An article published in Wired blog talks a bit about the possible relationship between creativity and latent inhibition, an exercise that article defines as the "capacity to ignore stimuli that seem irrelevant." The article makes the case that this inhibition works best when it is targeted. It is not simply enough to have low latent inhibition. One must channel the low levels of latent inhibition so as to reach productivity in being creative (and not, in the article's words, face an environment or condition where he/she is "drifting off to the far corners of the stage").
Problems with latent inhibition are commonly found with disorders like OCD (which stands for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder--a mild to severe disorder characterized by, among other things: burdensome repetition of thoughts including doubts; a burdensome inability to focus that goes beyond distraction normally attributed to stress stimuli; and the sense of being compelled to repeat tasks). It is important to note that these problems of "struggling to filter the world and [the result of] letting everything in," or of the ability to "close their mind," attributed with OCD and related disorders, does not mean that these individuals are divorced from their surroundings or the world. They maybe zoned-out or unfocused in the sense that it is very hard for them to think "with a clear mind." But that does not mean they don't live in a 'different world' per se.
As for the reported blessing-in-disguise regarding creativity---I think that is very much a great possibility here. The "junk" that OCD patients cannot filter out is part of the creativity process, but its burdensomeness and its repetition can also be a counter-productive exercise to which they are subjected to. Part of the filtering of OCD-caused mental "junk" involves medication that boost and otherwise regulate brain chemicals such as seratonin. [Insufficient seratonin levels are intimately related to these problems--lack of concentration, repetitive thoughts, repetitive doubts, sense of feeling repetitively compelled to repeat a task, etc.]
I am somewhat disappointed at the tone of the article in which a solution to the difficulty of matching low latent inhibition with productive channeling is apparently phrased. The author indirectly puts the solution in a 'this-is-what-we have-to-do-and-just-do-it' way without considering the diversity of experiences that are associated with distractibility. As described above, this is a diversity that includes disorders like OCD. He does mention another disorder, schizophrenia. Yet he does so almost only briefly in passing. In essence he seems to present his mentioning of schizophrenia in a shorthand way as an example for when low latent inhibition is not helpful towards the implementation of creativity. This is significant because, in the absence of discussion over other disorders (and in the absence of a fuller discussion over schizophrenia itself), we are left in the article with a decidedly less-than-favorable impression for a disorder of the type that relates or could be related to latent inhibition (and with little context or explanation).
A similar problem surfaces in his discussion over remedies, where the author lists a few things to help us combine latent inhibition with productive channeling. He states we must nurture within us a "willingness to analyze our excess of thoughts" and that we must be "ruthless" when differentiating between what to consider and hold onto and what to discard mentally. But he apparently stops here. Again, there is nothing wrong with encouraging productive behavioral traits, habits, and exercises: these are to be encouraged, and I agree with this emphasis. But it is helpful to merely make such declarations if "all other things remain equal." With problems like disorders, that situation constraint has less value. A closer look needs to be made, and it is here where the tone seems to be somewhat in lacking of appreciation for people with such disorders. For people who have disorders like OCD, it is fair to say that they already are pushed (and they work) harder than usual to fulfill the advised points, and thus they must have the "willingness" the author speaks of. The fact that they are already struggling to function as (even normally) productive people should already say much about their "ruthless" attitude to "throw out useless stuff." More encouragement of a positive, rather than a dismissive, kind would be more fitting. The article's topic is very interesting and it has certainly aroused my attention and curiosity. It would also benefit from more thoughtfulness.
