Short Comment on 'Are Distractible People More Creative?'

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.

'Creativity' and 'Abnormality': A Blessing Through Symbiotic Coexistence?

A flash of "genius," "insanity," or "deviation?" Or a combination? We would be well-advised to remind ourselves of, and heed, the oft-quoted phrase "things are not always what they seem." I admit I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist by any stretch. But I have personally experienced enough to realize that behavior and attitudes that may be considered "disturbing" or "abnormal" may also be part-and-parcel of something much larger than our present scale of comprehension. Therein is the potential to discover a universe that may have as much power to create or enhance as it does to destroy or reduce: a universe whose positive ingenuity may possibly be extracted and transformed from--or may exist due to--negativity.

In the BBC article, Creative minds 'mimic schizophrenia' , researchers explain that a correlation between creativity and mental illness apparently exists because neurological functions in both creative and mentally ill persons have been found to similarly and strikingly allow for greater information access and processing. This greater leeway in cognitive ability is attributed to less filtering---that is less restrictions imposed on their brains---as a result of a lack of certain receptors (called dopamine, or D2) discovered in these two groups. These findings contrasted deeply with other (read non-creative and non-ill) human beings who retain larger amounts of the receptors in question.

While it's too early to make a definitive judgment on (or verification of) these connections they represent, at the very least, one more step towards appreciating how humans see the world around them ---and one that could offer more insight into the seemingly not-so-distinct lines between "reality" and "personal world-view." Furthermore (and perhaps just as, if not more, importantly), it is also one more step that could help us demystify the behavioral and cognitive traits and effects of mental illness in addition to those found in creative persons.

Regarding mental illness, I am a firm believer that demystification will help us move away from shunning, looking down upon, and simplifying those with mental illnesses. Despite the progress that modern society has attained in educating the public on these disorders---and in spite of the anti-discrimination laws passed to protect the disabled---I would still be hard-pressed to say with certainty that we have fully disavowed inclinations to view them through a blind reductionist lens that at best seemingly generalizes them (and their circumstances) as if they were merely statistics. If a connection with creativity solidly and meaningfully exists, exploring such a connection can then help us to develop better ways of coping with mental illnesses. I am hopeful that with more research we can explore methods and ways of channeling energy, away from the debilitations and limitations of illness, towards productive ends. Perhaps we will be able to see a silver lining in mental illnesses and other disabilities, rather than primarily defaulting to case studies on the negative coupled with medication prescriptions to control or limit them. Perhaps proactive measures can be created and implemented to supplement the current convention of responsive (reactive) treatment and management.

Similarly efforts towards a deeper understanding on the sources and effects of creativity would serve us very well because we know that what lies in creativity is one of the crucial keys to problem solving, adaptation, productivity and efficiency, critical thinking and reasoning, and development of all forms. In short, we can expand our paths to improvement in the quality of life and of environment ... be it social, political, spiritual, biological, economic, natural, chemical, personal, ecological, and so on.

Maybe I am putting too much faith and optimism in research towards these ends, and I am certainly not deluded into overlooking the possibilities of backfiring and of exacerbation (of negativities) such efforts can invite. But it is still worthy and essential to consider whether our own understandings and concepts of creativity and mental illness---as advanced as they have become---are counter-productive and restricting in their own right. We would do well to consider if there is more room to positively push the envelope. Whether there is ample space to foster greater human nurturing and better management of both talent/innovation and limitation, beyond conventions and norms that were established for equally good reason and for the same noble purposes. In studying creativity and mental illness, we may have an opportunity and an incentive to do just that.