March 13, 2009

The blessing or curse of g? It's all a matter of perspective.

I attended the Science Cafe' on Monday here in Cleveland; the topic was "Infant Intelligence: What Is It, and How Do We Measure It?". A very interesting and well-presented Cafe'; one of the best I've seen this year. A few issues came up that deserve mentioning, and I would like to see what other people's opinions are regarding them.

Firstly, Dr Fagan and Dr Holland had a pre-printed "FYI regarding intelligence" handout for everyone in attendance, which I thought to be an excellent idea. By giving a three-page outline of what intelligence is and what it isn't, they were hoping to immediately dispel some myths surrounding IQ, g*, and stereotypes of abilities on both ends of the distribution. This eliminated a lot of unnecessary questions from the beginning, and left more time for the meat of the topic.

*(By g, I am referring to the "general intelligence factor" as defined by Spearman)

The handout was titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", and was taken from a website called "Stalking the Wild Taboo", which I believe contains info on a variety of social topics. This particular handout was a public statement that was publicized and signed by 52 internationally known scholars in the field of intelligence research as a follow-up response to the widely talked about book "The Bell Curve" by Herrnstein & Murray. The response was first published in The Wall Street Journal in 1994, then made available on the web in 1995. At the end of the statement, it listed all of the scholars who signed the statement and gave their home institution.

Most interestingly, a few heavy hitters in intelligence research did NOT sign the statement, one being Dr Robert Sternberg, who has been one of the most influential and relevant leaders in intelligence research for many years. The absence of validation from such prominent researchers such as Sternberg made me really read through the document to see the parts that were the deal-breakers. The definition of intelligence that was given was the traditional view of g; an analytical quality of processing information and gaining intellectual knowledge at a specific rate that keeps up with age and maturity. There was no real mention of other traits besides g (in the analytical sense) as being essential in the structure of intelligence as a comprehensive construct of abilities. Sternberg talks in his literature of his Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence (1977, 1985, 1995), which states that intelligence is composed of three facets: Analytical (what most people consider g), Creative, and Practical components. In traditional IQ tests, the Analytical component is measured, but the other two- Creative and Practical are not. Sternberg feels that if all three subcomponents were accurately measured instead of just one, that we would get a more precise prediction of performance. As it is now, IQ tests can predict success only to a certain degree, but Sternberg says that we can and should do better with predictability if we take every factor into account and measure it correctly. There was no mention of his Triarchic Theory in the statement, only a few lines that state "there are other factors that effect performance,...[ but that] intelligence (meaning the analytical measure of g) is often the most important." There is also a vague mention that personality traits may be a factor in successful performance of some jobs, but they have narrower applicability. They are referred to as "other 'intelligences'".

Here is a quote from Sternberg regarding the importance of all three factors:

"My concern, given the relatively low predictability of the tests, is that there may be people who have tremendous talents -- creative and practical talents -- who, because they don't do well on tests, never get the chance to show what they really could do in important jobs."

***

(here is a link to an excellent interview with Sternberg regarding his theory, and how the Creative and Practical components are key to predicting life success.)

Now, this statement was published on the web in 1995, and 14 years of intelligence research has been conducted since this statement was first written. Don't the authors feel like it is time for an update? Maybe include some of the Neuroscientific data that has been discovered more recently? I am not saying the summary was completely inaccurate in content, but that is is deficient in the latest discoveries, some of them crucially relevant in our current definition of intelligence.

Aside from the statement that was handed out, other elements of the presentation piqued my interest. Dr Fagan is the person who developed the Fagan Test of Infant Intelligence, which is a series of tasks that are performed on 6 month old infants that are strong predictors of future intelligence. More importantly, this test was designed to test for Mental Retardation, not Giftedness. Incidentally, the first IQ tests were developed for the same reason; to be able to identify those children who were lacking in ability, so that the educational system could give special assistance to those who needed it. This is a very, very important concept when thinking about the implications and applicability of IQ tests in predicting future success in school, jobs, etc. The strongest and highest correlation of IQ to performance is at the lower end of the distribution, meaning IQs below 100. In scores upwards of 115-120, the correlations between the subscores (the various abilities tested, such as verbal, math, abstract reasoning, etc) in IQ tests and the correlation to overall performance begins to break apart, increasingly weakening the higher the overall score is. So really, the way IQ tests are designed serve the purpose for which they were initially intended: to identify the individuals who fall below average in ability, and predict their performance in school and/or work. I wrote a paper on this concept, discussing Spearman's Divergence Hypothesis in IQ, but I won't go into detail about it here. If anyone wants more info on this, just ask or you can link to it from here.

At one point, an audience member asked the question: "You said the Fagan Test can accurately identify babies with low IQ, ones that would later be considered 'mentally retarded', but is the test good at predicting those babies who have higher abilities like giftedness?"

His answer was to the effect of "My test is only used to predict low ability. Other people do test infants and children for higher ability, but I personally don't. I am only concerned with identification of the lower end of the distribution". The audience member then asked why he only tests for low ability rather than both low and high, and his answer to that was, "Because those individuals with higher than average ability will be ok. The others won't". And that answer brings me to my next point.

The idea that people with high intelligence, as is measured on traditional IQ tests, will automatically be successful is a gross misinterpretation of the implication of intelligence. I actually agree with Sternberg's theory of other factors being crucial, along with g for success in life. This attitude that just because you got a high IQ score means you can go through life with no assistance, will have no difficulties, and will essentially be nearly guaranteed success, is a dangerous assumption. Not to mention, the consequences of this assumption are that children who have higher than average computational abilities will not get the help they may need in other areas. There are many instances of gifted children who are "left to learn on their own" because they are able to comprehend and process material at a higher rate, but they are not given the guidance they need in areas that THEY may be lacking in. For example, a high IQ child may have severe social adjustment problems, or motivation difficulties, or a behavioral disorder, but if they score high on an IQ test, they get no special assistance; they actually get less assistance. Not to mention, a high IQ score does not say anything about the creative and practical skills that contribute to high achievement.

If a high level of g was a perfect or even an exceptional predictor of success, then why is history littered with the stories of "geniuses" who failed in school, dropped out, became delinquents, underachieved in their careers, or were extremely dissatisfied in life? Obviously there were other challenges that those children faced where they needed guidance or special assistance, but they were instead neglected, because of their IQ score. Only those "gifted" children who also happen to be blessed with high drive, high resilience, stubbornness regarding failure, extremely intrinsically motivated, or happen to have a special influential "mentor" or MKO (More Knowledgable Other) per Vygotsky, present in their life, or those who also possess the practical and creative skills on top of a high analytical ability, actually come out ahead. There are many, many children who were expected to be great achievers yet fell through the cracks, because we expected their IQ score to carry them through life. These kids end up having far more emotional, social or adjustment problems due to their relative neglect.

Let's be completely honest here. Part of the reason why some researchers focus on testing for the low end of the distribution, i.e. below average, is because it is a stronger predictability group than the high end. As long as the IQ test accurately predicts outcomes for the group you are testing, it is considered valid. I challenge someone to develop an IQ test that targets the upper 5% of the distribution, that can hold together correlations across subscores, and predict future success. Tall order, I know. But that is where discovering the root of creativity lies may help with this.... and one of the reasons I feel it is such an important area of research.

So I leave you with this: what is your opinion regarding high g? A blessing? A curse? An unfair advantage? Do children who are exceptional in one area deserved to be ignored regarding the rest of their development? How important is g in isolation from other traits, such as Creativity and Practicality?

Please comment.

~Andrea Kuszewski

2 Comments

February 7, 2009

Are we as a society increasing the incidence of "disordered traits" by making those people more valuable members of society? Something to think about...

My friend David posted an item on his page that talked of young children writing code for games for the iPhone. This spurred a conversation about my theory of how we as a society may have increased the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder and/or ADHD/ADD genes in the population by the nature of placing a higher value and higher chance of monetary success on the traits in which these individuals possess. I re-posted my comments here to see if anyone wants to join in the conversation. Here was my response:

"Well, at least there are all kinds of job opportunities for those kids with Asperger's Syndrome. I said this last year, and I'll say it again.... the necessity of technology advancement and creative jobs that involve thinking out of the box and operating on a slightly different "thought plane" is creating all kinds of opportunities for those people with ADHD, ADD, Asperger's Syndrome.... people who can't sit still in a cubicle, but thrive in innovative and creative jobs. From an Evolutionary Psychology standpoint, the increased opportunities for these types of people increase their "reproductive fitness level" (more desirable as a mating partner), which in turn perpetuates an increasingly higher level of their genetics in the population gene pool, which in turn perpetuates and increases the chances of "disordered traits" in the population.

So as a society, we are actually increasing the levels of "disordered individuals", but in a supply and demand type of fashion. We have found a way that these traits are valuable, so I am sure that fact alone accounts for some of the increase in "Autism Spectrum Disorders" as well as the increased incidence of ADHD/ADD in the last 10 years.

Just my little theory. I may re-post this on my page to get some feedback on this.... I have been pondering this concept for a few years now....."

End Quote

Anyone is free to comment....

6 Comments

August 21, 2008

Things I miss about Milwaukee...

1. Jazz in the Park on Thursday nights at Cathedral Square Park... with a soft blanket, a nice Pinot, good company, and kicking off my sandals to run my toes through the thick grass while listening to live Jazz. .......sigh......... (and also being mindful of people's ill-behaved dogs who inevitably run across your blanket as soon as you carefully put down your wine glass)

2. Seeing people you have not laid eyes on in ten years at Kennedees EVERY TIME you go there. Seems to be the "reunion re-hook-up" place to be.

3. The Farmer's Market on Saturday mornings at CS Park.... And walking there with the dog, getting a stiff coffee at the Arabica stand, spilling it here and there, stumbling a little, because the dog is pulling at the leash to get at other dogs, and I am still waking up, too tired to really care. And buying fresh flowers and red leaf lettuce. And Buffalo steaks from the guy who looks like Grizzly Adams, towing his cooler-trailer, who likely killed the buffalo with his bare hands.

4. Living in my high-rise apartment downtown at Juneau Village.... with my lake and city view, the grocery store across the street, the gym on the corner, the bars and restaurants a mere block and a half away.

5. Parking my car after I get home from work on Friday, and not having to move it again until Monday.

6. Watching the storms blow in over the industrial area from my apartment wall-sized window, or out on the balcony. Being able to see the dark sheets of rain move across the sky in rhythmic waves... and seeing the returned brightened sky in its wake.

7. Seeing the Love Monkeys play at "Riversplash!", getting silly on stage, playing the tambourine, then turning down marriage proposals (must be my superb tambourine-playing skills). Watching John act like a goon while he sings, and mocking him in public... and seeing him think it's funny.

8. Making a cameo by spontaneously "Guest Bartending" at Mel's with the Love Monkeys after a show.... going home with a few hundred dollars, a pocket full of phone numbers, and some smiling memories.

9. Fireworks over the Summerfest grounds every Saturday night of the summer..... and being able to watch them from my living room window.

10. Summerfest.

11. A different ethic festival every weekend for 1/3 of the year.

12. Being able to see my brothers and sisters pretty much whenever I want.

13. Seeing my nieces and nephews learn and grow, and see the excitement in their face when I come over.

14. Meeting Cat, Tony, Trish, and kids at the Knick for Sunday brunch.... even though little Michael inevitably throws a tantrum of some sort over some ambiguous trifle.

15. Knowing how to get anywhere downtown, and having that labyrinth of one-way streets feel as comfortable and familiar as a favorite t-shirt.

16. My friends.

17. My clients.

18. My family.

19. Going to the Pfister Hotel lobby on a Saturday night for dessert, wine, and live piano.

20. The bar at Mo's Steakhouse..... sitting in a leather wing-back chair with a martini, listening to live piano, played amazingly by a blind man. And the fact that he knows it's me when I walk in by my perfume and the rhythm of my footsteps. AND he plays flawlessly, thick with passion.

21. My favorite look-out spot... the bluff overlooking Lake Michigan, just past McKinley Marina.

22. Being able to get to any of the suburbs from downtown in under 25 minutes. Usually about 17 minutes max.

23. Doing research with Dr Fazio. I miss our long outpourings of personal bits and dreams of the future. (he died before I could ever tell him how important he was in my development as a psychologist and a person.) Thank you, Dr Fazio.

24. Having my clients accept me as one of the family. Feeling the pride of a parent as they progressed and learned new things. Seeing the flicker of insight in their face as a concept came to enlightenment. Hearing one of my first clients speak an entire sentence for the first time with me... asking for some potato chips.... crying with excitement as I ran to get his mom and tell her the news. And bringing potato chips in my bag with me from then on whenever I came over for a therapy session. Seeing him do anything for those potato chips. Knowing that you got through to someone who other people gave up on, revealing the cognition that has always been there, just shackled.

25. Being thanked every day at work for being such a powerful presence in the life of a child that may otherwise have gone years without ever having anyone reach him. Knowing that by breaking convention and taking a chance on your instinct, that a child now is able to communicate to his mother that he loves her, or that he is unhappy, or that he is joyful. And having the parent put complete faith in your methods that were rejected by your coworkers, yet proved fruitful anyway.

26. I miss my old job. Making a difference....sigh....

Post a comment

May 9, 2008

Autism-Schizophrenia link and the relationship to Creativity (part 4)

According to Nettle, autistic traits are in many ways the converse of schizotypal traits in regards to the dimension of divergent thinking. In Schizotypy, the brain takes metaphorical leaps from domain to domain, making remote associations, using a broad attentional set. These are some of the hallmark characteristics of creativity. On the other hand, autistic traits such as narrow interests, literal thinking, and perseverative attention to stimuli seem to be on the other polar end of the axis. The dimension of divergent thinking can be thought of as a "trait spindle" with the Autistic Spectrum on one end, and the Schizophrenic Spectrum on the other. This spindle intersects with other spindles of traits, each having an extreme form on the polar ends.

In this example, the Convergent/Divergent spindle intersects with the Cognitive Control spindle; by plotting the degree of the trait on each dimension, in essence, different combinations and degrees of expression of the genes, you get a visualization of how the different traits in combination represent distinct levels of psychopathology or "giftedness".

By thinking of all traits on a dimension like this, individual differences would result in a scatter plot-type assemblage of data points on various locations on each axis. An individual who has a data point on the extreme high end of Schizotypy, plus a point on the extreme high end of Cognitive Control would be the ideal successfully creative individual. The question now is: what determines where an individual ends up on each axis?

discussion continues in part 5...

Post a comment

May 7, 2008

The future of Creativity research.... and the "Trait Spindle Theory of Creativity" (part 8)

I believe that the real direction that creativity research is going is to look at not only Schizophrenia, but also other forms of psychopathology as well, comparing the differences and similarities in the cognitive functioning and what that implies about the benefits of creative individuals' neuroanatomy.

If you think of every major psychopathological disorder in terms of dimensions, then each major defining feature of a disorder could have its own "trait spindle", having the opposite polar characteristics on each end, similar to the Autism-Schizophrenia paradigm. The intersecting spindle would be one of Cognitive Control, and creativity would then be defined as the excess of the debilitating characteristics on each end of the poles, but paired with high cognitive control on the other axis. This would then give us a design of looking at creativity in multiple domains, with the pathological genes being expressed at the fullest, but with the highest possible cognitive control. So in effect, each negative version of that trait could have an equally balancing positive version of it.

Therefore, creativity could be thought of as "domain-specific-optimal-versions-of-psychopathological-traits", given the element of Cognitive Control.

For example: optimally functional Schizotypy (artistic/lingual creative genius), optimally functional Autism (mathematical genius), optimally functional Depression (extreme sensitivity and empathy...gifted altruistic, interpersonally gifted), and optimally functional Narcissism (extreme confidence and belief in one's abilities... motivational speaker) could all be considered types of creativity.

Cognitive Control is the true "gift", but the gift manifests itself on different domains given the other genetic traits. And each trait, to balance the evolution of those traits, has an opposite expression of it. In this theory, the happenstance of the optimal expression of those debilitating genes gives them the benefit and necessity of remaining in the gene pool, truly a "serendipitous assemblage of madness".

References:
Awh, E., Gehring, W. J. (1999). Nature America
Castner, S., Williams, G. (2007). Tuning the engine of cognition: A focus on NMDA/D1 receptor interactions in prefrontal cortex. Brain and cognition 63, 94-122.
Cohen, J. D., Servan-Schreiber, D. (1992). Context, cortex, and dopamine: A connectionist approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia. Psychological Review 99, 45-77.
Cohen, J. D., Braver, T. S., Brown, J. (2002). Computational perspective on dopamine function in the prefrontal cortex. Cognitive Neuroscience 12, 223-229.
Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1, 1-13.
Eysenck, H. (2003). Creativity, personality, and the convergent-divergent continuum. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes (pp. 95-114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Creativity and Personality. In M. A. Runco (Ed), Creativity Research Handbook. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Fink, A., Grabner, R., Benedek, M., Reishofer, G., Hauswirth, V., Fally, M., Neuper, C., Ebner, F., Neubauer, A. (2008). The creative brain: Investigation of brain activity during creative problem solving by means of EEG and FMRI. Human Brain Mapping
Gabora, L. (2000). The beer can theory of creativity. In: (P. Bently & D. Corne, Eds.) Creative Evolutionary Systems. Morgan Kauffman
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist 5, 444-454
Guilford, J. P. (1962). Creativity: Its measurement and development. In J.J. Parnes & H. F. Harding (Eds), A sourcebook for creative thinking. New York: Scribbners.
Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P., Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve problems with insight. PLoS Biol 2(4): e97
Kaufmann, G. (2003). The effect of mood on creativity in the innovative process. In L. V. Shavinia (Ed.) International handbook on innovation, 191-203. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kinney, D., Richards, R., Lowing, P. A., LeBlanc, D., Zimbalist, M. E., & Harlan, P. (2000-1). Creativity in offspring of schizophrenic and control patients: An adoption study. Creativity Research Journal 13, 17-25.
Lubart, T. I. (1994). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving. 289-332. New York: Academic Press.
Nettle, D., & Clegg, H. (2006). Schizotypy, creativity, and the mating success in humans. Proc. R. Soc. B 273, 611-615 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3349; Published online 29 November 2005. Retrieved 4/05/08.
Reuter, M., Roth, S., Holve, K., & Hennig, J. (2006). Identification of a first candidate gene for creativity: A pilot study. Brain Research.
Runco, M. A., (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity, 40-76. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M. (1993). Operant theories of insight, originality, and creativity. American Behavioral Scientist 37, 54-67.
Runco, M. A., (1986). Flexibility and originality in children's divergent thinking. Journal of Psychology 120, 345-352.
Runco, M. A., (1998). Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration. Creativity Research Journal 1, 1-7
Sass, L. A. & Schuldburg, D. (2000-2001). Introduction to the special issue: Creativity and the schizophrenic spectrum. Creativity Research Journal 13, 55-74.
Standring, S. (2005). Gray's Anatomy: The anatomical basis of clinical practice.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 18, 87-98.
Tan, H. Y., Sust, S., Buckholtz, J., Mattay, V., Meyer- Lindenberg, A., Egan, M., Weinberger, D., Callicott, J. (2006). Dysfunctional prefrontal regional specialization and compensation in schizophrenics. American Journal of Psychiatry 163, 1969-1977.
Tanji, J., Eiji, E. (2008). Role of the lateral prefrontal cortex in executive behavioral control. Physiological Reviews 88, 37-57.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: directional guide and scoring manual. Massachussets: Personal Press.
Vijayraghavan, S., Wang, M., Birnbaum, S., Williams, G., & Arnsten, A. (2007). Inverted- U dopamine D1 receptor actions on prefrontal neurons engaged in working memory. Nature Neuroscience 10, 376-384.

Post a comment

May 7, 2008

Environmental and Evolutionary Perspectives on Creativity (part 7)

Obviously, other factors come into play when speaking of the expression of creativity; the environment has been show to influence the amount of creativity exhibited by individuals. The extent to which someone with "creative potential" (determined by genetic traits) achieves successful creativity can be thought of much like intellectual achievement per Vygotsky's theory of the "Zone of Proximal Development".

According to his theory, the "Zone" is described as "The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers ". He found that the highest level of academic success was achieved when in a nurturing learning setting of peers varying in their abilities, working together in a helpful yet flexible environment. If you look at creativity in this way, an individual may have creative potential as determined by genetics, but the influence of nurturing others and a motivating environment that encourages the development of those traits may have a profound impact on successful products of creativity.

On the converse, a stifling environment that discourages divergence of thought and breaking of convention can do just as much to hinder and stymie the emergence of creativity. Conceptually, a person merely being in the wrong type of environment that does not foster development of creativity could disguise its presence, thus making it difficult to recognize, measure or study. The more we learn about creativity and the more society bends in its demands and expectations of individuals with creative potential, the easier it will be to draw accurate conclusions about its prevalence, heritability, and its value.

From an evolutionary perspective, if the assumption about the Schizophrenia-creativity connection is true, then this may give some insight as to the prevalence of Schizophrenia in the population today. Since a feature of Schizophrenia is a lowered reproductive fitness, a Darwinian expectation would be that the genes for Schizophrenia would have died out over the years as a product of natural selection. But if creativity is merely "optimally functional schizotypy", then those genes would serve a high purpose in society as long as they sometimes expressed themselves as the optimal form of the traits. A mere glimpse into our world's most famous contributors in all areas of innovation and creativity could recognize the reproductive value of continuing on the genes. However, as evidenced by the familial connections to famous creatives like Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Pablo Picasso, Thomas Eakins and others, one can also see that those beneficial "gifted" genes have the possibility of missing the "plastic thingy" and instead manifest as Schizophrenia or other forms of psychopathology. The highest potential for cognitive success seems to have the highest risk for cognitive debilitation, when looking at schizotypal traits. Considering the contributions that those highly creatively gifted individuals have made to the advancement of our world as we know it, evolutionarily speaking, it's worth the risk.

discussion continues in part 8...

Post a comment

May 7, 2008

Can you inherit Creativity? (part 6)

Now that it is clear that dopamine receptor genes have an effect on creativity, what does this imply about the heritability of creativity versus other traits on the Schizophrenia Spectrum? If assumed that creativity and Schizophrenia are linked, that the dopaminergic system as well as the serotenergic system play a role in both, then it would be logical to look at the heritability of schizophrenic traits on a continuum when studying creativity.

The candidate genes found by Reuter for creativity should be investigated as compared to their prevalence in Schizophrenic probands as well as their family members, to see if the "plastic thingy holding the six-pack together" is linked to those genes. This would involve quite a large sample of subjects with many pedigrees in evaluation. In such a complex trait as creativity, the rate of heritability, in my opinion, can only be determined when we look at the heritability of schizotypal traits, then the likelihood of those traits developing into Schizophrenia, and the likelihood that individuals inheriting those traits have an exceptionally functioning PFC. The chance of those scenarios occurring would give an insight into the possibility of inheriting creativity, given the saturation and severity of the schizotypal traits in that lineage.

The advances made in understanding creativity as a phenotype as well as the neuroanatomical and chemical properties of creative cognition that have recently been discovered have set the stage for comparison genetic analysis of this nature, but the field is not quite ready for this task. Once future research linking creativity with forms of psychopathology are able to target more specifically the loci of the distinguishing characteristics separating the two, we will be ready to engage in this challenge. At present, the research in the field of creativity is exploding with possibilities, but we are still in the baby steps of making all of the necessary connections to determine heritability.

discussion continues in part 7...

1 Comment

May 7, 2008

The effect of Dopamine in Creativity and Schizophrenia (part 5)

Since DA is known to play a role in many disorders and functions of the brain, how exactly do we know the role it plays in creativity? Dopamine is thought to determine our perception of personal relevancy in the environment. Too little dopamine and nothing is perceived to relate to us, and we don't pay attention. Too much dopamine and suddenly everything in the environment is personally related to us, and we notice everything (the lack of latent inhibition). In the extreme form, it is referred to as "Dopamine Psychosis" .

Reuter et al., while investigating this dopamine connection to creativity, found that the dopamine receptor gene DRD2 A1 allele was significantly correlated with specific areas of creativity. Taking a sample of 92 subjects, while controlling for intelligence, he tested the dopamine D2 receptor gene (locus: DRD2 TAQ IA) and a serotonergic gene, TPH1 (locus: TPH-A779C) for relationships to creativity. He found that the DRD2 gene was significantly related to verbal creativity and creativity in general, while the TPH1 gene was related to figural creativity. There have been other associations made between the DRD2 allele and intelligence, or tests that measured cognitive function, but this may have actually been an association with creative problem solving, and not intelligence as define by g. In that instance, the DRD2 allele was correlated with visuospatial cognitive ability, which one could also classify as visual creativity, taking into account the threshold of necessary intelligence for creativity, as proposed by Guilford.

The effect of the seretonergic (5-HT) system seems to be important in cognitive functioning, even though the results of this study showed a limited association between the 5-HT system and creativity itself. Studies investigating the effects of combined dopamine and serotonin receptor antagonists given to Schizophrenic patients showed a significant improvement in a wide range of cognitive function including attention, episodic memory, visuomotor speed, and executive function.

What is theorized after looking at the results of this study and comparing them to other studies involving these systems, is that some of the 5-HT effects on cognitive functioning are mediated via an indirect pathway by influencing the activity of the DA system, since it has already been shown that the 5-HT system has an inhibitory effect on the release of dopamine. This combined effect of DA and serotonin together on cognitive function as it relates to creativity and schizophrenia would be a good area for future investigation.

Reuter found that creativity was higher in those individuals with the carriers with the A1 allele of DRD2 TAQ IA, and in carriers of the A allele of the TPH1 A779C. The fact that the DRD2 SNP was associated with verbal creativity, and TPH1 SNP with numeric and figural creativity (as well as both being associated with creativity in general), he postulates that there may be hemispheric-specific influences from these two systems (DRD2 influencing verbal creativity in the left, and TPH1 influencing numeric and figural creativity in the right). Interestingly, neither of these candidate genes correlated with intelligence in this study, although their sample was taken from university students with an average sample IQ of 115, higher than the population average of 100, which may have impacted this result slightly.

discussion continues in part 6...

Post a comment

May 7, 2008

Hemispheric Indicators of Creativity (part 3)

As well as noticing that the functioning of the PFC is poor in Schizophrenics as compared to creative individuals, studies looking at EEGs and fMRIs measuring neural activity and cerebral blood flow have noticed hemispheric differences as well. One of the functions of the PFC is switching back and forth between attentional sets, which is of utter importance to creativity.

Studies measuring cortical activity during semantic tasks have found that while normal individuals employ both hemispheres during these tasks, Schizophrenics favor the right hemisphere ("unusual" verbal associations), with little activity in the left hemisphere ("usual" associations). Creative individuals, however, not only show activity in both hemispheres, but increased activity in the right hemisphere, as well as increased inter-hemispheric transfer as compared to normal individuals and Schizophrenics. This activity is thought to be making better use of semantic networks to make both remote and close associations.

This faster, higher frequency inter-hemispheric transfer of neural activity in the brains of creative individuals is thought to account for the flexibility, or ability to switch from conventional to unconventional thinking, while maintaining the ability to make judgments about those thoughts in the working memory, leading to the feature of appropriateness.

discussion continues in part 4....

Post a comment

May 7, 2008

The Genetics of Creativity: A Serendipitous Assemblage of Madness (part 1)

Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Virginia Woolf, Pablo Picasso.... What do all of these famous contributors to society have in common? Other than the fact that they are no longer around, they all bring to mind the word "creativity" or "genius". While they were all tremendously successful and innovative, their gifts lie in different domains. Creativity is not limited to the visual arts, or the language arts. Creativity is a syndrome that can be found in every domain: science, visual art, music, math. Creativity is a necessary component of thinking in order to bring advancement of ideas and progression to their prospective fields.

There is another commonality between the famous "creatives" mentioned. Not only were they all extremely talented and innovative, but they all had familial links to psychopathology. Einstein's son was Schizophrenic, as was Picasso's mother. Virginia Woolf committed suicide, and it was suspected that Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder was present in her family tree. One could wonder how such creative geniuses had a sibling with Schizophrenia, or mothers with Bipolar Disorder. How could that gene pool produce such effectively and successfully creative individuals?

For eons there has been dispute about the definition of creativity, but most individuals studying it today have come to agree on certain components of cognition that are present and necessary for creative thinking. These include divergent thinking, the ability to make remote associations between ideas, the ability to switch back and forth between conventional and unconventional ideation (flexibility in thinking), and perhaps most importantly, to generate original, novel ideas that are appropriate to the task at hand. Other features of the creative personality include a willingness to take risks, and tendencies for deliberate, functional non-conformity.

It was once theorized that creativity and intelligence were one and the same, or at least strongly linked to each other. However, Guilford found that intelligence was only correlated with creativity up to an IQ of around 120. In scores upward of 120-130, creativity no longer shows a significant correlation. This is called the "Threshold Theory of Creativity", which states that there is a necessary and sufficient threshold of general intelligence to generate creative processing, but after that threshold, IQ does not show an advantage in creative ideation. In fact, an IQ that is too high may actually hinder creativity, limiting the flexibility of divergent thought and solutions.

The concept of generating novel ideas that are appropriate to the situation at hand seems to be the key to unlocking the mystery of creativity. A person can generate many novel ideas, making multitudes of remote associations, but if the ideas are inappropriate to the situation, they are not considered creative. Creative ideas must serve a useful purpose, and must be adaptive concerning task restraints. Gabora made an analogy that became known as the "Beer Can Theory of Creativity", in regards to creative cognition and appropriateness of the ideas. If one has all of the divergence of thought but no cognitive control, it is like "having all the cans of beer in a 6-pack, but the plastic thingy holding them all together is missing". It is that necessary element of cognitive control that pulls all of the novel ideas together, checks them for appropriateness to the situation, and determines if they are good ideas to pursue.

For over thirty years, researchers of creativity had been trying to come up with and agree upon a concrete phenotype of the creative individual. This says a lot to the complexity of this "syndrome" or "trait cluster" that has intrigued individuals in all areas of research and society in general. In a way, the first several decades of research in creativity served the sole purpose of laying down the groundwork for investigating the underlying neurological and molecular components of creativity, by identifying the syndrome in ways that can be studied effectively in a laboratory. We as researchers of creativity now need to focus on the neurological and biological road map to creative ideation. We need to determine how much of a role is played by genetics versus the environment, and what implications are made as to the heritability and maximization of these abilities. As we approach even more exciting times of genomic discovery and cognitive/behavioral mapping, the field of creativity research is nearing the possibility of finally unraveling the mysteries of the creative genius, and shedding some insight into the heritability of these complex traits, and the relationship of creativity to psychopathology.

discussion continues in part 2...

References:
Awh, E., Gehring, W. J. (1999). Nature America
Castner, S., Williams, G. (2007). Tuning the engine of cognition: A focus on NMDA/D1 receptor interactions in prefrontal cortex. Brain and cognition 63, 94-122.
Cohen, J. D., Servan-Schreiber, D. (1992). Context, cortex, and dopamine: A connectionist approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia. Psychological Review 99, 45-77.
Cohen, J. D., Braver, T. S., Brown, J. (2002). Computational perspective on dopamine function in the prefrontal cortex. Cognitive Neuroscience 12, 223-229.
Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1, 1-13.
Eysenck, H. (2003). Creativity, personality, and the convergent-divergent continuum. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes (pp. 95-114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Creativity and Personality. In M. A. Runco (Ed), Creativity Research Handbook. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Fink, A., Grabner, R., Benedek, M., Reishofer, G., Hauswirth, V., Fally, M., Neuper, C., Ebner, F., Neubauer, A. (2008). The creative brain: Investigation of brain activity during creative problem solving by means of EEG and FMRI. Human Brain Mapping
Gabora, L. (2000). The beer can theory of creativity. In: (P. Bently & D. Corne, Eds.) Creative Evolutionary Systems. Morgan Kauffman
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist 5, 444-454
Guilford, J. P. (1962). Creativity: Its measurement and development. In J.J. Parnes & H. F. Harding (Eds), A sourcebook for creative thinking. New York: Scribbners.
Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P., Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve problems with insight. PLoS Biol 2(4): e97
Kaufmann, G. (2003). The effect of mood on creativity in the innovative process. In L. V. Shavinia (Ed.) International handbook on innovation, 191-203. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kinney, D., Richards, R., Lowing, P. A., LeBlanc, D., Zimbalist, M. E., & Harlan, P. (2000-1). Creativity in offspring of schizophrenic and control patients: An adoption study. Creativity Research Journal 13, 17-25.
Lubart, T. I. (1994). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving. 289-332. New York: Academic Press.
Nettle, D., & Clegg, H. (2006). Schizotypy, creativity, and the mating success in humans. Proc. R. Soc. B 273, 611-615 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3349; Published online 29 November 2005. Retrieved 4/05/08.
Reuter, M., Roth, S., Holve, K., & Hennig, J. (2006). Identification of a first candidate gene for creativity: A pilot study. Brain Research.
Runco, M. A., (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity, 40-76. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M. (1993). Operant theories of insight, originality, and creativity. American Behavioral Scientist 37, 54-67.
Runco, M. A., (1986). Flexibility and originality in children's divergent thinking. Journal of Psychology 120, 345-352.
Runco, M. A., (1998). Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration. Creativity Research Journal 1, 1-7
Sass, L. A. & Schuldburg, D. (2000-2001). Introduction to the special issue: Creativity and the schizophrenic spectrum. Creativity Research Journal 13, 55-74.
Standring, S. (2005). Gray's Anatomy: The anatomical basis of clinical practice.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 18, 87-98.
Tan, H. Y., Sust, S., Buckholtz, J., Mattay, V., Meyer- Lindenberg, A., Egan, M., Weinberger, D., Callicott, J. (2006). Dysfunctional prefrontal regional specialization and compensation in schizophrenics. American Journal of Psychiatry 163, 1969-1977.
Tanji, J., Eiji, E. (2008). Role of the lateral prefrontal cortex in executive behavioral control. Physiological Reviews 88, 37-57.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: directional guide and scoring manual. Massachussets: Personal Press.
Vijayraghavan, S., Wang, M., Birnbaum, S., Williams, G., & Arnsten, A. (2007). Inverted- U dopamine D1 receptor actions on prefrontal neurons engaged in working memory. Nature Neuroscience 10, 376-384.

Post a comment

May 7, 2008

The Prefrontal Cortex and Cognitive Control.... the key to Successful Creativity vs Schizophrenia (part 2)

It has been proposed in recent years that there is a strong genetic link between Schizophrenia and creativity. The Schizophrenic Spectrum of traits includes delusional thinking (divergent, loose associations), jumping from idea to idea (flexibility), and over-inclusive thinking patterns (attention to irrelevant stimuli and detail, or lack of latent inhibition). What distinguishes these traits from creativity? To sum up a complex notion in simple terms: Cognitive Control.

As mentioned earlier, many famous creative individuals have had familial links to different types of psychopathology; one of the most heavily recognized in relation to creativity is schizophrenia. Schizophrenia provides a good model for comparison when looking at creativity, because while the schizotypal personality embodies many of the essential elements to creative thinking, Schizophrenia is lacking in one key area, which is cognitive control.

The next logical step in determining the location and features of the distinguishing traits that separate creativity from Schizophrenia is to go to the locus of cognitive control and compare the differences in those two populations. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) has received a great deal of attention in the recent years of creativity research, since this area is thought to be essential to the processing of complex social information and where the judgments about appropriateness of behavior are made. Schizophrenics typically have damage to or a poor functioning PFC, which is thought to contribute to some of the symptoms of disorganization of thought and lack of a "social filtration system" for their ideas.

Since the PFC functions in working memory, decision-making, and intellectual function, it would make sense to investigate the role it plays in creative thought. The dorsolateral PFC specifically is involved in working memory and flexible problem solving, both of which are essential to creative thinking. This means an individual can maintain a working knowledge of information in their conscious that is readily available for mental evaluation. In this process, the DLPFC serves as a regulator of intellectual function, giving one the ability to switch back and forth between attentional sets, like mental multi-tasking.

Eysenck proposed that creativity was linked to psychoticism, which we now refer to as schizotypy or schizotypal traits. He theorized that a person's DNA was linked to how their body processed and utilized dopamine, dopamine availability was linked to a lack of latent inhibition, and lack of latent inhibition was linked to psychoticism. He used this diagram in his literature:

DNA --> DA (D2) --> (lack of) Latent Inhibition --> P (Psychoticism)

He attributed the lack of latent inhibition in learning tasks to be the result of an over-inclusive thinking style. This over-inclusive thinking is the trait that he claimed was heritable, not Schizophrenia and not creativity . He believes that a person's availability of and function of dopamine receptors was the determining factor in whether or not the inherited inclusive thinking style would be beneficial or a debilitation. Latent inhibition is thought to be reduced by dopamine agonists, and increased by dopamine antagonists.

The importance of dopamine in creativity is a logical assumption considering activity of the mesocortical dopamine system is essential to a properly functioning PFC. Without the executive control over intellectual processes, the traits that would be an asset to creative innovator become instead dysfunctional schizotypy. Taking Eysenck's theory one step further, adding the effect of high or low functioning PFC, we get a spectrum of schizotypy ranging from Highly Creative to Schizophrenia.

Sass and Shuldberg used the term "Schizophrenic Spectrum" when discussing the dimensional view of schizophrenic traits. They found that on a continuum, the highest amount of creative achievement is most likely with one to two indicators of schizotypy. While schizotypal traits seem to be a creative asset, the complete manifestation of Schizophrenia sees a decline in successful creativity. This is indicative of just how important a balance in the PFC is necessary in when an individual has the genetics of schizotypal traits.

discussion continues in part 3...

Post a comment