need Psychopathology If We Want Geniuses

The point here is this: Were it not for those “disordered” genes, you wouldn’t have extremely creative, successful people.  Being in the absolute middle of every trait spectrum, not too extreme in any one direction, makes you balanced, but rather boring.  The tails of the spectrum, or the fringe, is where all the exciting stuff happens.  Some of the exciting stuff goes uncontrolled and ends up being a psychological disorder, but some of those people with the traits that define Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, ADHD, and other psychological conditions, have the fortunate gift of high cognitive control paired with those traits, and end up being the creative geniuses that we admire, aspire to be like, and desperately need in this world.

So now, after this discussion, let’s go back to that original question.  If we were to be able to identify the genes for Schizophrenia, or for Bipolar Disorder, or for ADHD… would we want to eliminate them?  If we were making a “designer baby”, would you choose those genes to be added into your child’s genome?

I say yes.

The more crucial variable that we should be trying to manipulate is the neural mechanisms for cognitive control, in order to take the most advantage of the gifts associated with those extreme and intense traits, or to allow someone with a debilitating disorder to gain control over it.  In this way, I don’t look at psychopathology as “disorders”, but rather an inability to maintain control over the set of traits you have.  Some people with more extreme traits need more control, others can do with less.  But if we want to continue to have exceptional, creative geniuses, those pathological traits are an absolute necessity.


Andrea Kuszewski, an Affiliate Scholar of the IEET, lives in San Francisco and works as a researcher and manager with VORTEX Research Group. She investigates the neurocognitive factors behind human behavior.
Print Email permalink (5) Comments (22444) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


I’ve known this for years, dear. Do you really think I’m not aware that wanting to be a succubus could be classified as a mental disorder? I already know that my Trans-sexualism has been and is only recently becoming classified as something OTHER than a disorder.

I write, I draw, I sing, I create. I’ve been an artist all my life not because I chose to be, but because I am compelled at times to do them. I wrote nearly 150,000 + words in my fanfic over the course of a month, and at other times, I can’t seem to write 25 words together. I can’t read an article on science and technology without thinking of ways it can be used with a dozen other things I’ve read about.

I’ve been walking this razorblade my entire life. This is not news to me, but I am very glad that it’s finally being recognized.





I have come to believe that creativity is also cyclic. I have documented my self going to extreme periods of creativity explosions near particular astronomical cycles. “I am” terrified to the possibility that I do suffer from what you mention coupled with an extreme internet addiction. Yet I find great pleasure the art (writing and video) that I produce as a result from these maniac states of mind. If normality means to cut myself form the exploration of reality then I will never desire to be normal!

Im broken :(





I’m absolutely, totally mentally balanced, in a word normal, and yet I"m rather creative in both the hard and the soft kind: engineering, programming, drawing, painting, composing, playing several instruments, dancing, acting, philosophy. In my personal experience, the only requirement for creativity is enough high quality input (education, media) and intelligence to spot and generate patterns that are in some non-random way useful and refined, in a word, creative. I see nothing mystical about creativity; it’s applied intelligence.

I don’t know where this idea of “you’re creative (or intelligent, or beautiful, or anything markedly superior) so there must be something wrong with you” comes from because I see no evidence for it in my life. Quite the contrary, if you’re good at one thing you’re often good at many things. It’s called general intelligence and it touches everything in your life, just like the lack of it also does.

Anyone who even hints at creativity being necessarily associated with a disorder of some kind - or that it is a common trait among the creative - isn’t obviously normal and/or creative her/himself.

Having associated with intelligent creative people all my life, there is no doubt in my mind that there are people who are stable, normal, and very creative without any quirks, handicaps, or disorders whatsoever, and that they are not the exception. And their other personal qualities are often rather nice, too.





Most creativity is bogus - because 90% of everything is bogus, to paraphrase Sturgeon. I can smell a “creative” person a mile away - sometimes literally. In my experience the more a person projects “the creative type” image by attire, mannerisms, lingo - and quirks and disorders of all sorts - the less creative s/he actually is. Dabbling in things that can be creative in the hands of creative persons doesn’t make you creative. You’re just a wannabe, a wishful thinker, a pretender. Today we have a thousandfold increase in “musicianship”, just because everyone can own an instrument, yet creativity is as rare as ever - or actually much rarer than just a few decades ago. Unfortunately many buy that kind of “creativity” as the genuine article, due to marketing, peer pressure, and simply ignorance of real creativity.

Think of the people who built the civilization and left us an awesome, breathtaking, in many ways unparalleled legacy (of which most people know nothing of) and think of what generally passes as creativity today. Using the word creative for both is like using the same word for treasure and garbage.





When researchers look into the families of those recognized for creative accomplishments, they find that there is a much higher than average rate of people diagnosed with mental disorders.  And when people start at the other end, and look at the family members of those who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, they find that there is a much higher rate of people who have been recognized for creativity.  So I think the science totally contradicts the above comment by “creative yet normal.”  Not to say it is impossible to have some degree of creativity yet come across as normal, because this is quite possible with the right degree of executive control - but there is something disorderly about creativity at its roots.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Mapping the Universe

Previous entry: Why Aren’t Monkeys Still Evolving?

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

East Coast Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-428-1837

West Coast Contact: Managing Director, Hank Pellissier
425 Moraga Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Email: hank @ ieet.org