Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, PO Box 17666, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates,
Psychiatr Danub. 2021 Summer;33(2):133-139. doi: 10.24869/psyd.2021.133.
The inspirational aspect of creativity remains shrouded in mystery. Methodological problems have hindered research into creativity, and such a situation makes the interpretation and comparison of studies problematic. The link between creativity and psychopathology is overstated by the print, electronic, and celluloid media. This paper attempts to explain the creative process from a psychological and psychiatric perspective leaving room for different unexplained aspects of generativity for open discussion. A selective survey of the literature was performed to identify scholarly views of creativity and psychopathology. Data sources included PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. The concept of inspiration was examined from psychological, psychopathological, and biological standpoints. A better understanding of creativity has clinical implications. Psychopathology can facilitate creativity, but it is not the maker of creativity that involves a harmonious blending of divergent and convergent thinking. The present trend in psychiatry of medicalizing all unusual behavior is not at all productive in fostering creativity among children. The cognitively gifted children differ widely from children with autistic spectrum disorders; the creative thinking of gifted children is polythetic, whereas such potentials of autistic individuals are generally monothetic. The study of creativity helps develop an expanded model of the mind. However, research into creativity has produced contradictory results. The assumed link between creativity and mental disorder could be clarified only when we elucidate the creative process. Further research is needed in regard to the psycho-biological nature of creativity, including genetic links, implications for neuropharmacology, and the treatment of pathology or psychological disorders.
创造力的激励方面仍然笼罩在神秘之中。方法学问题阻碍了对创造力的研究,这种情况使得对研究的解释和比较变得成问题。印刷品、电子媒体和电影媒体过分夸大了创造力和精神病理学之间的联系。本文试图从心理学和精神病学的角度解释创造力的过程,为不同的生成性未解释方面留出开放讨论的空间。对文献进行了选择性调查,以确定创造力和精神病理学的学术观点。数据源包括 PubMed、Google Scholar 和 Scopus。从心理学、精神病理学和生物学的角度考察了灵感的概念。更好地理解创造力具有临床意义。精神病理学可以促进创造力,但它不是创造力的制造者,创造力涉及发散思维和聚合思维的和谐融合。精神病学将所有异常行为都医学化的当前趋势,对于培养儿童的创造力并没有任何成效。认知天赋异禀的孩子与患有自闭症谱系障碍的孩子有很大的不同;天赋异禀的孩子的创造性思维是多元的,而自闭症患者的这种潜力通常是单一的。对创造力的研究有助于发展一种扩展的思维模式。然而,对创造力的研究产生了相互矛盾的结果。只有当我们阐明创造力的过程时,才能明确创造力与精神障碍之间的假定联系。需要进一步研究创造力的心理生物学性质,包括遗传联系、对神经药理学的影响以及对病理学或心理障碍的治疗。