Understanding Intellegence, Creativity, and Sanity

I've lately been fascinated by the idea of intellegence. I would consider this board a colllection of above average intelligent people, as most average people (Americans anyway) would much rather discuss the latest episode of American Idol, rather than argue the nuances of structural engineering and the possible demolition of the world trade centers.

So I'm curious, what do you think the best measure of intelligence is, and how does it relate to the capacity for creativity.

For example, there are idiot savants, who are much better at applied mathematics than I could ever hope to be, yet they lack the creativity to create something revolutionary in that field, like say Einstien's Relativity, or Peter Lynd's recent theories on time.

But, along those same lines, there is not denying the genious of Mozart, who wrote his first brilliant pieces around the age of five. However, it would seem his intelligence was more intuitive than learned. He didn't spend five years at an expensive music conservatory, studying classical composition. Yet he was able to compose incredibly complex music, and an unreasonably young age. This also brings me to question wether or not intelligence is something that's developed, or something that you either have or you do not? Can one go to a university, and suddenly go from being a unintelligent dullard to a revolutionary experimental mathemetician, or is there soemthing inherently different about people who are of a "genius" level intellgence.

The last factor that comes into the debate, is Sanity. How does extreme intelligence or creativity affect sanity? For example, Sylvia Plath, a great writer, ultimately went to an asylum and killed herself. When does genius stop being genius, and become a mental illness? What divides the Einstiens of the world from those who we enter into asylums for psychiatric treatment and medication?

I'm interested to hear what you think, as I'm sure you are all more insightful than I am.

I tend to write occasionly, I think it depends what's in you put into your mind. Like I try to think positive, but that can only do some much. So I listen to music. Plus today, I did a first, I got a metal-hits CD. Because I wanted to hear something different than the usual music I listen to.

I also tend to read more than most people at my work. I think what defys "Sanity". Is how "normal" one can function on a routine basis. If your mind can't function in rountine, and in a healthy-way in a rountine of some kind for everyday life. Then odds are fairly good, you may need to seek medical help or ask for help.

Originally posted by Athenion
I've lately been fascinated by the idea of intellegence. I would consider this board a colllection of above average intelligent people, as most average people (Americans anyway) would much rather discuss the latest episode of American Idol, rather than argue the nuances of structural engineering and the possible demolition of the world trade centers.

So I'm curious, what do you think the best measure of intelligence is, and how does it relate to the capacity for creativity.

The best measure of intelligence is not how much of it we have, as in an IQ score, but how we apply it to the world around us. As with your example of the savants, I've met many people with supposed high IQ's. One notably was a former friend of mine. Supposedly she has an IQ of around 160, but that doesn't change the fact that her personality downright sucks. I also know of another classmate, who through sheer will and determination managed to get himself into higher level math classes when he started out in the basic academic classes.

For example, there are idiot savants, who are much better at applied mathematics than I could ever hope to be, yet they lack the creativity to create something revolutionary in that field, like say Einstien's Relativity, or Peter Lynd's recent theories on time.

But, along those same lines, there is not denying the genious of Mozart, who wrote his first brilliant pieces around the age of five. However, it would seem his intelligence was more intuitive than learned. He didn't spend five years at an expensive music conservatory, studying classical composition. Yet he was able to compose incredibly complex music, and an unreasonably young age. This also brings me to question wether or not intelligence is something that's developed, or something that you either have or you do not? Can one go to a university, and suddenly go from being a unintelligent dullard to a revolutionary experimental mathemetician, or is there soemthing inherently different about people who are of a "genius" level intellgence.

Think of genious as a seed. A seed has a lot of unknown potential to it. It can be the callest tree in the forest, it can wither and die as a sapling, or it can just never sprout. That's the predetermined part of it. However the rest of the that seeds fate lies into how much water and sunlight and how nutritious the soil is. That sapling might very well end up being a decent tree if it gets enough nutrients. And the sequoia might wither and die for lack there of.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by Ayla87]

Creative genius is more of a divergent and all inclusive process than convergent and disciplined. I think it's more vulnerable to madness because of that.

People sometimes get their best ideas when asleep.

Insanity though is usually an imbalance of the dopamine/seratonin receptors. At least in the case of psychosis. Makes one wonder about all the coffee people drink, which alters the dopamine receptor's ability to function and interferes with learning.

Maybe the entire planet is suffering a psychotic episode - kind of would explain the gross and vulgar inhumanity of - the coffee trade, for example. The coffee trade is the largest legal cash crop, all picked by practical slaves, with all the profits going to very few people.

A sane planet might demand more equitable distribution leading to the education and usage of its greatest potential. People identify with the aggressor. Like a child who identifies with the abusive parent to appease him/her and survive. It's psychotic in that it's not really conducive to long-term health and happiness.

Originally posted by Athenion
But, along those same lines, there is not denying the genious of Mozart, who wrote his first brilliant pieces around the age of five.

Mozart's music at five wasn't that great. Awesome for a five year old, but that's about it. He studied a lot on his own, and worked incredibly hard.

He was definitely born with a gift, no doubt, but there's often a comparing and contrasting of Mozart and Saint-Saëns to illustrate that while both were born with incredible gifts, Mozart worked at it his whole life while Saint-Saëns, eh, many think not so much. Not to put down Saint-Saëns' work, of course.

The last factor that comes into the debate, is Sanity. How does extreme intelligence or creativity affect sanity? For example, Sylvia Plath, a great writer, ultimately went to an asylum and killed herself. When does genius stop being genius, and become a mental illness? What divides the Einstiens of the world from those who we enter into asylums for psychiatric treatment and medication?

I think this is more of society's fault.

We're taught what's right and wrong and what's justifiable and what isn't, and I think a lot of people just discard these values and replace them with their own. When they do this, others are bound to see them as odd. I'd just leave them alone.

Einstein was a kleptomaniac though. So I guess the above doesn't always apply, but then again anyone could have kleptomania.

I consider myself to be intelligent and I also love to discuss American Idol. Why does everyone always use that show to express stupidity or someone who is out of touch with what's going on in this country (the US)?

Anyway, I think a certain amount of intelligence is in the genes. I would venture to say most of it. Then add an education to that and you have a highly intelligent person.

Someone who is born without much intelligence... education can only get them so far.

What's the best measure of intelligence? That's a good question and I don't know the answer... I think the IQ test is certainly a measure but I think there's more to it than that.

I think creativity is something totally different than intelligence and not related at all. An intelligent person can be creative, but they don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Idiot Savants are out of the realm of measuring intelligence and creativity with us 'normal' folks. It's almost like they've got something missing, but then something extra to make up for it.

I also think intelligence is developed. One has to learn to learn at a young age or else all the education in the world isn't going to benefit them.

When talking about the factors of intelligence, creativity and understanding, I feel like I need a visual. A graph that moves.

Sanity is another issue entirely. My brother has a genious IQ and he's quite sane. I think insanity can affect anyone, regardless of intelligence, creativity or understanding. Where's that graph!

I personally think all these factors are separate and don't really interrelate. They aren't dependent on one another and several factors can contribute to them (except maybe the Idiot Savant - I think that's hard-wired). But what do I know? I watch American Idol!



[edit on 29-5-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

And let's not forget the role a person's environment plays -

You can have a highly educated person surrounded by those of lesser intelligence who either look up to him/her as a valuable asset to their community or else view them as nothing more than an elistist, borguoise snob.

If the environment is conduce towards acceptance, the person will flourish.

If it is hostile, any intelligent person will undoubtably experience some sort of mental health related issue - either from not being able to relate to or understand the surrounding mentalities, or purely through social isolation.

Acceptance is a key point here - it's almost a crucial element. Maslow's heirachy of needs addresses this fact.

I suspect if we took a first hand look at the lives of the major contibutors in the past who suffered some form of mental illness alongside their genius, we would see a direct parallel to the severity of any mental illness and the social climate with which that person was immersed.

I don't remember who, exactly, but in my Psych book somebody mentions 8-10 possible outlets for creativity and intelligence. These outlets include:

1)Inter-personal knowledge - one's ability to communicate effectively and understand other people
2)Intra-personal knowledge - one's ability to understand one's own actions and thoughts
3)Natural intelligence - the ability to recognize patterns in nature
4)Bodily/Kinesthetic intelligence - one's ability to perform complex physical movements
5)Logical intelligence - one's predisposition to logical and organized thinking
6)Artistic intelligence - one's predisposition to understand abstract concepts
7)Spatial reasoning - one's ability to judge distances and 3-D spaces
8)Musical reasoning - sensitivity to and understanding of the different pitches and volumes of music

There were others but I can't recall at this time. 5&6 are often cited as "left" and "right" brain thinking. These outlets are not exclusive, and normally people's abilities overlap several categories.

Benevolent Heretic

I didn't mean to pick on anyone who is an American Idol fan. My apologies.

So you bring up an interesting question. Some people who are incredibly brilliant have issues with mental health. Others don't. Does this mean that Intelligence and Sanity are not related? Or perhaps is extreme creativity that has to do with mental health.

And IAmHungry

That's in interesting breakdown, and I think a much better way to measure intelligence than the standard IQ test!

Keep the good ideas coming. I'm glad I've found a place so filled with people smarter than I am (were I work, a girl was taking a college level civics course, and asked another coworker of mine (a college graduate of course) who the first president of the United States was. She answered "Abraham Lincoln". I wish I was making that up).

yes, I agree with you there, Iamhungry, there are many different levels of intelligence. That is why no 'IQ' test is truly correct, because every person's brain wired somewhat differently, and because of the personal perception about the world we live in. Everything is interpreted differently, and that is why everything is put out and understood differently. An extreme example would be Kim Peek, the world's most famous savant. He can remember 98% of everything he has ever read or heard. He can also understand what he reads, so he's not just a walking dictionary. The problem is, though, that because he does not have a corpus callosum, the tissue that allows both halves of the brain to communicate, and in the process of his brain making an attempt to connect the two, somehow gained his sponge like memory. However, because of this, he lacks nearly all motor skills and cannot even take care of himself. On his first IQ test, for a normal human, he scored way below average, mostly because he also cannot understand metaphors and such. However, when another test was given, without the use of metaphors, he sore somewhere in the 180 range, a unbelievable level. It's all how the individual brain processes information.

I believe it all comes down to the will to do something. You can be the most intelligent person in the world, working out complex maths problems in your head, but it means nothing if you can't or won't be creative to work out solutions to other things.

On the other hand, there are people who often know limited amounts on a subject, yet try their hardest to do something creative with it (to try and get an electronic device to work, for example). I know I've tried and failed on many occasions to do something with little knowledge, but ended up with a bit more knowledge than last time.

Everyone's brain is different, in how quickly and effectively it processes different information, but it takes the will to do something with it that sets the geniuses apart from the intelligent. That's all, just the mind behind the brain - a supercomputer can only do so much until the person behind it starts working.


In regards to sanity... I view that largely as subjective. One's definition of sane can vary vastly between people. I say reality itself is subjective, and no-one sees the exact same reality. Just what our different minds percieve.