Link between creativity & mental illness

[nymph817]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/world/the-dark-side-of-creativity-vincent-van-gogh/

Writers were a staggering 121% more likely to suffer from the condition, and nearly 50% more likely to commit suicide than the general population. (emphasis mine)

http://photo4.ask.fm/810/751/780/1650003014-1q7mmdt-kch5tqeool3c9da/preview/going_insane___todd_by_faithandmusicd1mwtpz.jpg

Oh crap ! I am so screwed !

 

[JKendallDane]

It's my firm belief there is somewhat of a link between mental disorders and creativity. Must they automatically go hand-in-hand? No, but there is overwhelming evidence of a connection in many, many cases. Do you have to be "a little on the crazy side" to be successfully creative as an author? Perhaps. It certainly doesn't hurt any for your M&M bag to be missing all the green ones when you are writing erotica.

I was diagnosed bipolar (along with ADHD and OCD which is a real fun combo) a little over three years ago. That diagnosis was something my doctors said should have been caught while I was in high school more than 35 years earlier, or by my sophomore year of college at the latest. The wild mood swings and occasional suicidal tendencies alone were giant red flags that everyone just overlooked. Then came thirty years littered with just walking away from high profile and high paying positions in corporate America. More red flags that nobody paid any attention to either.

The manic part of the disease is still something I fight with constantly. It shows up in many parts of my life and very noticeably in my writing efforts. I can get on writing binges where nothing else matters and I peck away at the keyboard for days on end. When the Muse finally feeds me more creativity than I can handle, I have to be careful to not slip away into the downward side of mania and become depressed to the point where I have no desire at all to even open up a work in process file, much less add to it. Manic depression is probably one of the top reasons the term "writer's block" gets used...it sounds so much better than "I'm depressed and just don't give a fuck about writing right now."

The biggest problem, for me anyway, is that tends to be when the creative part of the brain refuses to shut down and more and more plot bunnies squirt out that have to be caged up, chased off into the meadow to live on their own, or killed off. Once you cage them up, you feel as if have to occasionally feed them, which results in having a couple dozen (or couple hundred) stories in various stages of completion. While setting everything aside and scratching one of the plot bunny's ears may be one of the ways to drag yourself out of the depression, it also sets you up for it to hit again once you are back on track...you make the mistake of opening up the plot bunny file to add something new to it and see all those bunnies wanting attention too. It can become a vicious circle with ugly side effects.

I just look at the idea of mental disorders and creativity as "cause and effect" that sometimes is more on the "effect and cause" side of the ledger.

.

 

[Messier82]

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage a view that persists because a lot of depressed people all get together and start agreeing with each other - and other people just can't be bothered intervening and shattering their small happiness.

I really - REALLY - don't think you can demonstrate any kind of direct causal linkage or even statistical one between the neurochemistry of depression, and successful and commercially-useful creativity. Far from it.

And I wonder how many people commenting thus far that there IS or might be a connection have ever actually been professionally successful in a creative field, and I mean for serious money.

I'm tending to agree, 'misery loves company', but that doesn't make it right.

I don't think the likes of Michael Connelly, Lee Child, Janet Evanovich etc etc are likely to be dropping in on us here, all have been very successful and I've never heard about any of them having mental health problems. Stephen King has been open about his alcohol and drug issues but these are no worse than many non-creative people might experience.

Historically we could look at Shakespeare or Mark Twain, no evidence of problems there. In the world of Art, look at Picasso. His output certain looks like it might have its basis in a disturbed mental state, but as far as I know he didn't have any real mental health problems.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I never met any mentally ill talent. But I experienced real mental illnesses NOT real talents with club feet and cauliflower ears. One of my patients wrote country & western music AND exposed himself to women. He's one of the walking wounded.

The mentally ill are too disorganized to be functional or creative but most us are afflicted with Adjustment Disorders. That is, when the going gets tough, the tough get (fill in the blank): drunk, high, pissed, sleepy, depressed, euphoric, whatever. But the episode is short lived tho more enduring than normal passing affects. The buzz and the blues don't move in, they ruin or make your day then go away.

 

[Bramblethorn]

If you read the link I provided it says studies show there is more depression among writers than other groups.

erm, this link? As far as I can see it says "there are no firm statistics on how many writers experience depression... the link between writers and depression is not written in stone".

No mention of studies at all. It quotes one psychiatry professor who "has reported" that writers have depression more often than non-writers, but that's not the same as "studies show".

edit: although the Swedish study link you posted later does discuss a study. Interesting reading.

 

[karaline]

I haven't read all the responses on this thread, so sorry if i'm repeating anyone.

I happened to listen to a podcast on this and other subjects recently, it was fascinating and it can be found here

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ence-weekly-neuroscience-nature-of-creativity

if you don't want to listen to it the short answer -according to them, is no. But they were talking about creativity generally not authors in particular

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Writing as therapy is well known. And so is art generally. It's a kinda backward linkage if you really insist on finding one.

But I think it's difficult to presume that creativity, as such, is necessarily linked to depression - I find that very hard to comprehend in terms of why it should be so 'even if it were,' so to speak.

I mean there may be some sort of argument possible about whether the search for breakthrough solutions from a position of despair could turn on the taps of some deep flow of energy...

This is hardly going to apply to those people who are excited or thrilled about life or their particular life or various aspects of life that interest them to the stage where they simply must put something down in writing. And then once you stick the phrase 'mental illness' side-by-side with 'creativity' it suggests some fundamental natural logic about the undesirability of change or innovation, and this is altogether a very strange proposition because for one thing, it is highly political of an idea and we all know that conservatives, be they religious or secular do not make up a majority but only half of the franchised bell-ends (no pejorative intended) of the social normal distribution curve.

And for the second thing progressive change and innovation are socially and economically desirable things; it's not going to be 'mental illness' that presages 'creativity!!'

If something so far from functionality at any level, it is not 'creative' it is bizarre. Seeing things in strange, non-normative ways or because of a serious dysfunction or pathology is not going to lead a person to 'creativity' - just to outright 'being different.' And being so different that you become pathologically socially isolated (mental illness), might make some people's response self-involvement and becoming totally withdrawn.

Yes, if there is 'pain' (IE a pathology), it might cause a person to write as a form of energy disposal. But to get to genuine creativity from mere 'energy disposal' are two entirely different things, two different tasks.

Creativity is about making a real thing appear where there wasn't anything before - 'real' includes intellectually real, emotionally real, psychic-ly real, functionally real, and also potentially physically real. Just repeating one's inward feelings and suffering in plain words is not creativity, it's reporting.

Creativity is a special kind of act, with vague but nevertheless actual, 'rules and structures' some of which include no rules and free structures.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

If you read the link I provided it says studies show there is more depression among writers than other groups.

Which isn't causal. Depressed people avoid human contact and generally have solitary hobbies. Writing is a solitary hobby. You can write and post or sell and never meet a soul. Other forms of creativity demand more human interaction - music is often a group activity, painting and sculpting require meeting with a viewing audience if you want any acclaim.

Sorry, not convinced.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Writing as therapy is well known. And so is art generally. It's a kinda backward linkage if you really insist on finding one.

But I think it's difficult to presume that creativity, as such, is necessarily linked to depression - I find that very hard to comprehend in terms of why it should be so 'even if it were,' so to speak.

I mean there may be some sort of argument possible about whether the search for breakthrough solutions from a position of despair could turn on the taps of some deep flow of energy...

This is hardly going to apply to those people who are excited or thrilled about life or their particular life or various aspects of life that interest them to the stage where they simply must put something down in writing. And then once you stick the phrase 'mental illness' side-by-side with 'creativity' it suggests some fundamental natural logic about the undesirability of change or innovation, and this is altogether a very strange proposition because for one thing, it is highly political of an idea and we all know that conservatives, be they religious or secular do not make up a majority but only half of the franchised bell-ends (no pejorative intended) of the social normal distribution curve.

And for the second thing progressive change and innovation are socially and economically desirable things; it's not going to be 'mental illness' that presages 'creativity!!'

If something so far from functionality at any level, it is not 'creative' it is bizarre. Seeing things in strange, non-normative ways or because of a serious dysfunction or pathology is not going to lead a person to 'creativity' - just to outright 'being different.' And being so different that you become pathologically socially isolated (mental illness), might make some people's response self-involvement and becoming totally withdrawn.

Yes, if there is 'pain' (IE a pathology), it might cause a person to write as a form of energy disposal. But to get to genuine creativity from mere 'energy disposal' are two entirely different things, two different tasks.

Creativity is about making a real thing appear where there wasn't anything before - 'real' includes intellectually real, emotionally real, psychic-ly real, functionally real, and also potentially physically real. Just repeating one's inward feelings and suffering in plain words is not creativity, it's reporting.

Creativity is a special kind of act, with vague but nevertheless actual, 'rules and structures' some of which include no rules and free structures.

99% of the real creativity in the world is getting outta bed to go milk the cows and tripping over a different way to do it better.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

And then once you stick the phrase 'mental illness' side-by-side with 'creativity' it suggests some fundamental natural logic about the undesirability of change or innovation, and this is altogether a very strange proposition because for one thing, it is highly political of an idea and we all know that conservatives, be they religious or secular do not make up a majority but only half of the franchised bell-ends (no pejorative intended) of the social normal distribution curve.

And for the second thing progressive change and innovation are socially and economically desirable things; it's not going to be 'mental illness' that presages 'creativity!!'

It's important to think about history when evaluating these issues. For a particular faction -- I won't use the term "conservatives", because the word has acquired so many different meanings as to become almost useless, just like "liberal" -- the golden age of society was the feudal system, where the "1%" enjoyed unchallenged rule and the remaining 99% had the same political rights as the livestock. This idyllic, bucolic paradise for the 1% was severely threatened by Renaissance, which produced exactly the effect that you describe: creativity came to be thought of as an inherently human trait, which made every human precious and deserving of fundamental rights. It also sparked economic progress which threatened the old, static, "sustainable" order. Consequently, the 1% has been searching for ways ever since to put a damper on the social effects of creativity. Relegating it to some form of madness makes it, in effect, otherworldly, and decouples it from social change.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

It's important to think about history when evaluating these issues. For a particular faction -- I won't use the term "conservatives", because the word has acquired so many different meanings as to become almost useless, just like "liberal" -- the golden age of society was the feudal system, where the "1%" enjoyed unchallenged rule and the remaining 99% had the same political rights as the livestock. This idyllic, bucolic paradise for the 1% was severely threatened by Renaissance, which produced exactly the effect that you describe: creativity came to be thought of as an inherently human trait, which made every human precious and deserving of fundamental rights. It also sparked economic progress which threatened the old, static, "sustainable" order. Consequently, the 1% has been searching for ways ever since to put a damper on the social effects of creativity. Relegating it some form of madness makes it, in effect, otherworldly, and decouples it from social change.

Political change happens following technological changes that increase expression, increase wealth, and reduce toil. Since the 1980s the elites have conspired to limit wealth and capitalism inorder to suppress political and economic competition.

 

[Sir Victor]

Do you think it's true that there is a common link between depression and writers? It seems that so many of my favorite writers have killed themselves or have serious depression. I have been writing stories and poems since I was 16 and I also have really bad depression and anxiety. However, I do know that in my case it is also genetics because I have an aunt who had depression and epilepsy and she killed herself. Several people on both sides of my family also suffer from mental illness.

I'm sorry if the post is morose, it's just been on my mind lately and it really feels like a curse that artists have, to be so creative yet have so much hidden pain.

Most say that there is a link.
Racing mind makes a lot of associations that spark creativity.

 

[redzinger]

My first stories were fantasies, as life at the time was rather shit.

Then it got even more shit and writing was an escape.

Then it got shitterer, and I stopped writing for months while I hid away from the world.

I write now as I can't do a desk job any more. So it's my only option.

On a side note, when I've been on meds over the years (diazepam, amitriptyline, codeine, etc), my creativity and desire to write usually vanished.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Political change happens following technological changes that increase expression, increase wealth, and reduce toil. Since the 1980s the elites have conspired to limit wealth and capitalism inorder to suppress political and economic competition.

James, both Capitalism and Communism advertise that they will bring about change and progress, but they don't necessarily deliver. The only system with an historical track record is the American approach, which is sadly dead and buried in this country (but alive and well in Asia.) It requires a strong central government that will use its monopoly over the creation of credit to ensure that credit is channeled into big projects which are technologically progressive, and that credit is kept out of the hands of financial parasites. Ideally, to make this work, you need a republican form of government with a highly educated and engaged citizenry. Libertarians do not get this at all.

Now, to segue back on-topic, I would argue that living in a nation which has an exciting sense of mission is a far better stimulus to creativity than the exorcism of one's own demons. I expect to see a real flowering of the arts in China in the years to come. I also think that the people who live in a nation that is really progressing are less likely to experience mental illness. Real-world hopelessness is undoubtedly a contributing factor to depression.

 

[JKendallDane]

My first stories were fantasies, as life at the time was rather shit.

Then it got even more shit and writing was an escape.

Then it got shitterer, and I stopped writing for months while I hid away from the world.

I write now as I can't do a desk job any more. So it's my only option.

On a side note, when I've been on meds over the years (diazepam, amitriptyline, codeine, etc), my creativity and desire to write usually vanished.

That was one of the reasons I told the doctor where she could wedge the zombie meds she wanted me to stay on.

It wasn't just the desire to write being gone, it was having my typical day turned into waking up...eventually, drink a few cups of coffee, and spend whatever hours I was going to have my eyes open doing nothing but vegging in front of the TV. The entire desire to do more than breathe and occasionally eat was gone.

.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I haven't read all the responses on this thread, so sorry if i'm repeating anyone.

I happened to listen to a podcast on this and other subjects recently, it was fascinating and it can be found here

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ence-weekly-neuroscience-nature-of-creativity

if you don't want to listen to it the short answer -according to them, is no. But they were talking about creativity generally not authors in particular

One of the speakers, Dr. Anna Abraham, sort of confirms a hunch I had expressed earlier, that mental illness could be marginally helpful to creativity by counteracting formal-logical thinking which tends to suppress creativity. The way Dr. Abraham puts it, creative activity and some sorts of mental illness share a "tolerance for ambiguity," which is highly significant. Ambiguity is necessary for metaphor, and metaphor is the midwife for new ideas.

 

[redzinger]

That was one of the reasons I told the doctor where she could wedge the zombie meds she wanted me to stay on.

It wasn't just the desire to write being gone, it was having my typical day turned into waking up...eventually, drink a few cups of coffee, and spend whatever hours I was going to have my eyes open doing nothing but vegging in front of the TV. The entire desire to do more than breathe and occasionally eat was gone.

.

Yep. I was taking amitriptyline as a pain management tool, not as an anti-depressant, so was on about a tenth of the dose. It was still enough for me to sleep for about 48 hours straight. I halved the dose again, but just couldn't cope with it. I was an utter zombie.

24 hours after coming out of hospital after my last hip op, I stopped taking the codeine as I was fed up the constipation and other side effects. I'd rather pain than constant fogginess and growing headache from being blocked up.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Pain Management course I did last year was how they advocated reducing medication across the board. In the past, I've had several rather vocal disagreements with GPs about my refusal to take anti-depressants. I'm so glad I stuck to my guns, as I've read since about how bloody difficult it is to get off the things. Mine is a reactive depression - I have a friend who I'm not convinced won't top himself one day as the Black Dog is almost constantly in his back garden. Fighting to continue in those circumstances is true bravery.

Anyway, we also learnt that a lot of meds make you stoooooopid. Or 'mentally slow'. So, if you have a job which involves mental agility and find your performance is impacted by the meds, you're not going to want to take them, are you? Vicious circle, etc.

 

[nymph817]

Yep. I was taking amitriptyline as a pain management tool, not as an anti-depressant, so was on about a tenth of the dose. ... we also learnt that a lot of meds make you stoooooopid. Or 'mentally slow'. So, if you have a job which involves mental agility and find your performance is impacted by the meds, you're not going to want to take them, are you? Vicious circle, etc.

I know there was one anti-psychotic medication I took that was impossible to get used to. I kept falling down, right where I was walking, asleep. When I was awake, I was STOOPID as you say, RedZinger. I could not think clearly and really had no idea where I was or who I was.

Today I'm on Seroquel today, and lemme tell ya, it WORKS. It's very good. It keeps the hallucinations and demons at bay. I don't have depression, and while I'm not sharp like a tack like I used to be, I can still find my way around new situations.

There is one thing I read about it though from a different website. They said it is DREAMERS medication. And boy are they not kidding ! I have VERY vivid dreams at night with it, sometimes 6-8. And they are so detailed and so intense I write them all down in my dream diary (not on this site).

So if you are having problems with depression, mental illness, or schizophrenia, you might talk to your doctor about Seroquel. I've been on it for years and I must say - it WORKS.

 

[Hypoxia]

Mental illness is not fun. It's not like, "Rich people are eccentric, poor people are crazy, hah hah." Mental illness is debilitating. The sufferer cannot function. We likely all have various mental *disorders* that bend us in ways we don't like -- I could do without certain obsessions, etc -- but we mostly don't act to imperil ourselves or others. We continue to function adequately.

Those with severe mental illness are NOT creative. If our "fevered brains" drive us to create (write, perform, record, etc) and we do not kill or torture anyone in the process then we are still functioning. Hint: 'Normal' is a statistical abstraction. Nobody is normal; or rather, nutz is normal, and everybody is nutz to some extent. (Or quite stupid,) Yes, we feel great anxieties and shit. We get medicated and shit. We can maybe learn and/or be treated to function better. Creative folks may or may not function better -- and a 'cure' need not kill creativity. Unless it kills the creator.

 

[HurtsSoGood]

Pity those of us who have serious depression and anxiety, with a father who had epilepsy, and are solitary loners who enjoy drugs (cannabis & LSD) and booze, but are lousy authors.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

One of the speakers, Dr. Anna Abraham, sort of confirms a hunch I had expressed earlier, that mental illness could be marginally helpful to creativity by counteracting formal-logical thinking which tends to suppress creativity. The way Dr. Abraham puts it, creative activity and some sorts of mental illness share a "tolerance for ambiguity," which is highly significant. Ambiguity is necessary for metaphor, and metaphor is the midwife for new ideas.

My word for it is CONFOUNDING. My brain naturally senses alternative meaning within experience. If anything has a dual meaning I'll find it. And NEW often exists within ambiguity.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

The tortured artist is a bit of a cliche, there's plenty of successful creative people who don't suffer from clinical depression.

You mean those normal, well-adjusted authors...those are the weird ones, man. Joe Average gives me the creeps with his...general normality.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, Lord, JBJ has changed his account name again. Perhaps Laurel wasn't amused with LAURELSBRAIN.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Oh, Lord, JBJ has changed his account name again. Perhaps Laurel wasn't amused with LAURELSBRAIN.

My idea, Floyd.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Ah well, you can tell Jimi's playing just from listening to his guitar...

"Political change happens following technological change..."

I have discussions with a few people actively engaged in politics and who recently seem to worry a lot about the inability of society to find some means for significant political change. I try, but I find it very hard to suggest to them that indeed you have to wait for some kind of massive technological leap ahead, without which there will be no political change. I'm afraid I view this as indeed a fact, and one that most people don't want to hear.

iPads and the internet IS significant technological change, but it hasn't as yet found it's talons...

The key technology for change does need to be able to kill a bunch of people: the crossbow, 'Greek fire,' dynamite, the bomb, and so on.