Creativity and Addiction

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Damon Rondeau

Maybe the focus on the tie to addiction is where the case goes wrong. Perhaps the correlation is with an earlier step -- creativity linked with a kind of independence, a willingness to cast aside norms. Hence maybe the "creative" are a little more likely than the average bear to check out various substances. And then probably they are no more likely to suffer addiction and its scars than anybody else.

Maybe, but then there are just "addictive personalities" and "Non-addictive personalities". Unfortunately, I am one of the former. I've quit more things than I can count, usually right after they make me really ill. Now I don't drink any more (dry heaves for 4 hours about 20 years ago), don't pop pills anymore (caused a stomach ulcer about 17 years ago), and just recently quit smoking because I've developed a dermatological allergy to formaldehyde. Thank god it was that and not lung cancer.

The fact that some might consider me creative might lead creedence to the theory about creativity and addiction but for the fact that I know plenty of real recovering addicts who are just regular folk working regular jobs - and the only thing "creative" about these people is the lies they told themselves about what they were doing before they made the effort to get clean.

Another interesting sideline to all of this is that some things which people sometimes consider "addictions" hold no interest at all to some people, even if they are the most addictive type of personality. For example, some people call gambling an addiction, but old DURRL, addictive type that he is, has never once been to a horse race or bet on one even though he lives a scant couple of blocks from Churchill Downs. Go figure...

[Eric Jackson]

Those of us with experience raising kids with disabilities have seen first hand the positive effects medication can have, when properly prescribed and monitored. Those of us with no first hand experience make sweeping generalizations based on something they've heard or read.

Fact: In many cases medication can enable people (child or adult) to function, not disable them. The medical and teaching professions aren't entirely daft. Scott reed, tsolo and I have all seen that first hand. Yes, I'm sure there are cases of misdiagnosis (by professionals and laymen), where kids would benefit more from a healthy diet and exercise than continuing medication. I'm equally sure conditions like clinical depression are sometimes caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and can be controlled by medication.

ADD/ADHD, autism, etc., are very debilitating for a child. Their brains don't function 'normally'. You just can't assume that discipline/ communication/ pschology/ human development/ sociology/ osmosis is going to solve the problem in every case. To suggest we "get'em all doped up to go to school and learn" is insulting. The medication is what enables them to learn. Smash seems to realise there are exceptions to his generalization. Swampash apparently does not.

Self-medication is a more dangerous sport, whether it's theraputic or recreational...

[Alexi David]

Originally Posted by Eric Jackson

Those of us with experience raising kids with disabilities have seen first hand the positive effects medication can have, when properly prescribed and monitored. Those of us with no first hand experience make sweeping generalizations based on something they've heard or read.

Fact: In many cases medication can enable people (child or adult) to function, not disable them. The medical and teaching professions aren't entirely daft. Scott reed, tsolo and I have all seen that first hand. Yes, I'm sure there are cases of misdiagnosis (by professionals and laymen), where kids would benefit more from a healthy diet and exercise than continuing medication. I'm equally sure conditions like clinical depression are sometimes caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and can be controlled by medication.

ADD/ADHD, autism, etc., are very debilitating for a child. Their brains don't function 'normally'. You just can't assume that discipline/ communication/ pschology/ human development/ sociology/ osmosis is going to solve the problem in every case. To suggest we "get'em all doped up to go to school and learn" is insulting. The medication is what enables them to learn. Smash seems to realise there are exceptions to his generalization. Swampash apparently does not.

Self-medication is a more dangerous sport, whether it's theraputic or recreational...

It is just that there is a line that everybody debates on: when medicine should be used. Someone that is a paranoid schizophrenic will almost always need meds to function "normally". Someone with some anxiety though, should not be prescribed valium immediately. The cause of the anxiety should be eliminated first. Medicine, especially in the Western world is far overused, and usually for the wrong reasons.

[Eric Jackson]

Sorry for derailing things again.
But, sweeping statements involving kids can get kinda personal.
Maybe we should follow Chris' lead and get back on topic...

[tsolo]

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Maybe, but then there are just "addictive personalities" and "Non-addictive personalities".

I think this is true and I don't think creativity has anything to do with it, but I also believe that any chemical can become addictive. My younger brother was hooked on simple nose spray. He couldn't breath though his nose without it.

I also know some very creative people who neither smoke, drink nor experiment with drugs of any kind and have never.

Originally Posted by Eric Jackson

...sweeping generalizations based on something they've heard or read.

[Eric Jackson]

Originally Posted by Alexi David

It is just that there is a line that everybody debates on: when medicine should be used. Someone that is a paranoid schizophrenic will almost always need meds to function "normally". Someone with some anxiety though, should not be prescribed valium immediately. The cause of the anxiety should be eliminated first. Medicine, especially in the Western world is far overused, and usually for the wrong reasons.

Agreed.
Jeez, my timing's lousy today.

[Steve Killingsworth]

Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua

Hey here's an idea, maybe there's not a correlation between creativity and addiction at all.

That could be but this press release on a study I found has some interesting information regarding the subject. It doesn't necessarily link creativity and addiction but it does point to very high perception (of musicians) of substance abuse among musicians. Perception and fact are not always the same but there is often a reason for a perception.


Here is a study of heavy drug use by occupation. Musicians are not formerly listed, but the overall abuse rate is close to 8% of the occupations surveyed with alcohol being the main culprit. It would be interesting to know how this compares to the music world.

[Mike Crumpton]

How about this: there is no link between addiction and creativity but the personality needed to master an instrument and follow your own jazz path with it is likely to be addictive since it requires an addictive-like quality of dedication that defies logic in terms of material reward, status, recognition and comfort of living.

I haven't heard about a lot addicted classical players but someone will put me right.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by HIGH COKETOWN

How about this: there is no link between addiction and creativity but the personality needed to master an instrument and follow your own jazz path with it is likely to be addictive since it requires an addictive-like quality of dedication that defies logic in terms of material reward, status, recognition and comfort of living.

That sounds pretty reasonable, actually. I've always felt like music is some kind of addiction in a way. When I haven't been playing enough, I get very cranky, and my wife will often take me by the arm and direct me physically to the music room at these times. Hell, she's right most of the time, why not this time as well?

I haven't heard about a lot addicted classical players but someone will put me right.

Having been married to one in a past life, and having known more than a few, I can only say that the ones I've known are more likely to drink like fish than "normal" people. Other than that, I don't know...

[Tom Hutton]

Originally Posted by Mike Crumpton

How about this: there is no link between addiction and creativity but the personality needed to master an instrument and follow your own jazz path with it is likely to be addictive since it requires an addictive-like quality of dedication that defies logic in terms of material reward, status, recognition and comfort of living.

I think the same could be said for a number of occupations, not limited to creative arts. There is a lot of creativity, some might say art, in many branches of science for example, and in order to master and excel in those areas one also needs this type of extreme dedication.
However, I don't know any drug-addict scientists, and few who even smoke or drink much, although I'm sure they're out there somewhere - by it's nature science can be somewhat insular

And as a scientist I have to chuck in my $0.02 on the medication argument that went on above - the reason that kids (and everyone else) seemingly get diagnosed more easily and treated more readily is at least in part because doctors/scientists understand so much more than they did say 50 years ago, and so are now able to treat conditions which previously went unrecognised.
Although Alexi is right, we are over-medicated as a society, just because a person is diagnosed with condition that didn't exist before doesn't mean it's a spurious diagnosis or big bad pharmaceutical companies trying to force more drugs on people, it's because science and medicine are constantly advancing because of creative and dedicated people!

[willgroove2]

this a disussion that i have had with many people over the years and bringing in the helpful thing's meds can do for people put's it in a different light.i recently ended a nearly four stint in a band where my non-drinking,drugging,and smoking were seen by some of the other members as odd and a bit of trouble.im not preachy but i was pretty clear about how i felt about it and why.one of me reason's was that i didn't feel it helped creativity in any way and that if anything it got in the way because of the fine line between being just high enouth and being too f****ed up to play properly.the other reason i didn't indulge was because i like myself too much and know that such thing's don't end well for people who get caught up in them.saying "look at bird"or "miles and sonny rollens got high" does not wash because bird died at 35,and miles and sonny described their dark drug years as the worst of their lifes so although i understand that some people would have these type of problems no matter what, i think addiction get's in the way of creativity in the end.

[jimclark68]

What an interesting thread to me, not only as a hack musician, but as my profession as a psychologist (behavior analyst). When I was an aspiring professional musician for a very brief time, I often wondered why there seemed to be a connection between artists and drug use. As I changed to becoming a psychologist, and eventually working in the field, I realized that musicians, like everyone else, use drugs for many reasons. In behavioral lingo, the behavior of taking drugs has many functions, and often serves multiple functions for the individual. Likewise, the reinforcing property of the drug or taking drugs is varied, whether it's positive reinforcement (perceived enhanced creativity), or negative reinforcement (avoidance of withdrawal or legal circumstances). All of these things have been mentioned in this thread. I have also seen many sides of medication as treatment for behavioral disorders. Working in a local mental health clinic, I saw the droves of kids who were referred by the school system to get on medication because of the school's unwillingness to take responsibility for changing their system's behavior/environment to support kids who learn differently; I also learned how to discriminate those who really did need medication for ADHD vs. those who needed behavioral/environmental support only. In my current gig as a behavior analyst at a large state center for adults with severe/profound mental retardation and other developmental disabilities (such as autism), I have seen the dramatic positive effects of medication in combination with behavioral treatment.

Sorry to ramble, but this has been a really good thread.

[willgroove2]

yes the fact that drug company's make a TON of money off of people taking anti-anxiety drug's has to IMO be taken into consiteration as to why so many people are on them.everyday on tv,radio your asked the question "do you feel sad or worryed?" like your NEVER supposed to!life is suppose to have up and down's,but because of relentless avertising you can be lead to belive that it isn't and you should that a pill to make it go away.

[Tom Hutton]

Originally Posted by SMASH

It would be equally spurious to deny and ignore the good ol' motive of massive profits, and the coming and going of major fads in (erroneous / frivolous, especially since there's no clue as to the long-term side/after effects) diagnosis and medication throughout medical history.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the motives of pharmaceutical companies, which are private enterprises out to make a profit after all. Fad drugs are where the money is and as it takes ~15 years to bring a drug to market, they have to guess what the fad will be in 15 years, and if it doesn't pan out as they expect, they have to use advertising to create the fad rather than lose money by dropping the product. Unfortunately there's no money in curing disease...
As an aside, I read recently that drug companies are getting pretty worried because people aren't taking as many erectile disfunction drugs as they used to - the end of a pharma-instituted fad perhaps?

Originally Posted by SMASH

it'd be very interesting, and I suggest quite telling, to find out how often *non-profitable* (if more difficult than popping a pill) solutions had been recommended and attempted first

Another interesting point related I think to impartiality/conflicts of interest in the medical profession, and more broadly to our society's desire for a quick fix to any problems. I forget where but I remember hearing that medical journals are now having difficulty finding doctors with no links to drug companies for impartial peer-review of articles, so I don't know to what extent doctors are influenced by companies to suggest certain treatments etc. (apologies to all the scrupulously honest medical professionals here )