A Theory of Creativity

Post Reply New Topic

Much ado has been made about creativity in psychology: What is it? How does one define it? I do not understand creativity as qualitively different from ordinary thought. I believe creativity can be distinguished by the degree of two cognitive processes: cognitive disinhibition (Eysenck, 1995) and stimulus selection. One may understand this as the growth of an associative cloud that then contracts, precipating a creative downpour.

Cognitive disinhibition is described as a loosening of associations or as an ability to make remote associations. Associations can be abstracted from objects and compared (large rock, chair = flat; chair = for sitting; large rock = for sitting). My contention is that uncreative people have learned to ignore unusual associations that enter their mind and may have fewer odd associations to begin with. Creative people not only accept these unusual associations but run with them. The Remote Associates Test attempts to measure a person's ability to make creative associations. However, I contend that this is a slap in the face of what creativity is. The Remote Associates Test supplies a person with three words and asks them to reach a destination (unknown) association. In other words, there is a correct answer.

Perhaps there is another way to measure the cognitive disinhibition aspect of creativity. Brainstorming is probably the best solution. Instead of measuring a respondant's ability to deduce a correct association, the quantity of associations should be measured.

Assumption: The degree of cognitive disinhibition can be measured from the number of associations produced from a stimulus.

This removes the need to make a subjective judgment of how related an association is and eliminates the implication that some associations are wrong.

Another important aspect of creativity, though, is stimulus selection. Creative people and psychotic people both show high levels of cognitive disinhibition, and some theorists have shown that intelligence may separate the two, as well as a nebulous concept of ego strength. Although it may be true that the population of creative people has a higher average IQ than the population of psychotic people, this fails to define a theoretical mechanism that operates better in one than the other. I postulate a sort of stimulus selection is involved. Whereas cognitive disinhibition is an expansive item, measuring the wanderings of the mind, stimulus selection marks the boundaries of these meanderings. This is the ability to select the best associations to solve a problem. Thus, interesting but irrelevant associations are forgotten so that useful associations may be utilized in problem solving.

Both of these features are a regular part of cognitive processes. What sets creative people apart is the degree to which they utilize these two mechanisms.

I've actually thought about this a lot whilst delving into poetry & philosophy, trying to meld the lot together with science & psychology.

I agree that psychotic individuals are indeed very intelligent from a certain light, look at some paranoid schizophrenics & their writing, people on dopamine antagonists (particularly d-lysergic acid diethylamide & psilocbin) have shown great intelligence, even one of the pioneers of the human genome project mapped a section of the genes on lsd.
Look at schizophrenics again, they can be defined simply as people with disintegrated cognition. Are they really any less intelligent than creative scientists? Not really, though problem solving IQ tests would show it so.
There lies the problem - IQ tests are merely problem solving tests. Problem solving is seen as intelligence, whereas random association (I hesitantly use this term since the dreaded psychodynamics use the term ...) isn't counted as intelligence. Creativity in effect is the opposite, since it isn't logical.

Perhaps, I might add: I use rhetorical logic. Can this be described as psychotic? Not really, since I can prove that what I come up with is rational. However, if I took a more creative route & didn't back this up I could be seen as schizophrenic rather than autistic. Therein lies another problem, perception.

The point being you're right if I'm reading you correctly, cognitive disinhibition is effectively creativity. Autistics are statistically more likely to become schizophrenic (I beleive, don't quote me on that though since I only remember research that falls under my eyes so to speak), though I beleive that only to be so due to our lack of communicative skills.

In hindsight One must remember that labels are only there for a simple explanation, since understanding isn't a given. I generally agree with your theory, as I said further up I've put much thought into the relativity of creativity/intelligence & art/science, though do remember that psychology is mostly mere backed up common sense A pseudo-science if you like.

I think different experiences can create a sort of creativity in part. Ask any psychotic who suffers from a paranoid ideation and points of reference to describe their experiences in a story, and if they can do it the story is bound to appear original, though likely unoriginal to what they experience. Plus, many people who suffer a psychosis have looser associations, as evidenced by thought disorder etc., which may seem as though creative leaps to the non-psychotic.

Often, those who suffer from one form of psychosis or another, whether it's bipolar or schizophrenia or psychotic NOS or schizoaffective, and those who create works of art or writings,etc., are often the less cognitively damaged as well I believe (correct me if I am wrong). Those who "still have some of their faculties in tact" so to speak.

There is a great amount of creativity in the mentally ill, perhaps due to just having a different life experience from which these associations have their starting point. But, also, I wonder what the statistics to those creative people who are not mentally ill.

Psychosis is describing another world almost. I hesitate to say there is a higher rate of creativity among those who experience it. Perhaps "pseudo-creativity" is more accurate because it is often unintentional?