The Genetics of Creativity

A Serendipitous Assemblage of Madness

Andrea Kuszewski*

Working Paper No. 58.

ISSN: 1692-9667

March, 1, 2009
www.grupometodo.org

Abstract

Creativity is a subject that has been relatively neglected in psychological research until recently. The
difficulty in defining and measuring creativity has been a contributing factor to the small amount of
research in this area to date. Recent interest in creativity is the link to psychopathology, which has
sparked new methods of investigation into the nature of this syndrome, including MRI, PET, EEG, and
neuroanatomical studies. Cognitive and Behavioral tasks are used in conjunction with these testing
methods, which have allowed the possibility of molecular genetic research to probe the question of the
heritability of creativity. These advancements in the methods in which we now define and measure
creativity have brought us to an exciting time of learning about the true nature of creativity and its
relationship to forms of psychopathology.

*Graduate student in the Experimental Psychology Department at Case Western Reserve University. akuszewski@gmail.com -
amk@case.edu.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1393603

Método Working Papers.
No. 58.
March, 1, 2009.
Methodology Area

© Andrea Kuszewski

The Genetics of Creativity: A Serendipitous Assemblage of Madness

Ilustrations by Andrea Kuszewski.

Text, audio and video included in this publication are protected by copyright laws and may be
reproduced only if the author and the editor are referenced and quoted.

© Método Foundation.
Phone in Colombia: +5714005765
Phone in the United States: +17177983124
2009. Copyright.
First edition, 2009.
Printed in Bogota, Colombia.
Electronically distributed by Método Foundation: wwww.grupometodo.org

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1393603

The Genetics of Creativity
A Serendipitous Assemblage of Madness

Andrea Kuszewski

1. Introduction: What exactly is Creativity?

Consider Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Virginia Woolf and Pablo Picasso,

among others. 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 differ-

ent 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. The recognition of creativity as an essential component of human na-

ture has been relevant for quite some time. In his address to the APA in 1950, Guilford chal-

lenged the psychologists to pay attention to a neglected but highly important attribute of hu-

man nature: creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Even though there has been considerable

interest in creativity for decades, we gained very little in the understanding of the nature of

creativity until the last ten years or so.

3
 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 un-

conventional ideation (flexibility in thinking), and perhaps most importantly, to generate origi-

nal, novel ideas that are appropriate to the task at hand (Lubart, 1994; Ochse, 1990; Sternberg,

1988; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991, 1995, 1996). Other features of the creative personality in-

clude a willingness to take risks, and tendencies for deliberate, functional non-conformity

(Runco, 2006).

2. Past and Present Theories

It was once theorized that creativity and intelligence were the same, or at least strongly linked

to each other. However, Guilford (1956; Sternberg, 1999) found that intelligence was only cor-

related 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”

(Guilford 1956; Sternberg, 1999), which states that there is a necessary and sufficient thresh-

old 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 hinder creativity,

limiting the flexibility of divergent thought and solutions (Runco, 2006).

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 situa-

tion, they are not considered creative. Creative ideas must serve a useful purpose, and must be

adaptive concerning task restraints (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Gabora (2001), made an anal-

ogy that became known as the “Beer Can Theory of Creativity”, concerning to creative cogni-

tion and appropriateness of the ideas. If one has all 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

4
all together is missing” (Gabora, 2001). It is that necessary element of cognitive control that

pulls all the novel ideas together, checks them for appropriateness to the situation, and deter-

mines if they are good ideas to pursue.

There is another commonality between the famous “creatives” mentioned earlier. Not

only were they all extremely talented and innovative, but they all had familial links to psycho-

pathology. Einstein’s son was Schizophrenic, as was Picasso’s mother. Virginia Woolf commit-

ted 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 suc-

cessfully creative individuals?

3. History of Psychometric Testing in Creativity

Answers to these questions have eluded researchers interested in creativity for decades.

Studying creativity is extremely difficult, especially considering wide variance of traits and

skills in creative individuals. The difficulty in isolating and defining creativity for the purpose

of psychometric testing has resulted in far less research being done on creativity than there

was interest in the field (Guilford, 1950; Runco, 1999). When giving subjects questions to test

for idea generation or divergent thinking, the scoring of these tasks can be highly objective;

the scorer determining the level of creativity involved in the completed task. For this reason,

researchers have been struggling with the notion of accurate assessment of actual successful

creativity, rather than just number of novel responses given to a question. For example, in

Torrance’s Test of Divergent Thinking, the subject is asked to give as many uses for an object

as possible (i.e. “List as many uses as you can for a brick”) (Torrance, 1976), but the number

of responses does not say much for the usefulness of the answers, just fluency in generating

ideas in general (Sternberg, 1999). As I’ve already mentioned, appropriateness of the novel

idea is absolutely essential when assessing the creativity of a response. In studies like these,

they seem to be trying to test for the product of creativity, taking a greater interest in how

5
creative an individual can be, what vocations creative people are in, or how novel a response

they can give, rather than what is happening in the brain in order to generate creative ideas.

After years of insufficient psychometric testing attempting to crack the code of

creativity, researchers are now using MRIs, PET scans, and EEG measures to investigate the

cognitive and neurological pathways underlying creative thinking. With the near universal

acceptance at present of a phenotype of the creative individual, researchers now are now able

to map the process of creative cognition to anatomical areas in the brain, investigating the

differences in pathways and levels of cortical activity in creative and non-creative individuals

measuring cerebral blood flow and neural activity. Researchers are paying more attention to

the genetic links of creative individuals to psychopathology, and using that link as a point of

comparison to get insight to the nature of creativity. By the collaboration of researchers in a

spectrum of disciplines spanning molecular genetics to cognitive psychology, great strides

have been made in understanding creative cognition, leading to the discovery of the first

candidate genes for creativity in 2005 by Reuter and his colleagues.

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.

6
4. The Prefrontal Cortex and Cognitive Control

It has been proposed in recent years that there is a strong genetic link between Schizophrenia

and creativity (Abraham et al., 2005; Folley, 2005). What is the nature of this relationship?

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), (Abraham et al., 2005)

to name a few. What distinguishes Schizophrenic 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 (Runco, 2007), 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 (Cohen & Servan-Schreiber, 1992), 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 (Abraham et al., 2005). This means an

individual can maintain a working knowledge of information in their conscious that is readily

7
 Figure 1.

available for mental evaluation (Cohen & Servan-Schreiber, 1992). In this process, the DLPFC

serves as a regulator of intellectual function, giving one the ability to switch back and forth

between attentional sets (Jung-Beeman et al., 2002), like mental multi-tasking.

Eysenck (1997; Runco, 2005) 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 used 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)

8
 He attributed the lack of latent inhibition in learning tasks to be the result of an over-

inclusive thinking style (Eysenck, 1997). This over-inclusive thinking is the trait that he

claimed was heritable, not Schizophrenia and not creativity (Runco, 2006; Sternberg, 1999;

Eysenck, 1997). 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 (Eysenck, 2003).

The importance of dopamine in creativity is a logical assumption considering activity

of the mesocortical dopamine system is essential to a properly functioning PFC (Cohen &

Servan-Schreiber, 1992). 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 (2000-1) Figure 2

used the term “Schizophrenic Spec-

trum” when discussing the dimen-

sional view of schizophrenic traits.

They found that on a continuum, the

highest amount of creative achieve-

ment is most likely with one to two

indicators of schizotypy (Sass &

Shuldberg, 2000-1; Runco, 2006).

While schizotypal traits seem to be a

creative asset, the complete manifestation of Schizophrenia sees a decline in successful crea-

tivity (Dietrich, 2004). This indicates how important a balance in the PFC is necessary in when

an individual has the genetics of schizotypal traits.

9
5. Hemispheric Indicators of Creativity

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 (Cohen et al., 2002; Jung-Beeman et al., 2004). 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) (Dietrich, 2004). 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 (Miran & Miran, 1984; Dietrich, 2004;

Folley, 2005).

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

(Dietrich, 2004).

6. More on the Effects of Cognitive Control

According to Nettle (2005), 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 (Runco, 2006). On the other hand,

10
 Figure 3.

11
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, as shown in figure 3. 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 Con-

trol spindle; by plotting the degree of the trait on each dimension, in essence, different combi-

nations 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?

7. Molecular Genetics

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 (Morimoto,et al., 2002). 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” (Morimoto, et al., 2002). Arinami et al. (1994) was the first to report that the allele

frequency of the 311Cys of the DRD2 gene was about three times higher in Japanese

schizophrenics than in controls (Morimoto et al., 2002; Arinami et al., 1994). However, this

has not been replicated yet in other populations. Even so, it shows that D2 dopamine receptors

are involved in both the functionality of PFC and in the dysfunction of Schizophrenia.

12
 Reuter et al. (2005) 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 (Reuter, et al., 2005). There have been other associations made between the

DRD2 allele and intelligence, or tests that measured cognitive function (Berman & Noble,

1995; Reuter et al., 2005), 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 (1956).

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 (Reuter et al., 2005). 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 (Harvey, 2003; Poyurovsky,

2003; Reuter et al, 2005). 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” (Reuter et al., 2005), since it has already been shown that the 5-HT system has an

inhibitory effect on the release of dopamine (Porras et al., 2002; Reuter et al., 2005). 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 et al. (2005) 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

13
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

affected this result slightly.

8. Inheritance

Now that it is clear that dopamine receptor genes affect creativity, what does this imply about

the heritability of creativity versus other traits on the Schizophrenia Spectrum? There are very

few studies that test the actual heritability of creativity, but those older results state the rate at

about 20%, which is quite small (Canter et al., 1973; Reuter et al, 2005). However, 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 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.

14
 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 the necessary connections to determine heritability.

9. Environmental and Evolutionary Perspectives

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 "(Vygotsky,

1978). 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 impact 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,

15
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 (Carey, 2000). 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 (Nettle, 2005). 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.

10.Conclusions

10.1. Summary of Findings

When looking at the genetics of Creativity, we are not looking at one gene, or even a few

genes that explain why some people in a family are creative and others have debilitating

psychopathological disorders. Creativity is truly a syndrome of complex genetics, with

influence from many areas. Creative individuals, no matter the domain, have similar necessary

16
traits: divergent thinking, ability to make remote association between ideas, flexibility in

thinking and decision-making, and the ability to generate novel, original ideas that are useful

and appropriate.

Recently, researchers have begun to make the genetic link between creativity and

psychopathology, and have now focused creativity research in those directions. The disorder

most looked at for comparison to creativity is Schizophrenia, but there are now studies

comparing it with other forms of psychopathology, including Bipolar Disorder, ADHD, and

now the links to Autism as a converse of creativity.

Studies have shown the similarities and differences between the creative brain and the

schizophrenic brain, namely hemispheric dominance and frequency of use, and the function/

dysfunction of the PFC and the DLPFC. Schizophrenics show dysfunction in the PFC, while

creative individuals do not. This is thought to be the center for determining whether or not the

individuals with schizotypal traits will be able to maintain cognitive control over their ideas,

allowing them to be successfully creative.

Creative individuals have been shown to display greater inter-hemispheric transfer of

information, possibly accounting for the proficiencies in divergence of thought, remote

associations, and then making use of the superior functioning PFC to make judgments about

the appropriateness of those ideas (Jung Beeman et al., 2003). The element that appears to

make the PFC work in this manner is the effectiveness and efficiency of the dopamine

receptors.

This tie-in with dopamine and the function of the PFC and the DLPFC has led to

molecular genetic studies looking at the dopamine receptor gene DRD2 and the 5-HT gene

TPH as candidate genes for creativity. While these advances in knowledge about the

neurological, chemical, cognitive, and neuroanatomical features of creativity have made

genetic studies possible, we are not yet at the point of determining direct heritability of

creativity without taking into account the heritability of other psychopathological traits, and

the likelihood of passing on the psychopathological genes with or without the necessary genes

for cognitive control.

17
10.2. Future Directions

The future of research in creativity will continue to focus on the connections to

psychopathology. Newer areas of interest include the ACC as an “error detection mechanism”,

which is found to be damaged in Schizophrenics, but intact and functional in creative

individuals.

However, 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... interpersonally gifted), and optimally functional Narcissism

(extreme confidence and belief in one’s abilities… motivational speaker or natural leaders)

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”.

18
References

1. Awh, E., Gehring, W. J. (1999). The anterior cingulated cortex lends a hand in response selection.
Nature America 2, 853-854.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Cohen, J. D., Braver, T. S., Brown, J. (2002). Computational perspective on dopamine function in
the prefrontal cortex. Cognitive Neuroscience 12, 223-229.

5. Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1,
1-13.

6. 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.

7. Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Creativity and Personality. In M. A. Runco (Ed), Creativity Research

Handbook. Cresskill: Hampton Press.

8. 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

9. Folley, B. (2006). The cognitive neuroscience of creative thinking in the schizophrenia spectrum:
Individual differences, functional laterality, and white matter connectivity. (dissertation,
Vanderbilt University)

10. Gabora, L. (2000). The beer can theory of creativity. In: (P. Bently & D. Corne, Eds.) Creative
Evolutionary Systems. Morgan Kauffman

11. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist 5, 444-454

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. Lubart, T. I. (1994). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving. 289-332. New York:
Academic Press.

19
17. 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.

18. Reuter, M., Roth, S., Holve, K., & Hennig, J. (2006). Identification of a first candidate gene for
creativity: A pilot study. Brain Research.

19. Runco, M. A., (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity, 40-76. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.

20. Runco, M. (1993). Operant theories of insight, originality, and creativity. American Behavioral
Scientist 37, 54-67.

21. Runco, M. A., (1986). Flexibility and originality in children’s divergent thinking. Journal of
Psychology 120, 345-352.

22. Runco, M. A., (1998). Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration. Creativity Research
Journal 1, 1-7

23. Sass, L. A. & Schuldburg, D. (2000-2001). Introduction to the special issue: Creativity and the
schizophrenic spectrum. Creativity Research Journal 13, 55-74.

24. Standring, S. (2005). Gray’s Anatomy: The anatomical basis of clinical practice.

25. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

26. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 18, 87-98.

27. 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.

28. Tanji, J., Eiji, E. (2008). Role of the lateral prefrontal cortex in executive behavioral control.
Physiological Reviews 88, 37-57.

29. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: directional guide and scoring manual.
Massachussets: Personal Press.

30. 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.

20