Stephanie Corrigan
CREATIVE GENIUS
When we hear the word “creativity,” we often think of the innovative works of
famous artists or musicians, such as Picasso or Beethoven. Many of us associate
creativity with talent, giving credence to the notion that creative individuals have a
unique and extraordinary ability that most people lack. Creativity is essentially the
process of forming a novel idea; it resides in the minds of not only artists, but also
mathematicians, architects, and scientists. Anyone can be creative, yet there is clearly a
percentage of individuals whose creative capacities exceed the norm. Defining creativity
has been a matter of great controversy among psychologists, yet it is generally agreed
that creativity can be split into two broad categories: “big C” and “little c.” According to
Dr. R. Keith Sawyer, a professor of psychology at Washington University in St. Louis,
“big C” creativity involves finding “solutions to extremely difficult problems, or
significant works of genius” (2006, p. 27), e.g. Isaac Newton’s laws of gravity. “Little c”
creativity “includes activities that people engage in every day: modifying a recipe when
you don’t have all the ingredients called for; avoiding a traffic jam by finding a new way
through side streets” (p. 27). For the most part, creativity studies focus on the big C, for
the little c is virtually indefinable.
Over the past ninety years, researchers of creativity have attempted to
determine what exactly distinguishes the creative genius through studies of modern
psychology (Andreasen, 2005, p. 7). The majority of such research is based on case
studies. Researchers examine writings of creative people in history and analyze their
descriptions of the creative process. They interview prolific authors, Nobel Prize and
Academy Award winners, scientists and other accomplished individuals in order to get
detailed and personal accounts of what fuels their successful ideas. Amazingly, these
various descriptions of the creative process by myriad different people practicing
different fields have some noteworthy similarities, for instance the experience of
organizing connections in the mind easily and smoothly in a flood of inspiration.
Psychiatrist and neuroscientist Nancy Andreasen, M.D., Ph.D., uses the term
“dissociative state” to describe the individual’s mindset. She writes, “...the person in a
sense mentally separates himself from his surroundings and metaphorically ‘goes to
another place’” (2005, p. 37). Such transcendence into an “altered” state of consciousness
is not a natural and regular occurrence for the average person and appears to be a defining
characteristic of creative genius. Similar to the way a composer may mentally formulate a
symphony, amalgamating the sounds of numerous instruments at once, a mathematician
may organize and piece together complex equations, all without any forced effort.
Creative geniuses appear to have a greater ability to harness creative abilities due to a
decreased latent inhibition, a divider between the unconscious and conscious mind. While
extreme creativity is not a learned characteristic, current research indicates that we all
have potential to increase our creative capacities. Studies of creativity in areas such as
cognitive neuroscience are fairly new and there is much yet to be discovered.
Before the invention of MRI scanners and other devices that allow us to take a
look at the brain in action, research on creative genius centered on case studies.
Distinguished psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a professor at Claremont Graduate
University, studied 91 creative individuals, culminating in the development of his Flow
theory. Csikszentmihalyi divides creative people into three categories: the first includes
“conversationalists” who appear bright because of their unusual and interesting thoughts;
the second is the “personally creative” group who “experience the world in novel and
original ways” (1997, p. 25); the third category, the primary object of his case studies,
includes the individuals who have made significant creative contributions to society. This
last category is the easiest sample to study because of the accessibility of personal
information about these (often famous) contributors, versus the other two types.
Productive creativity is also generally the form of creativity most researchers are
interested in studying, due to the potential value of creative contributions.
An excerpt from famous composer Peter Ilych Tchaikovsky’s introspective
account of his work provides a compelling glimpse into a creative genius’ thought
process:
Generally speaking, the germ of a future composition comes suddenly and
unexpectedly. If the soul is ready - that is to say, if the disposition for work is
there - it takes root with extraordinary force and rapidity, shoots up through the
earth, puts forth branches, leaves, and, finally, blossoms. I cannot define the
creative process in any other way than by this simile. The rest goes of itself. It
would be in vain to try to put into words that immeasurable sense of bliss
which comes over me directly a new idea awakens in me and begins to assume
a different form... Hardly have I begun the sketch ere one thought follows
another. (Andreasen, 2005, p. 41-42)
Tchaikovsky’s account does not differ much from those of other well-known composers,
artists, and scientists alike. Tchaikovsky’s compositions are fueled by his intrinsic
motivation; he works for the “sense of bliss” rather than for monetary or other external
reasons. He also emphasizes the dream-like state he falls into and the fluidity of his
thoughts.
The first step of any creativity research is to establish a method of ascertaining
who the creative geniuses are. It is important to be able to distinguish the highly creative
from the highly intelligent. The IQ, or “intelligence quotient,” was established by Alfred
Binet in the early twentieth century. Lewis Terman, a psychology professor at Stanford
University, pioneered the study of creativity in relation to IQ in the 1920’s, hypothesizing
that intelligence and creativity are strongly correlated. Terman’s hypothesis proved to be
wrong as he and his successors followed the lives of a group of highly intelligent children
over a period of 70 years, with the research continuing on after Terman’s death in 1956.
Terman’s subjects typically grew to be successful and healthy, but few, aside from a
couple of writers and an Oscar-winning film director, made any outstanding creative
contributions (Andreasen, 2005, p. 11-13). Essentially, Terman’s study proves that
creative genius and high intelligence are not the same although they are somewhat related
- in order to be extremely creative, one must have an IQ of at least 120.
There is no “creativity quotient” that can determine an individual’s innovative
capacity. Because it can be very abstract, creativity is not a measurable quantity. Some,
such as psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Ph.D., claim that a person’s degree of
creativity depends on society’s view of the person’s contribution: a painting is only
remarkable if the viewer deems it so. Studies on the relationship between creativity and
intelligence revolved largely around testing convergent versus divergent thinking
(Sawyer, 2006, p. 44). Convergent thinkers come up with a single solution to a problem,
whereas divergent thinkers, believed to be the more creative type, consider multiple
solutions. However, there were many flaws with these experiments, conducted
throughout the 1960’s, and scientists soon reached a general consensus that creativity is
simply immeasurable.
Recently, as the field of neuroscience has grown along with advanced
technologies that allow us to take a closer look at the brain, psychologists have begun to
examine the neurological basis of creativity. One significant discovery is the correlation
between a decreased latent inhibition and high creativity. As defined by Werner Maas,
Ph.D., a professor of microbiology at NYU, latent inhibition is “a barrier in the brain that
screens from the conscious mind previous impressions experienced as irrelevant and
assigned to the subconscious” (2009). Reduced latent inhibition has been shown to be
connected to openness of mind and divergent thinking, two factors of high creativity.
Latent inhibition was tested in Harvard undergraduates, all excellent students, who were
divided into two groups: one that had displayed creative abilities and one that had not.
The subjects watched a video in which an extraneous noise signaled the appearance of
yellow discs. The creative subjects more quickly made an association between the noise
and the discs and were seven times more likely to have low rather than high latent
inhibition scores, suggesting that they use more of the information stored in the
subconscious.
Musician and researcher Charles Limb, M.D., recently performed an intriguing
study of creativity in the brain using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
scans. His subjects were talented musicians and rappers who were asked to improvise, a
form of creativity, while being scanned. Dr. Limb discovered that when the musicians
switched from playing memorized to improvised pieces, brain activity increased in the
medial prefrontal cortex, considered the more “self-expressive” area, and decreased in the
lateral prefrontal cortex, associated with “self-monitoring.” Dr. Limb therefore
hypothesized that in order to be creative, you must let go of inhibitions and be “willing to
make mistakes so that you’re not constantly shutting down all of these new generative
impulses” (2010).
A common misconception is that creative geniuses are socially inept, moody, and
eccentric. Although this may be the case for certain individuals, especially those whose
creativity is linked to disorders such as autism and schizophrenia, research has shown that
the personalities of the creatively minded are quite the opposite. In fact, high creativity is
correlated with a high success rate, financially and academically. Creative geniuses have
traits that facilitate an eagerness to find and solve problems with perseverance and
confidence. They value independence and autonomy, are verbally articulate, and are
quick learners. Dr. Sawyer, examining these traits, argues that creativity is more about
the process of amassing information over a period of time, rather than sudden flashes of
insight. He claims, “it takes a lot of experience, knowledge, and training to be able to
identify good problems” (2006, p. 47). Yet it is still vital to the study of creativity to
examine those rare “aha!” moments that have produced some invaluable discoveries.
An important feature of the creative personality is openness to experience and
fantasy. Such openness, possibly a feature of a decreased latent inhibition, allows creative
individuals to take a step back and notice details that most people might overlook. Artists
in particular, as can be assumed, tend to be “more aesthetically oriented, imaginative, and
intuitive” (Sternberg, 1999, p. 275). A 1991 study on art students indicates that artists
have impulsive tendencies and display a noteworthy lack of conscientiousness.
According to Gregory J. Feist, an associate professor of psychology and contributor to
Robert Sternberg’s Handbook of Creativity, artists are also generally introverted and at
times antisocial. These artists, however, are not representative of the creative population
as a whole, and many, including Dr. Sawyer, argue that the majority of creative geniuses
in fact have a “well-balanced” personality that enables them to excel socially as well.
Many famous creative individuals are known to have some sort of mental
disorder. John Nash, the Nobel Prize-winning economist whose life the movie A
Beautiful Mind (2001) is based on, is schizophrenic. Virginia Woolf and Ernest
Hemingway were both prominent writers who suffered bouts of depression. Yet studies
of creativity’s link to insanity are slightly inconclusive.
High creativity can often be associated with a mental illness, notably
schizophrenia and manic-depressive disorder (bipolar disorder). Schizophrenics are
mentally disconnected from reality, similar to the way artists are consumed in their own
world when in the creative process. Schizophrenics may form irrational ideas, analogous
to a creative person’s flash of insight. Given these characteristics, it is hardly surprising
that the strongest link between schizophrenia and creativity is evidenced in mathematics
and the sciences. Schizophrenia, however, is likely not compatible with activities such as
writing that require lengthy periods of concentration and information retention
(Andreasen, 2005, p. 98).
According to Dr. Sawyer, almost half of all writers have suffered from major
depression at some point in their lives. However, it is more logical that these depressive
episodes result from bipolar disorder rather than major depressive disorder, for it would
be difficult to write while depressed. Case studies have also indicated that many famous
artists, including Vincent van Gogh and Picasso, suffered from depression. However,
these studies do not encompass the broader domain of creativity outside of the arts. The
link between depression and creativity may simply be the emotional inspiration and
experience that the disorder generates.
Whether or not we are able to truly enhance our creativity is debatable, especially
considering creativity’s extremely broad domain. Creative geniuses appear to be born that
way; Mozart is a classic example of innate creative talent: he wrote his first symphony
when he was just nine years old, an age during which many children are merely picking
up an instrument for the first time. Yet creativity results from both nature and nurture,
and for those of us who are not naturally gifted in a creative domain, there are several
ways for us to increase our brain’s thinking prowess, in a way fostering our creativity as
well. For those willing to dedicate the time and effort to enhance their creativity, Nancy
Andreasen provides four reasonable “mental exercises” that may be beneficial to the
process (2005, p. 161-168).
The first and perhaps most constructive method is studying in depth a field you
know very little if not nothing about that interests you. Perhaps you have a great affinity
for the physical sciences, but have also always enjoyed poetry; maybe you’re preparing to
be a history major: try studying oceanography; or you dedicate your life to music, yet
you’ve always been intrigued by astronomy. Studying a greater diversity of subjects
allows you to gain new perspectives on things, a key facet of creativity. You may even
find that two seemingly unrelated fields can enhance each other. For instance, studying
human anatomy helped Michelangelo craft beautiful, realistic sculptures such as the
statue of David. If there’s something you’re interested in, you should pursue that interest,
time permitting, for only good can come out of forming connections in the brain, both
physically and metaphorically.
The second method revolves around the concept of opening your mind, either
through meditation or idle thinking. Meditation is scientifically proven to be beneficial to
brain function, primarily through measurements of the brain’s gamma waves in subjects
such as Buddhist monks who meditate frequently. Andreasen explains, “when [gamma
waves] occur in synchrony in different brain regions, this pattern is thought to reflect the
communication of neuronal groups (known as neuronal assemblies) that are widely
distributed through the brain and that are engaged in integrating complex information in
order to discover its meaning or to solve a problem” (2005, p. 163). Simply put,
meditation teaches us to be more aware and observant and to think clearly. Meditation,
which requires us to completely clear our minds, can be quite difficult and typically takes
practice. However, you may also find it beneficial to “meditate” in your own way by
simply getting comfortable in a peaceful environment and thinking. When you allow your
thoughts to wander freely, you are more likely to form novel ideas than when you are
forcefully cogitating.
Have you ever marveled at the amount of patience and dedication that must go
into an artwork’s intricate detail? The third method of enhancing creativity involves acute
observations and descriptions, perhaps of seemingly mundane objects or images. Every
day we encounter infinite different visuals without really taking in what we see. We may
look at a pattern, declare it beautiful, but not observe how its beauty is created by an
interesting weaving of lines or shapes. For this exercise, the object of your observation
needs not be explicitly eye-catching, but rather it should simply be something that
interests you. Observe the object in whichever way suits you (think of all five senses) and
then write down your observations “in the most elegant and precise language you are able
to achieve” (Andreasen, 2005, p. 166). A month or so later, switch to a new object. Over
time, you should notice an improvement in your ability to observe details in all things, as
well as in your writing skills.
The final method of enhancing creativity is fairly straightforward and may be
something that you already do on a daily basis. Creativity is a product of the imagination,
and therefore it may be beneficial to dedicate some time to daydreaming. You can be
anyone or anything in the world, thereby expanding your perspective. Again, you should
regularly record your imaginings. However, science journalist Josie Glausiusz warns
about the dangers of compulsive daydreaming; if you become completely consumed in
your alternate reality, it can be difficult to live a functional, real life. Additionally,
Glausiusz states, “to enhance creativity, it is important to pay attention to daydreams”
(2011, p. 27). In other words, spacing out during class or while reading a book will not
make you a more creative person.
An apparent decreased latent inhibition in highly creative individuals allows them
to form connections and concoct original ideas that tend to be too abstract for the average
person to formulate. Heightened awareness, openness to experience, and intrinsic
motivation are all key elements of productive creativity. The majority of information
about creativity resides in the evidence provided by in-depth case studies, yet recent
technological advances have corroborated many assumptions as well as produced new
scientific knowledge about creativity and the brain, for instance the association between
creative activity and the medial prefrontal cortex. Studying creativity can be beneficial if
you’re interested in enhancing your creative abilities, although the question still remains
whether nature or nurture has a profounder effect. Studies of creativity inheritance are
rare - naturally gifted individuals appear to be biological miracles, as opposed to products
of superior traits. However, emulating certain distinct personality traits that many
creative individuals exhibit, such as independence, perseverance, and confidence,
certainly cannot hurt, whether or not you do indeed increase your creativity.
References
Andreasen, N. C. (2005). The creative brain: The science of genius. London, England:
Penguin Group.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and
Invention. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.
Glausiusz, J. (2011). Living in a dream world. Scientific American Mind, 24-29.
Limb, C. (2010). Charles Limb: Your brain on improv. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/talks/charles_limb_your_brain_on_improv.html
Maas, W. (2009). Creativity in biological research. Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine.Web. 30 Jan 2011.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. New
York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.