I'm wondering what you all think about the current state of the neuroscience of creativity. Personally, as someone chiefly interested in phonological neuroscience and how it relates to poetry through language and music through sound, this field holds the greatest possible intrigue for me. At the same, I think the level of science reporting, and even the assumptions made first-hand in research articles, is below even the average of other science journalism, which we all know is low.

 

My main gripe is that I think researchers and science writers alike are implicitly pandering to a self-help culture by jumping on evidence such as blue computer screens or alcohol drinking as increasing our ability to do word-puzzles, and suggesting that this demonstrates sitting in a blue room can foster creativity. This is such a giant non-sequitur, and I think it's disgraceful. It's wonderful that the field is so popular in best-selling science books at the moment, but it's disheartening that it's popular because it's filled with tempting lies.

I haven't looked at a great deal of research concerning the neuroscience of creativity.. but I do know that creativity is difficult to operationally define. Our brains can change and manipulate information to a degree, which is apparent from studies on problem solving, and the type of information being manipulated changes what regions and systems of the brain are involved. In any case, I would conclude that it is a fascinating line of research, and there is plenty of room for growth.

Just what kind of junk are you reading anyway? Before making straw man attacks on one of the fastest growing and most multidisciplinary fields in science, I suggest you do a wiser search of literature. There is a difference between "studies" and well designed experiments and observations in neuroscience.

 

Oh, BTW, the booze thing might be true

A person can get creative, when he has a lot of problems and he wants to solve his problems.

I'm wondering what you all think about the current state of the neuroscience of creativity. Personally, as someone chiefly interested in phonological neuroscience and how it relates to poetry through language and music through sound, this field holds the greatest possible intrigue for me. At the same, I think the level of science reporting, and even the assumptions made first-hand in research articles, is below even the average of other science journalism, which we all know is low.

 

My main gripe is that I think researchers and science writers alike are implicitly pandering to a self-help culture by jumping on evidence such as blue computer screens or alcohol drinking as increasing our ability to do word-puzzles, and suggesting that this demonstrates sitting in a blue room can foster creativity. This is such a giant non-sequitur, and I think it's disgraceful. It's wonderful that the field is so popular in best-selling science books at the moment, but it's disheartening that it's popular because it's filled with tempting lies.

mostly scientific teams no've had balls to provide really valuable R&Ds in this field: mathematical modeling been very helpful instrument, but it cannot substitute Practice + yes, populism has become a damned curse not only in the Neuroscience, but in the entire Science as well.

I believe the neuroscience of creativity is best known as synaptic plasticity.

It's not. Those are distinct topics.

It's not. Those are distinct topics.

 

Well, I found at least one research paper to support my claim.

 

Well, I found at least one research paper to support my claim.

So, you reference a paper presented by someone in IT?

"Best known" and "found ONE research paper." Perhaps you see the flaw in your argument?

"Best known" and "found ONE research paper." Perhaps you see the flaw in your argument?

 

Actually, a search on google scholar produced 21100 results.

 

Furthermore, the gene Neuregulin 1 (NRG1) appears implicated in the neuroscience of creativity and psychosis: There's supporting evidences that this gene polymorphism is connected to prefrontal synaptic plasticity and schizophrenia.

Edited January 28, 20178 yr by tkadm30

Your search results do not support your claim. The neuroscience of creativity overlaps with the study of synaptic plasticity, but your conflation of them is why you're mistaken. They are not the same thing and the neuroscience of creativity is NOT best known as synaptic plasticity. Stop talking bollocks.

Actually, a search on google scholar produced 21100 results.

 

Observation: This statement seems like an emotional response masquerading as reason. Learning requires you to be wrong a lot, so you can... well, learn from your mistakes. But if you won't acknowledge when you're wrong....

Your search results do not support your claim. The neuroscience of creativity overlaps with the study of synaptic plasticity, but your conflation of them is why you're mistaken. They are not the same thing and the neuroscience of creativity is NOT best known as synaptic plasticity. Stop talking bollocks.

 

OK. Let's just assume that synaptic plasticity is implicated in the neuroscience of creativity.

 

And in case you missed it, Neuregulin 1 is a gene related to creativity AND synaptic plasticity.

None of that changes anything about my core point. Where are you struggling to understand me? I want to help you comprehend what strikes me as an exceedingly simple point, but it's unclear to me where I've lost you.

iNow, I do agree with you. However, please understand that the neuroscience of creativity is complex and that synaptic plasticity is probably correlated. You should as a minimum take a minute to consider this fully.

Just so we're clear, I largely agree with this:

...the neuroscience of creativity is complex and ... synaptic plasticity is probably correlated.

But was quite obviously addressing this in my previous posts, which is remedially and self-evidently different:

...the neuroscience of creativity is best known as synaptic plasticity.

Stop trying to move the goalposts. You were wrong and got called out for it. Move on now.

iNow, I do agree with you. However, please understand that the neuroscience of creativity is complex and that synaptic plasticity is probably correlated. You should as a minimum take a minute to consider this fully.

 

You seem to be equating creativity solely with synaptic plasticity, which isn't true. Creativity is a product of overall brain function and involves a confluence of both micro and macro elements. Rather than neuregulin 1, synaptic plasticity is most dependent on postsynaptic calcium release; however, neuregulin 1 interaction with ErbB4 is implicated in schizophrenia when its inhibitory effects are disrupted.

Synaptic plasticity would be associated with learning but not creativity per se. As you practice something, new synapses are created which then 'hardwires' you to do that action automatically without having to think consciously about each step in performing that action.

Another poorly understood regulator of creativity is dopamine neurotransmission. Dopamine and neuregulin-1 are promoters of gamma oscillations in the hippocampus, a key organ in the regulation of creativity and synaptic plasticity.