Although interesting, this isn't particularity surprising (at least not to me). Mood disorders have a high correlation with atypical brain morphology. This is due to the fact that abnormal brains often result in abnormal temperament. Although correlation doesn't always imply causation, in this particular case it probably does. Most individuals affected by these conditions likely express phenotypes on the edges of the bell curve (not necessarily just regarding intelligence).
That was an interesting article/book summary. The main idea (that there exists a correlation artistic creativity and mood disorders) is something I've observed anecdotally.
I get the impression, however, that it serves the end of history and entertainment more than it does those of science. The examples in the article were light on sample sizes and heavy on speculation ("Is mental illness caused by creativity? Maybe it's the other way around! Who knows?"). I wonder if the book it's about offers more solid corroborating sources.
The article definitely shows too much respect to psychiatry, which is much less rigorous than lay people often assume. Richard Bentall has written some accessible books debunking the supposedly scientific basis of diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. Compounding the lack of rigor, studies of creativity are generally at the frivolous and self-indulgent end of the field.
> “Half of the human beings in history are women,” she noted, “but we have had so few recognized for their genius".
There's an interesting view that while men aren't "better" than women, they are more distributed. That is, the distribution graph of talent (or any quality) is flatter for men than for women. So, you have more men at the extremes than women: more tall more, more short men; more geniuses; more idiots; etc.
There's a fascinating argument for this observation: women have two X chromosomes, while men only have one. The presence of a second X chromosome has different effects depending on the gene, but often acts as a backup or an averaging.
So, if there's some new gene going around that has wonderful properies, men get the full dose of it, women only get half. If the new gene has terrible properties or just doesn't work properly, men suffer the full blast, but women only get a half-blast (or, the other X completely compensates).
Only if that gene happens to be on the sex chromosomes! There are 22 other chromosomes, though.
I'm no biologist, but I believe you are referring to sex-linked traits. Hemophilia is the most studied example, but there are many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_linkage#X-linked_recessive_...). In these disorders, males with the gene will always get the disease, where as women can act as "carriers", carrying the trait for the gene on one of their X chromosomes, but not experiencing any of the symptoms of the disorder.
Unfortunately for your theory, this interesting phenomenon has little to do with other genes. There is no magic link between separate chromosomes, and almost all of our important traits lie on the 22 other chromosomes, which do not experience this sex-linkage.
It always seemed to me that this apparent divergence might have more to do with ambition or society than with brainpower. The physical differences between male and female brains are pretty subtle, hormonal and social differences are much more pronounced.
And if there were single gene changes for raising or lowering intelligence I expect they would have spread through the population even faster than adult lactase. Though I suppose you could argue that this is happening continuously and that's why we have the Flynn effect, but in that case you wouldn't find the relative IQs of national groups tracking their relative wealth in the way we observe even in response to plainly exogenous factors like Communism in East Germany.
I expect that there are some genes that increase IQ but have side effects[1], but I expect most genetic causes of variation in IQ rest on combinations of genes.
The evidence presented is IQ scores from 1932. Given historical gender biases this not persuasive. Culling scientific evidence from conservative think tank Op-Eds is probably not a best practice...
Maybe most notable is a 1995 paper in Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5220/41 but it is both behind a paywall and completely devoid of figures! You get the main idea from the abstract, though: Except in tests of reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, males typically outnumber females substantially among high-scoring individuals.
While there may be gender differences among high/low scoring individuals, I resent that that this is treated as a scientific fact when there are limited studies with contradictory findings.
It comes out in a wide variety of measures. Simple ones that people are familiar with are things like Gini coefficients of income among males is more distributed, IQ is more distributed, various incarceration statistics etc.
So while the richest people might be men, the poorest population will also be men.
Or, the people with highest and lowest IQs will be men.
An interesting article, but certainly not a new theory. Dr. Kay Jamison is one of the foremost authorities on manic-depressive illness - and also suffers from it.
The following isn't blowing my own trumpet, but is framing for my perspective. The last IQ test I had (for what it's worth, I put little stead in their worth, and was made to do it by a concerned employer) placed me in the "profoundly gifted" category - just north of 180.
I have been outright miserable for my entire existence. As I've learned to better understand my own behaviour and impulses in the context of how humans generally work, it has become increasingly evident that my dissatisfaction stems from an excess of analytical thought, particularly when applied to "what if" scenarios.
This leaves me usually exceptionally well prepared for most situations life throws at me, through my incessant internal roleplaying, however also results in me "experiencing" many negative situations and outcomes, in order to understand how to either mitigate against them or to deal with them when they arise - and the emotions that come with them.
This results in a fixation on negative outcomes, which in turn feeds into anxiety, paranoia, and depression - as negative outcomes are far more common in most situations than positive - and mandate more attention so that they can be avoided.
In any case - I'd argue that creativity doesn't stem from mental illness, and that in fact depression as reported in many of these individuals (particularly given the absence of schizoid traits) stems from a similar source, in overanalysing situations. It's a correlating factor, not a causative one.
There's also the question of association, which is noted in the article, which I can to some extent vouch for. Much of my utility in what I do for my day job arises from being able to make associations from the aether that others don't seem to see, and posit solutions to multi-variable problems rapidly. It's a disconcerting feeling when you delve - something akin to turning off a chunk of rational thought, and letting the answers emerge from somewhere in my visual memory/thought processes. Also, outside of general problem solving, this results in strange associations, which usually emerge from me as baroque and obtuse metaphors - which again feed to the "mental illness" angle, it's somewhat inevitable that "this dude is nuts" is the conclusion others would and do take.
Anyway, just my $0.02 autopsychoanalysis.
Oh, and dysthymia was what they decided to diagnose me with when I last saw a shrink. Whatever.
Edit: just occurred to me as relevant to this - I had my genome done last year, and I have completely buggered serotonin and dopamine systems, and an overamped oxycontin system. Whether this feeds into this, I don't know, but I would suspect so. I get no sense of achievement from anything, which pushes me to always do more, learn more, be more.
I used to suffer from that overanalysing of situations too, always delving in worst-case scenarios. So I decided to do something about it and started myself into zen buddhism.
Meditation has really helped me in that department, I'm now happier, anxiety is basically gone, and live better now.
If you haven't heard about this book, let me recommend it to you: Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind - Shunryu Suzuki (this is how I entered myself into this buddhism thing).
I'd like to second your opinion -- meditation has helped me tremendously in many ways, especially in, broadly speaking "getting me out of my own way".
I'd suggest starting with the book "Mindfulness in Plain English", available from free online. Another good book, available online, is "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha".
Also, try some audio talks from Jack Cornfield, Pema Chodron, Gil Frondal, Shinzen Young, or whoever seems to work for you. Listen to them when you go on a drive more than half an hour. But the important thing is to put in some time meditating.
So you just need to become more stupid I believe. After I have developed slightly high blood pressure I quit smoking and I've started to do 2-3 hours of extensive exercise every day (both weight lifting and aerobics) - my anxiety/depression level have dropped significantly.
I couldn't generate streams of vivid ideas anymore, but I'm much less fuzzy and kind-of "psychotic" I'd say.
I was great with words (In russian which is my native language) - I couldn't write so cool and fast anymore. I guess I'm less funny now.
But I'm more steady and confident. I'm dumber, but I'm much more happier.
I have a similar (albeit modified) theory. Let me clarify that stupid and smart don't necessary mean the same as regular usage, but they're close enough.
If you are 'stupid' (not necessarily intellectually, but in some ways), the neurosis (psychosis is a strong word, no?) is less, you don't think about things you shouldn't (bothersome, existentially) and you have a healthy and comfortable intellectual-emotional life.
If you are very smart/smart, you can get beyond the temporary plateau of 'thoughtfulness' that also brings neurosis. You think about things that are bothersome, but you have enough mental strength to overcome and suppress them. You're high-functioning intellectually, and it doesn't take a toll on your psychosis.
If you're in the 'middle', you tend to think about things, and keep thinking till you've found reasonable solution. It is bothersome, depressing, and often not pleasant. But you have the gift of 'thinking', and you like using it. It's a stimulating albeit mentally tiring existence.
When you say you're 'dumber', I interpret it as you saying you've trained yourself not to ponder upon things that will lead to no obvious outlet. Maybe you've genuinely trained yourself to never think about certain things, maybe you've trained to control your bothersome thoughts on command. Either way, you've trained your thoughts to a 'different level'.
Hm, there's another extreme that you're missing, which is that of not just thinking about a problem, but thinking about all of the problems, and just forward-projecting and forward-projecting until the cows come home, branching and branching and branching until you start to find commonalities and convergences between the outcomes of (the outcomes of the outcomes of) various ongoing situations which either provide useful strategic insight, or just satisfy curiosity. I see temporal and atemporal problems in much the same light - it's all just causation, and tracing the patterns forwards or backwards far enough to see the common causes.
I can, happily, quash general anxious negative outcome thoughts (i.e. fixation on a specific negative thought) - but just having to go through them all, even once, as part of the human path-finding algorithm still takes its toll.
Ultimately the benefit, in terms of having Seldon-esque pre-sight on many matters (although I don't hesitate to admit that I do get things wrong, as the imp of the perverse likes to roll the dice from time to time), outweighs the toll - although I do, from time to time, worry that I will end up in a straightjacket.
Not sure why you are correlating the terms "stupid" and "dumber" with exercise.
Aerobic fitness has been shown to have significant correlation to executive function in the brain, which affects decision-making, mood, and the speed of information processing.
Weight training has not yet been shown to have significant cognitive effects, either positive or negative.
As a lifelong swimmer, I can also say from personal experience that my focus and motivation seriously benefit from maintaining a routine exercise program.
Your perceived lapses in cognitive function are are probably more behavioral; instead of standing around thinking and smoking, now you are spending that time engaged in both mind and body.
This could have been written by myself though I'm not sure my IQ is that high but after 4 decades of it I finally found something that clearly and unambiguously works for me and that's mindfullness based cognitive therapy which allows me to take control of my mind and use it as a tool instead of freewheeling negative thoughts on a regular basis. I'm not where I want to be yet but it's very exciting to come to this realization that I can and should control my mind and use it as a tool rather than letting it use me with random unneeded nonsense.
I just did some searching on "iq neuroticism"[1] and everything I found seemed to indicate that there's a small negative correlation. That is, smarter people on average seem to have a slightly easier time not getting trapped by fixation on negative outcomes.
"as negative outcomes are far more common in most situations than positive - and mandate more attention so that they can be avoided."
That's a huge assumption; what if your deeply-ingrained habit of thinking of negative "what if" scenarios is what causes you to assume that negative outcomes are more common? And what if you choose to think about and do other things instead of fixating on possible negative outcomes after you think of them?
You can learn to observe when you're fixating on negative outcomes so that you can change how you think and thus how you feel. If your brain is a Ferrari, learn how to drive it. I recommend looking up the "Ten Twisted Ways of Thinking"; I've seen those patterns of irrational thinking again and again in the intelligent depressed people I've known (myself included), and learning to recognize them and deal with them makes a huge difference. Just because you're extremely intelligent doesn't mean that all of your thoughts are correct or valid or worth thinking about, but there's also no reason to express internal anger at yourself for having an irrational thought. I had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder several years ago, but after learning to watch my assumptions and when I'm fixating or about to fixate on negative outcomes, I no longer meet any of the criteria for that diagnosis.
That said, I also get no sense of achievement from anything, but I do enjoy continually learning more and doing more because it keeps my mind busy on positive outcomes. Actually finishing things is less relevant to me except when their incompleteness becomes obnoxious.
I can identify with this, and (from previous submissions/comments) I get the impression that many others here can also identify (very high IQ, low satisfaction with life, anxiety, etc). FWIW, I have learned to "beat" the negative thought loops; after gaining some benefit from various efforts and experiences (which may or may not have been necessary steps in enabling what followed), what finally did it for me was understanding that the happiest people I know are also the most boring. Steady 9-5 jobs, steady relationships, relatively infrequent travel, often religious, etc. Those people didn't question a lot of the things around them, and they were generally happier for it. So I made a conscious effort to also become "boring" as much as I could, and (surprisingly) it more or less worked.
Obviously not everyone will be comfortable with that path (and obviously I still question some things, I just consciously choose to question much, much less than I used to) but I'm mentioning it as an option because it's basically the answer to that "pursuit of happiness" garbage that people always talk about. It's just a lot easier to be happy when you allow yourself to be pleased with simple things.
I can't do steady and consistent, and I can't not question everything. I've been lied to and misled too many times to take anyone's word for anything any more - only deductive logic based in objective fact and primary sources will do. Steady and consistent I can't do because there's FAR too much in this world to do and see to just... exist.
I rather wish there were a stupid pill I could take. I always envied Charlie in Algernon.
> an excess of analytical thought, particularly when applied to "what if" scenarios.
> This leaves me usually exceptionally well prepared for most situations life throws at me, through my incessant internal roleplaying, however also results in me "experiencing" many negative situations and outcomes, in order to understand how to either mitigate against them or to deal with them when they arise - and the emotions that come with them.
I do this ALL the time. I tried explaining it to my family once...they looked at me as if I just told them I'm a schizophrenic. I'm not having a conversation with myself and I don't believe these scenarios are real. I'm role playing because it helps me predict lots of possible scenarios and how people might react in those situations, which then lets me make more informed decisions about how to handle situations such as those and finds me less frequently being caught off guard.
Why they didn't understand this, I do not know. I'm glad at least someone does.
U of Iowa School of Social Work did a project where grad students wrote papers on pseudo-additions to the DSM diagnostic manual, to illustrate the process which influences later diagnosis.
Yes. Download your full data set from them and run it through promethease. Last I checked you can use the desktop version, choose the paid version, and their amazon checkout implementation is broken so you get the new interface, faster processing, and you don't have to submit your genotype with identifying info that way.
Edit: specifically, I have two short form 5-HTTLPR (gs290) (serotonin transport) (and various other uncommon serotonin linked SNPs, some linked with suicidal behaviour and schizophrenia, woohoo), rs1800497(C;T), which would be the origin of my absent dopamine reward cycle, rs6323(G;G), which interferes with serotonin, dopamine, epineprine, and norepinephrine.
Oh, and I have a grab-bag of SNPs both common and uncommon, which taken together mean that the vast majority of antidepressants and many painkillers (opiates) simply do not work on me - no pain relief, just extra pain and nausea... fun times in hospital when I learned that one.
Your post has been an eye-opener for me. I never thought someone could be missing the sense of achievement. That describes me very well.
I'm at the 99.9+ percentile (I haven't found a psychometrician to take tests with higher ceilings) and I can relate to much of what you said, including having to learn how to be more "human", e.g. how much my tone of voice matters to others, that I'm allowed to stop working sometimes and relax, etc.
I also had problems with anxiety and depression (but never paranoia) and I second what others said that meditation works. It works in the scientific sense, but it's not been easy for me to achieve success through it. However, what little benefit it's had was enough that I can now say I'm generally happy (but nothing fills the emptiness, you just learn that that's how things are). I read some Zen and Mindfulness material (also see Sam Harris as it's hard to find this material stripped of its religious culture) and that has helped me. These are my recommendations.
Where did you get your genome done that you could see results about serotonin and dopamine? I'd be extremely curious to do that. I sent my dna to 23andme and I do have the health results online (they don't do that anymore) but nothing about serotonin or dopamine. I think they do give me my complete genome, and if so maybe it would just be a matter of matching bits of it? (Edit: saw your other comment, downloaded my data from 23andMe and I'm reading through the Promethease report right now).
Do you switch projects often without getting close to finishing them? I start projects to see if I can do something; I never can, so that prompts me to learn (a passive activity) and then I can do it; but as soon as I find out I can do it (sometimes just something clicking in my head is enough) I'm uninterested in the project (say, a game, after I've learned rigid body physics) and so I abandon it and move on to something harder, or something else I can't (yet) do. I never doubt I can learn something but synthesizing knowledge into a product is nearly impossible for me outside work. And the things I do complete (work or otherwise) do not teach my brain that finishing is a good thing that I should do more often.
Sometimes I wonder if the reason "we" are creative is not that we're blessed with preternatural creativity, but that we don't lose it in adolescence. Children are unskilled, but creative. Most adults are skilled but not creative. They learn that it's better for their jobs and social status and peaceful way of life to sacrifice that creativity and conform.
We don't become conventional, boring, and uncreative because that life isn't an option. (Some mentally ill people destroy their creativity in other ways, but that's another story.)
It's those of us who have absolutely no hope of winning the compete-to-conform game (we're going to lose if we play, so why try?) that keep our creativity intact. We need it if we're going to have a chance.
But note that conforming itself requires creativity. One has to (consciously or no) conjecture what is the appropriate, conformist thing to do in any situation. There's no easy way around this since most of the rules are unwritten.
What really gets society's goat is innovation, most of which fails, and all of which encounters resistance. And I think the reason for that resistance, ironically, is that new ideas and new things require other people to re-direct their own dwindling creativity into understanding or at least coping with them.
