Trying to answer this question, everyone will remember Vincent Van Gogh, Virginia Wolfe and Robin Williams. These people were undoubtedly creative and at the same time experienced serious mental health problems. In fact, there are so many examples that it is difficult to doubt the connection between mental disorders and creativity.
Does scientific research support this connection? More likely no than yes. In fact, there are very few serious works on this topic. Of the 29 studies carried out before 1998, 15 failed to establish the desired relationship, 9 works confirm it, and another 5 do not give an unambiguous answer. In addition, most of these studies are more literary reviews than rigorous scientific experiments that can establish an unambiguous causal relationship.
The main challenge facing researchers is the lack of a clear definition of creativity. In this regard, researchers often work with simplified (working) models of creativity. For example, in a 2011 study, scientists determine a person's creativity based only on their area of activity. All artists, photographers, designers and scientists were automatically categorized by researchers as creative people without any regard for the specialization and achievements of workers. Based on data from the Swedish census, the researchers concluded that people with bipolar disorder were 35% more likely to be in the listed professions. At the same time, scientists did not take into account the severity of the disease, attributing anxiety, depression and schizophrenia to bipolar disorders. Too short list of analyzed spheres of activity does not allow unambiguously linking a person's profession with his tendency to mental deviations.
Nancy Andreasen's study published in 1987 is most often cited to substantiate the connection between mental disorders and creativity. The researcher analyzed the mental health of 60 people, half of whom were writers. Andreasen found that writers were more likely to develop bipolar disorder than the rest of the study participants.
Despite its significant citation, this study has been heavily criticized. In particular, the effectiveness of the interview-based approach has been questioned - clearer and more understandable criteria are needed to obtain reliable data. Andreasen's critics also noted that for greater objectivity, the interviewer did not have to see the research participants - the impression of the appearance and manner of the interlocutor, as well as of the place where the conversation takes place, can greatly distort the researcher's conclusions. For example, many writers have chosen their favorite “creative retreats” to meet Andreasen - secluded places where they can do their work without distractions. Such a choice could be mistakenly interpreted by the author of the work as a manifestation of social phobia or other deviations.
There are also more extensive studies published in the first half of the 20th century. For example, in 1904 Havelock Ellis studied the biographies of over 1000 artists and found no links between mental disorders and illness. In 1949, these findings were confirmed by a new study that covered 19,000 German artists and scientists who had lived in the previous three hundred years.
Why, despite the lack of scientific evidence, the connection between madness and genius seems to us almost an axiom today? Psychologist Arne Dietrich explains it this way:
“We only notice what lies on the surface. The story of how Van Gogh cut off his ear, as well as the lengthy debate about the truth of this fact, make this example in our minds unusually vivid. We cannot quickly recall an artist who was both genius and mentally healthy. Intuitively, we are convinced that the facts that are easiest to remember happen the most. Therefore, striking examples are often undeservedly considered typical."
Promotional video:
ALEX KUDRIN