Creative Minds are More Eccentric

From Scientific American Mind and Dr. Shelley Carson: "The incidence of strange behavior by highly creative individuals seems too extensive to be the result of mere coincidence. As far back as ancient Greece, both Plato and Aristotle made comments about the peculiar behavior of poets and playwrights...Albert Einstein picked up cigarette butts off the street to get tobacco for his pipe; Howard Hughes spent entire days on a chair in the middle of the supposedly germ-free zone of his Beverly Hills Hotel suite; the composer Robert Schumann believed that his musical compositions were dictated to him by Beethoven and other deceased luminaries from their tombs; and Charles Dickens is said to have fended off imaginary urchins with his umbrella as he walked the streets of London. More recently, we have seen Michael Jackson’s preoccupation with rhinoplasty, Salvador Dalí’s affection for dangerous pets and the Icelandic singer Björk dressed for the Oscars as a swan."

The biology discussed in the article mentions several interesting and different lines of research - some of the research involving diffuse attention and lifetime creative achievement, but also 'inner world' thinking she relates to cognitive filtering:

"Reduced cognitive filtering could explain the tendency of highly creative people to focus intensely on the content of their inner world at the expense of social or even self-care needs. (Beethoven, for example, had difficulty tending to his own cleanliness.) When conscious awareness is overpopulated with unusual and unfiltered stimuli, it is difficult not to focus attention on that inner universe."

Almost sounds like sensory processing dysfunction. Children and adults with sensory processing overload may seem oblivious to social or self-care needs, but they are often very sensitive to other stimuli or experiences. In truth, there are a great deal of overlaps between sensory processing checklists and checkslists for Dabrowski's Over-excitabilities.

Other biological studies mentioned in the article were were EEG studies which found more alpha waves among the highly creative, and schizotypal and D2 receptor studies which also raise associations with psychosis and ADD.

The article ends on kind of an upbeat suggesting that "the plight of square pegs may be improving." At least creativity seems to be sought-after in the business world. Now if only the same could be true in schools (for more on this, see Creativity Asset or Burden in the Classroom?)

The Wrong Environment

In How Brain Science Can Save You from the Wrong Job, child psychiatrist Edward Hallowell makes the analogy between a child who is struggling in the classroom and adults who can't get engaged in their workplace.


"My diagnosis in each case is a “disease” called disconnection. It can spread like a virus. It saps companies of their vital juices. And given the rapidly changing world of work—where new is soon old, fast is slow, private is public, focus is fragmenting, loyalty is decreasing, debate has devolved into sound bites, and policies have become platitudes—it is now rampant in organizations. How do you perform at your best under those circumstances?

The question of how people can achieve peak performance has been my focus for 30 years, as a specialist in child development and learning differences such as ADHD and dyslexia, and as a counselor to people of all ages. The process I’ve developed to help kids like Tommy and adults like the three executives I just described is the Cycle of Excellence. It consists of five steps: select the right tasks, connect with colleagues, play with problems, grapple with and grow from challenges, and shine in the acknowledgment of your achievements."

It's a great idea, but of course not everyone has the complete freedom to switch environments, classrooms, schools, or jobs. Be that as it may, a personal crisis is often:

Specific person + environment = crisis

Sometimes the answer is to try and change the person, sometimes it's to change the environment, and sometimes it's both.

Hallowells's checklist for  "Is your job a good fit?"

1. What are you best at doing? It is amazing how many people spend years trying to get good at what they’re bad at instead of getting better at what they’re good at.

2. What do you like to do the most? This is not always the same as the answer to question 1. Unless it is illegal or bad for you, do what you like. If it is also productive and useful, it ought to be your career.

3. What do you wish you were better at? Your answer may guide you to a course you should take or a mentor you should work with. It may also indicate a task you should delegate.

4. What talents do you have that you haven’t developed? Don’t say none.

5. Which of your skills are you most proud of? This often reflects obstacles you’ve overcome.

6. What do others most often say are your greatest strengths? This question helps you identify skills you may not value because they seem easy to you.

7. What have you gotten better at? This gives you an idea of where putting in additional effort can pay off.

8. What can you just not get better at no matter how hard you try? This tells you where not to waste any more time.

9. What do you most dislike doing? Your answer here suggests what tasks you might want to delegate or hire out.

10. Which skills do you need to develop in order to perform your job? Your answer to this question might lead you to take a course, read a book, or work with a mentor or coach.

11. What sort of people do you work best/worst with? Do you love to work with highly organized, analytic types? Do creative types drive you crazy? Make up your own categories.

12. What sort of organizational culture brings out the best in you? It is amazing how many people won’t leave a culture for which they are hideously unsuited.

13. What were you doing when you were happiest in your work life? Could you find a way to be doing that now?

14. What are your most cherished hopes for your future work life? What could keep you from realizing those hopes?

15. How could your time be better used in your current job to add value to the organization?Your answer here gives your manager valuable input he or she may never have thought to ask for.

CD8BEX2RSPA8

How to Cry for Help

I've been continuing to enjoy reading through Influence by Cialdini when I came across an interesting pearl which has implications for well, just about everybody.

In his chapter on Social Proof, Cialdini mentions the so-called bystander apathy effect as exemplified by the terrible case of Kitty Genovese. For those of you not familiar with the story, Ms. Genovese was killed close to her home over a period of 35 minutes. Incredibly, it had been witnessed by 38 of her neighbors who watched from their apartment windows but failed to call the police. The newspaper report who eventually wrote a book on the case attributed inaction to bystander apathy and 'coldness' of the big city, but psychologists Latane and Darley also reviewed the case in detail and wondered whether no one called for help precisely because there were so many people present.

To test their theory, when they had a student pretend to have an epileptic seizure on the street, he received help 85 percent of the time when only a single bystander was present, but only 31 percent of the time when five bystanders were present. Similar effect when smoke was seen seeping from under a door.

Actually the data are pretty reassuring that when only a lone bystander is present and he / she witnesses a definite injury and emergency, help is given or summoned 100% of the time. Those numbers go down (pluralistic ignorance) when the situation multiple people are present (people tend to look for what others are doing) and if the people aren't sure an emergency is happening.

So what should you do if suddenly coming out from a crowded concert you realize you're having an emergency - like a heart attack or stroke? Cialdini's advice is clear: "Stare, speak, and point directly at that person and no one else 'You sir, in the blue jacket, I need help. Call an ambulance.' With that one utterance you would dispel all the uncertainties that might prevent or delay help. With that one statement you will have put the man in the blue jacket in the role of 'rescuer.' He should now understand that emergency aid is needed; he should understand that he, not someone else is responsible for providing aid..."

This sort of practical advice seems like a good general life lesson for all of us, but my mind also drifted to a parallel scenario equally life threatening, but in a different way: when a student is failing out of school. When a student is headed toward dropping out, there are so many observers to the problem- teachers, parents, friends, and if a learning disability is identified, school specialists, a school psychologist, therapists, and counselor. But maybe because so many people are present, could it be that less help is rendered than if there were only one?

If you're advocating for a son or daughter, may it's a more effective strategy if you pick just one person, tell them you need their help. If you're part of a group, recognize the potentially paralyzing effect of 'safety in numbers' and take action if you think you could help.

The Hook, Curiosity, and the Brain

If you're curious, your pupils dilate and reward centers in the caudate activate. If you try to answer a question and then find out it's wrong, then memory areas like the paraphippocampal gyrus and left inferior frontal gyrus rev up even more as your brain makes way for new learning to take place.

From Cal Tech research Colin Camerer:

"A theory that guides our research holds that curiosity arises from an incongruity
or ‘information gap’—a discrepancy between what one knows and what one wants to
know (2). The hypothesis is that the aspired or desired level of knowledge increases
sharply with a small increase in knowledge, so that the gap between this desired level and
the actual knowledge grows. When one is sufficiently knowledgeable, however, the gap
shrinks and curiosity falls. If curiosity is like a hunger for knowledge, then the decrease
in curiosity from knowing a lot is like a form of information satiety."


When study subjects were interested in a question, their caudates (reward) and prefrontal cortices became activated as the brain prepared for more information to be coming their way.

If they found they had given an incorrect answer,  the curiosity effect seemed even stronger, and intensity of curiosity predicted better memory for the answer when tested later.

There's a reason for caring about 'hooking' students into lessons, piquing curiosity, and even getting them to speculate about answers before they know whether something's right or wrong. It's win-win. If students answer correctly, great - they know the correct answer. If they answer incorrectly, then they'll remember the take home point even better than if they hadn't answered at all. A pearl.

This study reminded us of Enrico Fermi, a very great teacher (trained many Nobel prize winners, originator of Fermi questions etc.).For his classes at the University of Chicago, Fermi apparently often opened with questions that students had to try and answer. If they could give an adequate explanation, they had to pay another student money (early version of game-based learning)! No wonder his lectures were so memorable throughout the year and are still recalled today.

Hunger for Knowledge: The Neural Correlates of Curiosity
Curiosity and the Creative Drive
Curiosity and the Mind
Enrico Fermi, A Great Teacher