Neuro-scientists point to basis for link between Creative Genius and Schizophrenia.

[23_Tauri]

Of course, the link between creative genius and madness and melancholia has long been known. Now brain scientists think they may have found one neurological basis for this.

This is BBC news story on research carried out by scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, who discovered a similarly low level of dopamine (D2) receptors in the thalamus’ of schizophrenics and highly creative types. They theorise that dopamine filters the amount of information reaching the cortex, and that “it is this barrage of uncensored information that ignites the creative spark.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10154775.stm

It seems to me to be a continuum. A higher than average level of information passing to the cortex produces greatness, but maybe the problem with schizophrenia is that the flow of information becomes so extreme and dysfunctional that it negates the potential benefits from the associated free flow of ideas.

It raises interesting questions about where we draw the line between what is acceptable in terms of eccentricity, both to the individual and to society, and what is pathological requiring treatment. I worry that the current trend towards the medicalisation of even the slightest quirk of personality – illustrated by the more widespread use of medically-prescribed psychoactive drugs - will lead to a reduction in creativity and the diversity of personality types within the population generally, and a lower level of tolerance of the far out and eccentric.

Any thoughts?

 

[Dancing David]

If someone can not function they are not pathological, they have a disease that intereferes with functioning.

I worry that the current trend towards the medicalisation of even the slightest quirk of personality – illustrated by the more widespread use of medically-prescribed psychoactive drugs

Uh-huh, sure, a total myth there, any data to demonstrate your belief that "medicalisation of even the slightest quirk of personality " is more than just a bald faced assertion with no evidence?

What numbers of people are getting treatment for "slightest quirk of personality"?

 

[INRM]

Well, the way I thought about it was that if you can make connections where nobody else sees them, so long as they are there, you're a genius; if you make connections where nobody sees them and they don't exist, you're either thinking illogically (in either the particular circumstance, or totally), misinformed, or crazy.

The issue is whether the connections being made have a basis in reality, or do not, and if they don't are those faulty connections being made as a fault of being ignorant or misinformed, or illogical thinking. Also, it's noteworthy to point out that that illogical thinking can be confined to one aspect of a person's thinking (religion) and yet be dead accurate on another area.


Dancing David,

There was a guy recently who was a hacker and was hospitalized for having Asperger Syndrome. As far as I understand he was not hacking at the time (at which point arrest would be more appropriate) and was not posing a threat to himself or others.

 

[casebro]

"There is a fine line between imagination and hallucination"

Casebro

My mother, and her mother, both suffered from mental disease. ALL of Mom's descendants qualify for Mensa. I guess that is no coincidence.

 

[23_Tauri]

Uh-huh, sure, a total myth there, any data to demonstrate your belief that "medicalisation of even the slightest quirk of personality " is more than just a bald faced assertion with no evidence?

No I don't but we do know that consumption of presciption neuro-pharmaceuticals is at a high level and increasing. My main interest was in the study because it shows evidence of the link.

My addendum to posting the link was to ponder as to whether the definition of 'dysfunctional', which requires intervention, has widened. Maybe you are sayin that such a pondering has no place on Randi forum because I cannot back it up with evidence?

 

[INRM]

"Creativity is uncomfortable. It is their dissatisfaction with the present that drives them on to make changes.

Which explains why there are some people who are never happy with things as they are...

This is not always good. People who never can appreciate the things are rarely ever happy, and pretty much always want to change things -- sometimes this is good, but quite often they desire to change things that don't need to be changed (sometimes the attitude "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is not a bad adage).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Interesting that the article did not define "creative people".

I am skeptical. Schizophrenics can't distinguish their internal phenomena from external. And I'd call their thinking rather uncreative, as we can easily distinguish between paranoid and other types.

Yes, there are people we recognize as geniuses that have mental disorders. But it reeks of cognitive bias.

 

[23_Tauri]

Interesting that the article did not define "creative people".

Here is the research article:

Thinking Outside a Less Intact Box: Thalamic Dopamine D2 Receptor Densities Are Negatively Related to Psychometric Creativity in Healthy Individuals

Creativity was defined for the purposes of this study on the basis of scores on divergent thinking tests (Inventiveness battery, Berliner Intelligenz Struktur Test).

 

[Dancing David]

No I don't but we do know that consumption of presciption neuro-pharmaceuticals is at a high level and increasing. My main interest was in the study because it shows evidence of the link.

My addendum to posting the link was to ponder as to whether the definition of 'dysfunctional', which requires intervention, has widened. Maybe you are sayin that such a pondering has no place on Randi forum because I cannot back it up with evidence?

I am saying that you should arm yourself with knowledge rather than belief.

You stated people were getting presecription for personality quirks.

I say that is hooey (for a semi-informed POV) and ask for your substance behind your belief. In other words I am sceptical your statemnt "slightest quirk of personality" is medicalized.

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David,

There was a guy recently who was a hacker and was hospitalized for having Asperger Syndrome. As far as I understand he was not hacking at the time (at which point arrest would be more appropriate) and was not posing a threat to himself or others.

As I understand you do not know the basis for his hospitalization, do you? What do you knwo about why they ended up in the hospital?

 

[23_Tauri]

I am saying that you should arm yourself with knowledge rather than belief.

You stated people were getting presecription for personality quirks.

I say that is hooey (for a semi-informed POV) and ask for your substance behind your belief. In other words I am sceptical your statemnt "slightest quirk of personality" is medicalized.

And you have a right to be sceptical because I have offered no evidence. So as to illustrate my PoV, I'll take the example of 'social anxiety disorder', a new mental illness that entered the DSM-IV in 1994. The concept of social phobia had been in the manual prior to this, since 1980 where was described as a fear of performance situations, but the idea of social anxiety being a mental illness in its own right was codified by its inclusion in the 1994 DSM-IV.

Pharmaceutical companies now advertise psychiatric drugs for the treatment of 'social anxiety disorder'.

To my mind, this is the pathologising of shyness, and normal human trait. In saying this, I don't seek to demean what might be considered more serious and more debilitating conditions, such as agrophobia that would impact on a person's ability to function normally on a day to day basis.

I should add that I am not a doctor and do not profess to being knowledgeable to any great degree in this subject. These are purely the observations of a lay person.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

And you have a right to be sceptical because I have offered no evidence. So as to illustrate my PoV, I'll take the example of 'social anxiety disorder', a new mental illness that entered the DSM-IV in 1994. The concept of social phobia had been in the manual prior to this, since 1980 where was described as a fear of performance situations, but the idea of social anxiety being a mental illness in its own right was codified by its inclusion in the 1994 DSM-IV.

Pharmaceutical companies now advertise psychiatric drugs for the treatment of 'social anxiety disorder'.

To my mind, this is the pathologising of shyness, and normal human trait. In saying this, I don't seek to demean what might be considered more serious and more debilitating conditions, such as agrophobia that would impact on a person's ability to function normally on a day to day basis.

I should add that I am not a doctor and do not profess to being knowledgeable to any great degree in this subject. These are purely the observations of a lay person.

Seeing as I've been diagnosed with this, I can say that psychiatrists tend to use the terms interchangeably.

The whole point is the "shyness" impacts their lives negatively. If they get anxious in social situation and have it be so big that it effects or causes them to ditch classes, work, interviews, relationships, etc., it is a disorder.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Of course, the link between creative genius and madness and melancholia has long been known. Now brain scientists think they may have found one neurological basis for this.

This is BBC news story on research carried out by scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, who discovered a similarly low level of dopamine (D2) receptors in the thalamus’ of schizophrenics and highly creative types. They theorise that dopamine filters the amount of information reaching the cortex, and that “it is this barrage of uncensored information that ignites the creative spark.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10154775.stm

It seems to me to be a continuum. A higher than average level of information passing to the cortex produces greatness, but maybe the problem with schizophrenia is that the flow of information becomes so extreme and dysfunctional that it negates the potential benefits from the associated free flow of ideas.

It raises interesting questions about where we draw the line between what is acceptable in terms of eccentricity, both to the individual and to society, and what is pathological requiring treatment. I worry that the current trend towards the medicalisation of even the slightest quirk of personality – illustrated by the more widespread use of medically-prescribed psychoactive drugs - will lead to a reduction in creativity and the diversity of personality types within the population generally, and a lower level of tolerance of the far out and eccentric.

Any thoughts?

I wrote a post about this in the anti-psychiatry thread, quoting quite a few articles. Some people think there might be a gene that predisposes people to both schizophrenia and creativity. Some say it's schizotypal, not schizophrenic people who are likely to be more creative, for the reason you specified: People have a kind of filter that generally stops everything happening in the background from flooding into the consciousness. For instance, if you're walking down a quiet street, you might not be aware of the sound of birdsong coming from above, because you're so busy concentrating on what you're doing. If that filter is impaired for any length of time, then people will get flooded with information from outside they wouldn't normally take in. In less severe cases that might be called schizotypal disorder, all the extra information might help people make connections between things most people wouldn't so they can generate more novel ideas. But in really severe cases, the flood of information is so disruptive that it just causes confusion.

They said the ability to cope with it might also have something to do with intelligence: A more intelligent person might be able to cope better with the flood of information and turn a few of the ideas they get from it into something useful rather than being overwhelmed by it.

Here's the post I wrote about this stuff in the anti-psychiatry thread.

 

[MatildaGage]

Of course, the link between creative genius and madness and melancholia has long been known.

What I know is there were a lot of claims of a link. Has there been evidence during the time period to which you refer? (genuine question)

I ask because the only people I've heard say it are either woosters who also tell me mentally ill people have super powers (psychic, bionic hearing, etc.) or are mentally ill themselves--experiencing a current relapse--and thinking they are producing great poetry and artwork (which is usually crap)--perceiving it to be great because their judgment is off.

I am not sure I have the educational background to fully comprehend the article you linked to, but I did notice the measurements did not entail artwork, music, and writing (unless I misunderstood). Those are the specific items which the woosters claim the mentally ill are extra creative at. If the study didn't measure that, the claim it proves the longstanding belief [mentioned in your first sentence] isn't correct. Right?

This claim has never made sense to me personally. I am a pretty creative person--I think of a lot of ideas, write, and do artwork--but all that disappears if I'm melancholy. Assuming me in a bad mood is a miniature version of what's going on in the brain of a depressed person, our creativity should be similarly affected (if it's simply a brain event).

 

[Dancing David]

I should add that I am not a doctor and do not profess to being knowledgeable to any great degree in this subject. These are purely the observations of a lay person.

So how do you know, what causes a person to seek help and get a diagnosis of social anxiety disorder?

Just your imagination?

have you read the criteria do you knwo what they mean?

I mean really, 'germ theory' is just a theory, right?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Here are some interesting articles:

The aim of the present study was to test (i) Eysenck's theory that psychoticism (P) should be related to creativity, (ii) whether testosterone (T), due to its association with P claimed in the literature, can be identified as a biological marker of creativity...

Neither a main effect of P or T nor an interaction effect P×T on creativity could be obtained.

Linky.

Of 29 studies that evaluated possible associations between creativity and mental illness, 15 found no evidence to link creativity and mental illness, 9 found positive evidence, and 5 had unclear findings. Most studies used flawed methodologies with weak (case series or case control) designs. There were no randomized or prospective cohort studies. Adequate criteria for determining causal association were not met. In 34 selective reviews, despite mixed evidence, many authors asserted that creativity and mental illness were positively or causally associated.

Linky.

 

[marplots]

There's an excellent scene in "A Beautiful Mind" that illustrates what is proposed. When he first gets to school at a party and his mind links up several visual cues in an interesting way.

But I'm left wondering if this research improves the status of schizophrenics or decreases that of geniuses?

 

[Baby Nemesis]

And you have a right to be sceptical because I have offered no evidence. So as to illustrate my PoV, I'll take the example of 'social anxiety disorder', a new mental illness that entered the DSM-IV in 1994. The concept of social phobia had been in the manual prior to this, since 1980 where was described as a fear of performance situations, but the idea of social anxiety being a mental illness in its own right was codified by its inclusion in the 1994 DSM-IV.

Pharmaceutical companies now advertise psychiatric drugs for the treatment of 'social anxiety disorder'.

To my mind, this is the pathologising of shyness, and normal human trait. In saying this, I don't seek to demean what might be considered more serious and more debilitating conditions, such as agrophobia that would impact on a person's ability to function normally on a day to day basis.

I should add that I am not a doctor and do not profess to being knowledgeable to any great degree in this subject. These are purely the observations of a lay person.

As for social anxiety disorder, I think psychologists do often use the word interchangeably with social phobia although it covers lesser problems, but it does seem you're right to be concerned about the over-medicalisation of psychiatry. Psychiatrists themselves have expressed concerns about it. Those include the very president of the American Psychiatric Association himself! From a talk he gave called Presidential Address: Advocacy as Leadership

Steven S. Sharfstein, M.D.

We all know that pharmaceutical breakthroughs have transformed the outcomes for millions of psychiatric patients. The proven effectiveness of antidepressant, mood-stabilizing, and antipsychotic medications has sensitized the public to the realities of mental illness and has given hope to millions. So, my comments that follow must bear this positive impact in mind.

Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry abide by different ethics and values. "Big pharma" is a business governed by the motive of selling products and making money. Our profession aims to provide the highest quality of psychiatric care to persons who suffer from mental illness. Understandably, there is widespread concern about the overmedicalization of mental disorders and the overuse of some medications, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and stimulants. Financial incentives of managed care have contributed to a notion of a quick fix by taking a pill. There is much evidence that over the last decade psychiatrists have been providing less and less psychotherapy. This trend persists despite the strong demonstrated effectiveness of many psychotherapies and the importance of combining talking therapy with medications to achieve the best outcome. As I said last year, we have allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-bio-bio model. In a time of economic constraint, a pill and a brief appointment have dominated treatment.

Direct marketing to consumers by pharma has led to an increased demand for medications and inflates the expectations about the benefits of medications. As a profession, we need to be concerned about this advertising and the impact it has had on the potential overuse of medications. Of course, what are marketed to consumers and to us by drug representatives are the highest-cost, on-patent products, and the cost of medications is something rarely considered by prescribing clinicians. When we do not prescribe cheaper but equally effective alternative medications, these added costs prevent payers from spending on other psychiatric treatments of equal or superior effectiveness.

Beware of drug company representatives bearing gifts. The pads, the pens, and the other logo-driven gifts generate distrust from our patients. If we are seen as mere pill pushers and employees of the pharmaceutical industry, our credibility and our leadership as a profession are compromised. These enticements and thinly veiled bribes must end because patients must believe that their doctors have their best interests in mind when prescriptions are handed to them. We must reevaluate single-sponsored medical education events and phase them out. And there must be independent review of all continuing medical education (CME) to ensure its credibility.

The black box warnings for SSRIs and the recent Food and Drug Administration committee recommendation for a black box warning for stimulants unsettled many of us. But we must look into our own relationships with pharma to understand why regulatory agencies and the public are concerned and distrustful. Our advocacy in favor of effective pharmacopeia should not be seen as mere marketing on behalf of industry; it must come from a dispassionate reading of the science and our clinical experience.

I've given one example of this a few times on the board, a Guardian article about the unethical and opportunist way drug companies can advertise: First, you market the disease... then you push the pills to treat it.

That one's about generalised anxiety disorder.

Certainly the symptoms of such things can be distressing. But it seems some would have us believe that drug companies never do anything wrong and that drugs are the only solution. Generalised anxiety disorder basically means you worry all the time. There are rather more inventive ways people can stop themselves doing that that would increase their general coping skills with life if they tried them out before resorting to pills. Some can be described in places like this:

Stopping Worry Ruining Your Life
Calming Generalised Anxiety Disorder Or Worry

There are reasons some argue it's more ethical for people to try psychological remedies before medication. One is the side effects of taking anti-anxiety medication long-term which can be distressing. I wrote about those, and also about Ritalin, in my post in the anti-psychiatry thread called Problems of tranquillisers and Ritalin.

 

[23_Tauri]

What I know is there were a lot of claims of a link. Has there been evidence.....

Refer to Baby Nemesis' post on the Anti-Psychiatry thread, linked in the post above. Various studies cited, from this site:

Bipolar Disorder and the Creative Genius

Baby Nemesis, thank you for the link back to the earlier thread plus your post above. This is what I wanted really, because I'm not the most knowledgeable on this topic but it does interest me, so I'm glad for others pointing me in the direction of further reading.

 

[Iconoclast08]

...Pharmaceutical companies now advertise psychiatric drugs for the treatment of 'social anxiety disorder'.

To my mind, this is the pathologising of shyness, and normal human trait.

It is not normal to be perpetually terrified of being negatively judged and embarrassed in social situations to the point where it interferes with your functioning (e.g., electing not to pursue your desired career path because it involves talking to people, avoiding socializing due to exaggerated social fears, failing classes because of never participating in them).

I call bollocks.

In saying this, I don't seek to demean what might be considered more serious and more debilitating conditions, such as agrophobia that would impact on a person's ability to function normally on a day to day basis.

Wrong disorder, bad logic.

All of these "disorders" fall on a continuum (hence the strong push for dimensional models for DSM-V). People can have social phobia and either be functional or severely impaired (or somewhere in the middle) as can people exhibiting symptoms of agoraphobia (either with or without history of panic disorder).

I should add that I am not a doctor and do not profess to being knowledgeable to any great degree in this subject. These are purely the observations of a lay person.

So stop saying silly things, then.