low latent inhibition

[Curtis Warren]

Hello everyone.

I'm in somewhat of a pickle here. You see, I suspect that I might have
low latent inhibition. However, despite my best efforts, I have been
unable to find a reliable way to test for it. Essentially, I'm looking
for a few concrete examples which I can compare my own experiences
with. Does anybody here know of such a thing?

[childofbaud]

I think it becomes rather obvious if it's really on the low side.

In my case, I can't function properly or concentrate in certain
environments (i.e. open office environments, lab classes). It's hard
to block out the people talking, etc. I also can't do work with music
playing in the background, or any other disturbing noise.

I suspect mine is on the freakishly low side, however.

Sorry, I don't know of any tests.

[Gwern Branwen]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:58 PM, childofbaud <sait...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it becomes rather obvious if it's really on the low side.
>
> In my case, I can't function properly or concentrate in certain
> environments (i.e. open office environments, lab classes). It's hard
> to block out the people talking, etc. I also can't do work with music
> playing in the background, or any other disturbing noise.
>
> I suspect mine is on the freakishly low side, however.
>
> Sorry, I don't know of any tests.

We did discuss testing latent inhibition in an earlier thread, but
nothing came of it - none of the tests had obvious computer analogues
or existed; and even if they did, they'd not be calibrated or
comparable, obviously.

--
gwern

[Curtis Warren]

I see. Luckily, I'm not particularly hung up on obtaining a LLI
"test." Really, anything that would allow me to compare my experiences
with those of a person with LLI would be helpful. For example, I would
be completely satisfied with a nice, complete rundown of how a person
with LLI perceives the world as compared to a normal person.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything of this sort via google.

> --
> gwern

[Curtis Warren]

Actually, never mind. Reading http://www.northeastkungfu.co.uk/LLI.htm
again, it seems likely that my condition does not qualify as LLI.
Certain aspects of my behavior lead me to believe that I had it -
e.g., neurosis in certain areas, extreme attention to detail, etc.
However, reading through the list of cons, I realize that many of the
points do not apply to me. Thus, it seems likely that I do not have
it.

Thanks,
Curtis

[jttoto]

I said this in an earlier post, but this is pertinent to this thread
as well. I never took a latent inhibition test, but I did take the
Barron Welsh Art Scale, which is used to objectively gauge
creativity. My score indicated high creativity, and am competent in
creating my own art and music. My question is, since I haven't read
the study itself, is how were the researchers measuring creativity in
relation to low LI? Were they only looking at creativity in the
arts? Creativity is a complicated thing and I don't think it is
related only to artistic merit. Do scientists, entrepreneurs, and
mathematicians have the Low LI too? I suspect that the may not,
despite the fact that they can be very creative in a different way. A
study on creative people shown that they rely more on their intuition
(less objective) and are more neurotic than the average person. I
suspect that these qualities would hurt someone in the scientific or
math field. Scientists had an opposing profile, being less neurotic
(and probably more objective) then the average population.

This makes we wonder, were the researchers gauging creativity only in
the arts? What about nobel prize winners? Do they have low Li as
well?

The article posted doesn't sound very scientific, and I don't know who
the author is. I don't know if I have low LI or not, but I suspect so
since I do have an interest in creative fields. (and have a job in
one) Let me give you an anecdote on how I see the world.

- I completely abhor nightclubs and find it way too overwhelming.
- When working, I need complete quiet.
- I learned to focus only the road when driving while I was a teen.
However, when looking for something, like a store I haven't been to
yet or haven't had clear directiions to located, I get too distracted
by everything to find it efficiently.
- When making conversation with people, I will focus on their facial
features, limns, and other contours. I am good enough at small-talk
to where people don't notice that I'm not 100% into the conversation.

[Pontus Granström]

Aspberger syndrom probaly!

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Joseph <peisis...@gmail.com> wrote:

just an anecdotal interlude

albert einstein, to say the least, was a highly creative individual...
he is also famous for his powers of concentration

Einstein's sister recalled: "...even when there was a lot of noise, he
could lie down on the sofa, pick up a pen and paper, precariously
balance an inkwell on the backrest and engross himself in a problem so
much that the background noise stimulated rather than disturbed him."

[jttoto]

"Thirty-eight percent of the total had sought treatment for mood
disorders -- a rate of about 30 times that of the general population.
Writers experienced the most problems, and of these, poets topped the
list -- with half od them reporting psychiatric intervention (drugs
and/or hospitalization) for depression and/or mania. Almost two-thirds
of the playwrights had been treated for mood disorders, mainly with
psychotherapy. The rate for biographers was 20 percent, and for
artists the incidence was 13 percent."

30 times the general population. If this doesn't curb down the
average of creative people in general I don't know what does.

"One-third of the 47 reported that they suffered from severe mood
swings, particularly the poets and novelists. Jamison reports that the
biographers, the least likely to be associated with ":creative fire,":
reported no history of mood swings or elated states."

Another randomized study showed higher stress levels among creative
people (this time also looking at musicians)
http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5545;year=2007;volume=49;issue=1;spage=34;epage=43;aulast=Pavitra


Artist and writers experience and estimated three times the rate of
psychosis, suicide attempts, mood disorders, and substance abuse than
did comparably successful people in business, science, and public
life. Poets were thirty times more likely to have had manic
depressive illness than were their contemporaries and five times more
likely to have taken their own life. http://www1.appstate.edu/~hillrw/BP%20Creativity/bip4.html

And the list goes on: Andreasen examined 30 writers and found that
80% had experienced at least one episode of major depression,
hypomania, or mania. (all three of these are strongly associated with
neurtoic personalities) http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1772




I was speaking of neuroticism in the context of The Big Five, defined
as being prone to depression, anxiety, and drug abuse.

http://www.pendulum.org/articles/articles_bipolar_troubled.html

On Sep 14, 1:19 pm, argumzio <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jttoto, could you cite the study that showed more creative people are
> "neurotic", please? I have a strong suspicion that this particular
> term is used within the context of psychoanalysis (Freudian theory),
> like the BWAS is, which isn't a terribly scientific endeavor, in my
> honest opinion. (If it isn't Freudian, then it may be more in the
> spirit of William Cullen, which is more agreeable to me.) The other
> component to my asking relates to "neuroticism" (also referred to by
> its opposite: "emotional stability") which is one of the dimensions of
> the Big Five. If you cannot cite the source, then I would at least
> like to know how the authors defined "neurotic".
>
> At any rate, I still think that any attempt at testing for creativity
> is bound to be erroneous and invalid, even if it turns out to be
> reliable, due to creativity being inextricably linked with the
> individual's interests, needs, desires, aptitudes, history, abilities,
> and so forth. One is better served by exploring rigorous,
> scientifically based methods that have demonstrated correlations with
> other individual psychological factors and characteristics at a broad
> statistical level despite that statistics themselves aren't altogether
> useful at the individual level.
>
> As if my exasperation wasn't already evident, I really wish that that
> Harvard study told us how exactly LLI was tested for.
>
> In the end, it doesn't particularly matter whether one has LLI or HLI.
> There's that which one experiences and then that which one does.
>
> As an aside, I don't really think there is such a thing as being
> "objective" whether or not one is "neurotic". Objectivity is simply a
> methodological formulation of subjective perceptions, and it really
> has been raised to too high a level and prestige that cannot be
> justified. But I'll resist digging farther into that can of worms...
>
> argumzio- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[jttoto]

And your right about the BWAS not being too terribly scientific. But
I do think it is more objective than other creativity tests, which
rely on the subjective interpretation of the researcher, rather than
correlations with creative disipline controls.

> > much that the background noise stimulated rather than disturbed him."- Hide quoted text -

[jttoto]

Last post and I'm done. If the huge overrepresentation of neurotic
people in the arts didn't convince you, a Stanford study found that
creative people were more neurotic and more open than the general
population. http://www.namiscc.org/Research/2002/Creativity.htm

Keep in mind that I don't fully buy into this association with
creativity and neuroticism. Creativity in the arts and creativity in
the sciences could be two seperate constructs.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Bibo]

Interesting thread! thanks for bringing all these cool points to the
table Jttoto. it's funny how we can spot who is left brain and who is
right brain in a conversation. it's so evident. no? some bring shaky
ideas, others say we can't tell yet or it's more complicated than
that; it's almost like we're a 'higher (social) organism' together, a
'thing' meant to select ideas through interactions/discussions.

Again here, really it seems to me that vidual-spatial/auditory, LLI/
HLI, being creative or more 'objective/rational/tidy', and what ppl
call left brain/right brain, --all these things seem to, afterall, go
together, to a certain extend (maybe like on a spectrum). they might
all be the consequence of a single or a few fundamental parameters/
events during brain development that favours like 'one thinking style'
over the other. I'd like to get more clues about the underlying brain
machinery that causes this. and about people who really studied this
dichotomy seriously. if anyone read interesting things regarding that
I'm mega interested.

[Bibo]

they might all be the consequence of a single or a few fundamental
parameters/
events during brain development that favours like 'one thinking style'
over the other.

...in other words all these things we notice go together (eg visual-
LLI-creative-rightbrain) might be manifestations of one single thing:
the preference for visual input/information or auditory input for
'dealing with the world'. this is mega interesting. but shaky lol.

[Bibo]

btw I remember a guy called bruce charlton had a blog on which he
talked about these 'personality types'. he said the sciences weren't
enough populated by the 'more crazy/random types' and were instead
'ruled' by the 'rational types' (obviously--academia is so stuck up
and not innovative, but it is how it is). and he said or someone else
said that these two type were linked to two types of scientific
activity: incremental science and paradigm shifts. he said the US had
more of the 'rare and seekable' innovative paradigm shifters
scientists. for sure certain places are higher in certains types.

some studies (on richard florida's site) showed that in the states the
big five personality types are concentrated in different cities, very
clearly. that would seem to indicate that personality types
conglomerate naturally/function better together? I'd still tend to
think cooperation between different thinking types is/was a key thing,
like 'in human evolution/cultural evolution'.

[jttoto]

Argumzio, thank you for the detailed and thoughtful post. While I
don't have time today to respond to everything, there was one point I
wanted to comment on quickly. I am fully aware that there are
exceptions to the rule, and I didn't mean to imply that neuroticism is
the rule in creativity. I just wanted to say that creative people, on
average, are more neurotic. Obviously there are plenty of
exceptions. Even though I am competent enough to make a living
holding a creative job (as a creative artist of sorts), I myself score
close to the general population when it comes to emotional stability,
and my personal anecdote was more for fun than scientific merit.

I will post a more appropriate response, which addresses all your
points, tomorrow.

On Sep 14, 2:42 pm, argumzio <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jttoto, thank you for the quick reply. I must say, I am beginning to
> feel a deep dissatisfaction with some of the material posited here. It
> seems to me that there is a trend to confound emotional instability
> with creativity, where it may only be a factor of such endeavors
> lending themselves up more easily to such disturbed individuals. (I
> mean, it would be unreasonable to suppose that having such problems
> would bode well in a normal, run-of-the-mill occupation where one has
> to frequent with the public.) While you seem to suggest that the BWAS
> fits in with my drive for entangling such psychological observations
> with "individual psychological factors and characteristics at a broad
> statistical level" (and you do this without citing the appropriate
> research on the BWAS), I still cannot help but think that there is
> more at work here. Now, I'm going to relate a few details about myself—
> something that I prefer to avoid—for the sake of getting my point
> across.
>
> I am a writer, a poet, and a philosopher (and I was amused to read
> Aristotle's comment on philosophers' melancholia). My score on the
> emotional stability dimension is in the 99th percentile for males over
> the age of 21. I have not made attempts to kill myself in my past, nor
> is that a foreseeable situation (while thoroughly possible—and for
> anyone to boot). I harbor a deep distaste for loud, noisy,
> overstimulating, party-like, happy-go-lucky, and wanton environments.
> I frequently imagine peculiar associations and visual impressions
> while listening to absolute (i.e., instrumental) music, find myself
> observing everything constantly, picking up details others often miss
> or find trifling and inconsequential, and have an intense desire to
> manifest unique things. Were I to sit down to compose something
> (usually while under some peculiar mood or tempo), I need to have no
> distracting elements around me. And so on and so forth ad infinitum.
>
> You will have perhaps intimated that my point is straightforward: that
> one is creative poses no necessary connection with such trying
> conditions; and conversely to have experienced such trying conditions
> forces no necessary connection with creativity. And thus, creativity
> itself has no necessary connection with LLI. I think this essentially
> boils down to two factors:
> 1) The ghee-whiz factor of scientific journalism that doesn't grasp
> that the finalization of theories is forevermore deferred.
> 2) That creativity when viewed in its broadest meaning (without ad hoc
> limitations imposed upon it) is actually something that everyone
> engages in at all times by dint of their possessing a cortex.
>
> I well understand that the information posted here does not say that
> there is a 100% guarantee of this, that, or the other thing. But I
> think such emphasis as mine serves a cautioning purpose that cannot be
> dismissed.
>
> It seems always to be a matter of degrees, though, with the
> interminable continua stretching out to infinity, avoiding all
> attempts at rigid and certified classification...
>
> Be that what it may, asking the question of how exactly does a person
> with LLI perceive the world is like asking how does a bee, plant, or
> microbe perceive the world. The answer will always be an analogy that
> fits the asker's own experiences and expectations. This is precisely
> why anecdotes serve no demonstrative purpose.
>
> argumzio

[jttoto]

Argumzio, the fact that creative people, on average, are more neurotic
and depressed is pretty significant. As you said, there obviously
isn't a handful traits that can explain creativity (as you and me
prove). However, the fact is that, on average, these people digress
well outside the norm, and, while I realize it was just an example to
construe your argument, can't simply be explained by the fact that the
mentally disturbed are more likely to pursue different career paths.
After all, we don't see this mental disturbance in engineers or
scientists, and I see no evidence that these career choices are any
less reclusive. (my dad was an engineer for IBM who always complained
about too much time working alone)
ttp://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a782822666 In
fact, in both of these careers, the opposite is true( more stable and
more extraverted than average). Many times, especially writers and
musicians, have to spend a deal of time in the public eye (the former
to promote their book, the latter to perform)

Ultimately, I agree that there are too many variables that can explain
creativity, and it can't be reduced to a single (or a handful) of
personality trait of lifestyle trait as the cause. At the same time,
the statistics are so significant that I can not simply give an
environmental/lifestyle explanation as well. At the moment, I believe
that, while there are plenty of exceptions, for most people there is a
clear link between creativity and emotional instability.

I have to run again, but I do want to respond to your point in your
2nd to last post as well.

[jttoto]

At the risk of running this thread severely off-topic, I did want to
comment on the anti-psychiatry example. First, I think we can all
agree that there is a bit of overdiagnosis going on, which angers me
as well. The fact that the standards of depression are constantly
being lowered by the decade suggest foul-play. By today's standards,
assuming teachers are a good proxy for the general population, 79% of
us would be depressed. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/08/20/28914.aspx

At the same time, studies consistently show that people diagnosed with
mental disorders (such as depression, PTSD, primary insomnia,
schizophrenia, bipolar, etc.) have brain abnormalities different than
controls. I will not bother posting all the studies, since a simple
google search on a meta-study for all these diseases would suffice,
but I will post 2 for punctuality. The only disease that has been
inconsistent that I'm aware of is unipolar depression (more commonly
known as simply depression). However, in severe cases of depression,
brain abnormaliites have been consistent.
http://markspsychiatry.com/brain-abnormality-may-predict-depression/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VM1-4VTWCHB-F0&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1013927639&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2dd79a945c0c80b8dcfd9a6241931c92

So why are abnormalities present in the ones diagnosed, but the
average person can still meet the standards of certain mental
illnesses? Perhaps it is simply the fact that the ones truly
suffering are more likely to seek treatment, and therefore more likely
to receive a diagnosis.

This brings about the chicken and the egg scenario. Does illness
cause these brain abnormalities or vice-versa? It was amazing to hear
that twins of PTSD sufferers not exposed to combat still had the same
brain abnormalities. http://www.physorg.com/news156452043.html

Studies of the positive effects (both objective and subjective) of CBT
and certain drugs are so numerous that they do not warrant me
searching for them. I will post one for formality purposes.
http://www.realmentalhealth.com/depression/antidepressants_01.asp

My crux is that while foul-play for profits through purposely
mitigating diagnostic standards may be present, it doesn't dismiss the
fact that is a significant number of mentally disturbed out there, if
not the majority of the diagnosed, that genuinely need the help and
would benefit from modern medicine. So far, I have not read any
studies of homeopathic or natural remedies being a superior cure. The
only one effective natural way of treating depression I know of is
moderate exercise, and even these studies have not had conflicting
results.
http://www.articlesbase.com/diseases-and-conditions-articles/study-claims-exercise-does-not-decrease-depression-531480.html

As for creativity, it is true that we all engage in creative
processes. There is also a disagreement as to what exactly creativity
is. IMO, it is simply ones ability to create what is not normally
seen in the physical world, ones ability to invent novel items, or
think of original ideas quickly that can't simply be explained by
experience or knowledge. While it is true that we all engage in this
process, it is not easy to presume we are all equal in this process.
We all engage in cognitive processes as well, yet we still managed to
quantify it and make it comparable among individuals. I suspect, once
definitions of creativity become more standardized, that it is only a
matter of time before we can quantify that as well.

On Sep 14, 4:27 pm, argumzio <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I fully comprehend the temporal aspect, so I am quite willing to
> wait for any thorough reply you might have, jttoto.
>
> But to reply in advance, I will state that I did not myself say that
> you were trying to force the idea that "creative people" are "more
> neurotic" through and through. I'm just voicing a concern of mine:
> that people will mistakenly draw the conclusion that it is bar none
> always the case. And I do understand your purpose for relating a few
> anecdotes (I eventually jumped into the fray myself).
>
> Another issue, however, that I accidentally (believe me, it crossed my
> mind before) did not address is that of general wellness or health. I
> may be broaching a touchy subject here, but I suppose it has its
> place. In general, I find the pharmaceutical industry quite at odds
> with some factors to avoid deviancy in the neurological domain (which
> has been inappropriately regarded as "mental", or to an extent
> separate from the biological context of the organism as a whole),
> particularly in regards to its drive to develop patentable and thus
> profitable drugs. Some former members of the APA have specifically
> disassociated themselves from the APA on this point (just to indicate
> that I'm not making this up out of thin air) and align themselves with
> an "anti-psychiatry movement" of sorts. To whittle all this down
> succinctly, other prerogatives such as eating properly, getting enough
> exercise, and living in a health-promoting, health-preserving
> environment have been, to my mind, ignored for far too long
> (particularly in the USA). This is not to say that there are no cases
> in which such special treatment is necessary, but rather that the
> pharmaceutical industry has been largely considered the be all, end
> all of such things as neuroticism, depression, and the like. In sum, I
> think this trend of neuroticism itself is suspect in this respect, but
> I suppose I'm going a little too far with my thinking on this... (or
> perhaps that that was going too far was going too far).
>
> All I'm saying is that we must be extremely cautious when we talk
> about these very knotty, stringy things, where the two ends are likely
> joined together.
>
> argumzio