![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mad Genius
Jul. 15th, 2015 05:52 pmhttp://www.theverge.com/2015/7/14/8945813/creativity-bipolar-schizophrenia-genetics-mad-genius
So it's a fairly interesting video at any rate. But I do have some issues with it.
Firstly, they note the studies only looked for a link with artists who were basically successful - i.e., their profession was that of a professional artist. Well. If the study had included everyone who desires to be known for their art, or as highly creative in the standard ways (writing, programming, music, acting, dancing, etc.) would the findings have differed from the original study? Probably - so suggesting that because the study had a narrow perspective as a means to support the opinion that creative genius and divergent mentality is not correlated is ridiculous. There's no evidence they aren't linked, but SOME evidence they are. Okay. Then don't produce an entire video on the idea that they are not linked, and shame people for believing they might be (when there's evidence that they are.)
Secondly, they focus on schizophrenia. No mention is made towards the scientific efficacy of studies linking bipolar disorder and creativity. The beginning of the video mentions some studies that linked bipolar disorder and divergent thinking with creativity in northern europe, and then spends the last 2 minutes focusing on a single PhDs opinion on the schizophrenia/creativity genetic link. Some of these studies are not based on genetic parameters. This is the definition of cherry picking.
I got the feeling that the video was picking and choosing its information specifically to support its thesis. Yeah, I know, that's the whole point of writing and infotainment production (at least that's how they teach writing today - I never agreed with it because cherry picking might as well be a logical fallacy) but is it too much to ask to get all the sides? Sigh.
The entire video itself seemed to have a slant towards individuals needing to seek treatment for their "otherness." What really struck me as odd is that the girl pundit took the stance that the "myth" (in Verge's opinion) is a way of perpetuating a stigma, a way of "othering" people. You "other" people just by defining them as this or that (as different than you), or saying you have X disorder which deviates from the mean.
One wonders if such infotainment could be bought and paid for by parties seeking to gain benefit from the proliferation of the ideas?
As a final thought, I feel it's fairly logical to consider the possibility that being truly creative - i.e., to do things most people do not do, to accomplish things most people can not accomplish, to get outside of the box and do something different, new, progressive...might require having a divergent mentality? If you expect to become an exemplary artist, how could you get there doing the same thing all the non-creative people are doing? Is an exemplary artist going to have a consciousness that is very close to the mean ideal, or is an exemplary artist going to have something different?
And as an extra note, cherry picking...
The more I think about it, the more it seems to be one of the most apparent problems in the world of knowledge and information. When I was in college, I remember walking into the library there for the first time (the last time I had been in an actual library, I was still in middle school - I always found most anything I wanted to read for free download) and the only thought in my mind was, "There's no way any human could possibly digest all of this." It was some sort of post-modern, desert-of-the-real epiphany...there's so much knowledge and information, only a small portion of it probably even necessary for success of any degree, but finding the gems alone in even one field would take a lifetime. With as much information as there is out there today (or Noise, if you will) cherry picking has never been easier...and that's exactly what they train you to do when you write research papers. You're looking for supporting data...not contradictory claims. To paraphrase the article elenbarathi posted, "you're looking to win." It's a little depressing, to be honest.
So it's a fairly interesting video at any rate. But I do have some issues with it.
Firstly, they note the studies only looked for a link with artists who were basically successful - i.e., their profession was that of a professional artist. Well. If the study had included everyone who desires to be known for their art, or as highly creative in the standard ways (writing, programming, music, acting, dancing, etc.) would the findings have differed from the original study? Probably - so suggesting that because the study had a narrow perspective as a means to support the opinion that creative genius and divergent mentality is not correlated is ridiculous. There's no evidence they aren't linked, but SOME evidence they are. Okay. Then don't produce an entire video on the idea that they are not linked, and shame people for believing they might be (when there's evidence that they are.)
Secondly, they focus on schizophrenia. No mention is made towards the scientific efficacy of studies linking bipolar disorder and creativity. The beginning of the video mentions some studies that linked bipolar disorder and divergent thinking with creativity in northern europe, and then spends the last 2 minutes focusing on a single PhDs opinion on the schizophrenia/creativity genetic link. Some of these studies are not based on genetic parameters. This is the definition of cherry picking.
I got the feeling that the video was picking and choosing its information specifically to support its thesis. Yeah, I know, that's the whole point of writing and infotainment production (at least that's how they teach writing today - I never agreed with it because cherry picking might as well be a logical fallacy) but is it too much to ask to get all the sides? Sigh.
The entire video itself seemed to have a slant towards individuals needing to seek treatment for their "otherness." What really struck me as odd is that the girl pundit took the stance that the "myth" (in Verge's opinion) is a way of perpetuating a stigma, a way of "othering" people. You "other" people just by defining them as this or that (as different than you), or saying you have X disorder which deviates from the mean.
One wonders if such infotainment could be bought and paid for by parties seeking to gain benefit from the proliferation of the ideas?
As a final thought, I feel it's fairly logical to consider the possibility that being truly creative - i.e., to do things most people do not do, to accomplish things most people can not accomplish, to get outside of the box and do something different, new, progressive...might require having a divergent mentality? If you expect to become an exemplary artist, how could you get there doing the same thing all the non-creative people are doing? Is an exemplary artist going to have a consciousness that is very close to the mean ideal, or is an exemplary artist going to have something different?
And as an extra note, cherry picking...
The more I think about it, the more it seems to be one of the most apparent problems in the world of knowledge and information. When I was in college, I remember walking into the library there for the first time (the last time I had been in an actual library, I was still in middle school - I always found most anything I wanted to read for free download) and the only thought in my mind was, "There's no way any human could possibly digest all of this." It was some sort of post-modern, desert-of-the-real epiphany...there's so much knowledge and information, only a small portion of it probably even necessary for success of any degree, but finding the gems alone in even one field would take a lifetime. With as much information as there is out there today (or Noise, if you will) cherry picking has never been easier...and that's exactly what they train you to do when you write research papers. You're looking for supporting data...not contradictory claims. To paraphrase the article elenbarathi posted, "you're looking to win." It's a little depressing, to be honest.
