Creativity Potentially Linked To Schizophrenia

mcgrew writes "New Scientist is reporting that creativity may be linked to schizophrenia via a common gene. Szabolcs Kéri, a researcher at Semmelweis University in Budapest, Hungary, carried a study of creative people. 'Kéri examined a gene involved in brain development called neuregulin 1, which previous studies have linked to a slightly increased risk of schizophrenia. Moreover, a single DNA letter mutation that affects how much of the neuregulin 1 protein is made in the brain has been linked to psychosis, poor memory and sensitivity to criticism. About 50 per cent of healthy Europeans have one copy of this mutation, while 15 per cent possess two copies. People with two copies of the neuregulin 1 mutation — about 12 per cent of the study participants — tended to score notably higher on these measures of creativity, compared with other volunteers with one or no copy of the mutation. Those with one copy were also judged to be more creative, on average, than volunteers without the mutation.' They hypothesize that people with this gene with high IQs are creative, while those with lower IQs are simply prone to the hallucinations that characterize the disease."

Geniuses Don't Hallucinate?

[flaming error]

They hypothesize that people with this gene with high IQs are creative, while those with lower IQs are simply prone to the hallucinations

Why do they hypothesize that? There are plenty of geniuses with mental health issues. Take John Nash [wikipedia.org].

FAIL

[fuzzylollipop]

schizophrenic != multiple personalities

Re:So they are saying...

[Swizec]

My cat thinks of me as her lord and master, the toughest cat in the street, the big lion of the pack, whatever. The way I make her realise this is by NOT treating her as I would a child. She is by no means human, which means I am freely allowed to bite her, push her off the table, or thwap her on the nose when she misbehaves.

Try teaching a human child the meaning of the phrase "Get off the table!" with pavlovian principles and you'll see how long it takes you to get a visit from social services.

We still have a fulfilling relationship my cat and I, just unlike a spoilt human, she actually obeys orders.

Re:Crazy Chef Sato

[hedwards]

That wouldn't be correct. It's not gibberish, the way that it looks, it's not that much different than speaking perl rather than English. It means something to the person, and the connections between the phrases has definite meaning, it's just meant for other people to not understand what it is that they're saying. But simultaneously, they'll frequently want for the person they're speaking to to be able to understand it.

I've had full out psychotic breaks where the doctors involved referred to my diagnosis as paranoid schizophrenic, although it's a bit dubious since it did go away eventually and turned out to be the result of abuse. But, it's the same set of skills that I use for forming elaborate arguments, writing poetry and dong any number of other things, it's just much lower level than what most people are used to.

Probably the best way to think of it is that it's sort of like how a lot of geeks communicate, except on steroids from a completely incompatible point of view. If you haven't got the key to unlocking the language you're probably not going to get it, but it's rarely actually gibberish. The possible exception is the times when it's a story involving persecution, that's kind of hit or miss depending upon the circumstance.

Re:So they are saying...

[Belial6]

You THINK you can tell the difference. Your posts clearly states otherwise.

Re:Crocodiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - that is one of the most blatant pieces of PR bullshit I have ever read! Excellent use of "scientists from XYZ" say this, without any reference to a specific person or even university. The use of the second person plural in the middle though really ruins the illusion that the article is a well researched independent piece of journalism. Then to finish off with such an obvious link to the website after saying that both Chinese athletes and the mysterious "scientists from Cambridge" recommend it, was really too over the top.

Re:Makes sense of a sort

[voidphoenix]

Personality disorders aren't genetic. There may be an underlying predisposition to stress or poor coping mechanisms, but personality disorders are not genetic in nature. They're caused primarily by environmental factors

Right, and the notable differences in brain morphology are merely due to "environmental" factors.

and they're definitely not mental illness in a technical sense.

How about this [wikipedia.org] and this? [wikipedia.org] Those are extremely technical.

They aren't treatable via medication

...

Medications aren't likely to ever help out much.

Have you ever been diagnosed for a mental disorder and prescribed medication? I have, and it makes a world of difference. I know other people who have, and they concur. The meds can mean the difference between being able to live a productive life and being locked down in a padded cell. You don't know what you're talking about.

and even the as yet unproven brain chemistry explanation of mental illness doesn't apply.

...

Personality disorders are better thought of as a culture that's unique the the person and not to the people around which the person is living. It's a systematic adjustment that the brain makes to cope with adverse conditions and it's not something which can be readily separated from the individual's self. As opposed to mental illnesses where people will frequently have periods, however brief, of remission.

Citations, please. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.