Hi All,
Wow, what a semester! Three and a half months ago, I didn't quite know what to think when walking to the young center for the first time! We had our first talk on race and IQ which was interesting, but I still didn't know what to make of the course. After a few classes or so I really began to enjoy the in class discussion component. I really appreciated that Dr. Pretz didn't lecture the entire time and she allowed for more of a dialog about the material to unfold. I thought this was vastly more helpful than a traditional lecture as it helped me manipulate the material while I was learning it. Also hearing other individuals and their impressions on the material was helpful and it began to challenge my initial impressions on whichever study topic. The debates were interesting, but at times I wished they were more dynamic. It would have been cool to integrate some additional neuroscience into the course. What brain regions are associated with creativity etc. However, the papers we read this semester were interesting in their own right.
I felt the PDQ's to be immensely helpful in staying up with course content and thinking deeper about the concepts. The text books for the course were short and easy to navigate as well. My favorite highlight of the course was the paper and doing my own debate. I must admit that the debate was my first since freshmen year! I feel this experience is invaluable to have. Also, since my paper topic was near and dear to my heart (biology-inspired) I felt obliged to make it the best I could! I feel the current edition of it is almost perfect, and will be ready for submission before Thursday.
This has been a absolute fantastic experience--especially for a second semester senior! Thanks again for reading my blog posts.I really enjoyed reading my classmates--some of them had really interesting takes on course content! Although my blogging may cease for this topic, does not mean I have finished philosophizing about intelligence and creativity!
Thanks again,
Ryan
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Mental Illness and Creativity
Hi All,
This debate was interesting in that both sides did a fantastic job advocating for their view points! However, I wish the debate topic should have been qualified with a specific disease such as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or seasonal affective disorder. This would have provided the audience with more details and would have focused the debate more.
Questions I had entering the debate: What kind of disorders? What were the mechanisms underlying this decrease in creativity? For the later I could imagine a disease such as depression which may inhibit creativity due to compulsive thoughts occupying a patients mind. Also, I could also see a scenario where depression may predispose a person to be isolated, which would allow them more alone time to potentially think creatively.
So I have come o the conclusion that a mental illness effects on creativity is dependent on how the illness effects the individual! This would explain some of the discrepancies the debaters had between themselves and why some mental diseases promote creativity, while others do not. There may be in fact more variability to this question than previously thought!
Also a question that interest me is what neuroscience is involved in these illnesses that may enhance creativity? For instance, the debaters pointed out that many artist tend to be in a depressed state during the genesis of their best work. How can this be? Perhaps the inhibition of certain neural networks which regulate the "creative" networks result in the expression of greater creative prowess. Or maybe the induction of depression up regulate neural tracts responsible for the feelings of depression, yet the same tract being unregulated increases creativity. Or for a third option, maybe being depressed changes your interpretation of the world, so that you see experiences differently in comparison to non-disease states and therefore produce different creative products.
Regardless, this was a great debate which got me thinking! Please comment on your thoughts and impressions. I will post once more before the end of the semester.
Until my next post.
Ryan
This debate was interesting in that both sides did a fantastic job advocating for their view points! However, I wish the debate topic should have been qualified with a specific disease such as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or seasonal affective disorder. This would have provided the audience with more details and would have focused the debate more.
Questions I had entering the debate: What kind of disorders? What were the mechanisms underlying this decrease in creativity? For the later I could imagine a disease such as depression which may inhibit creativity due to compulsive thoughts occupying a patients mind. Also, I could also see a scenario where depression may predispose a person to be isolated, which would allow them more alone time to potentially think creatively.
So I have come o the conclusion that a mental illness effects on creativity is dependent on how the illness effects the individual! This would explain some of the discrepancies the debaters had between themselves and why some mental diseases promote creativity, while others do not. There may be in fact more variability to this question than previously thought!
Also a question that interest me is what neuroscience is involved in these illnesses that may enhance creativity? For instance, the debaters pointed out that many artist tend to be in a depressed state during the genesis of their best work. How can this be? Perhaps the inhibition of certain neural networks which regulate the "creative" networks result in the expression of greater creative prowess. Or maybe the induction of depression up regulate neural tracts responsible for the feelings of depression, yet the same tract being unregulated increases creativity. Or for a third option, maybe being depressed changes your interpretation of the world, so that you see experiences differently in comparison to non-disease states and therefore produce different creative products.
Regardless, this was a great debate which got me thinking! Please comment on your thoughts and impressions. I will post once more before the end of the semester.
Until my next post.
Ryan
Creative Project Reflection
Hi All,
This weeks creative project was interesting, in that it allowed the class to reflect on course content and put into practice some theory discussed in the course. I was most impressed by the song that Andrew made! It was very creative and it was aesthetic as well. He incorporated dialog to his song and had a soundtrack to his speech. I was also impressed by the play that Mary came with, as it had a unique conflict, yet addressed all components to her paper topic.
Being biased, I must admit I was a fan of my creative project! I feel showing the sad video from 'up' and having my classmates experience my paper topic was valuable to their understanding. I asked "will you be sad about this video next week?" They answered no! Why? Since humans have developed cognitive mechanisms over the course of our evolutionary history, we have become experts at rationalizing feelings in order to live more productive lives. This experiment is helpful in that it it has the audience see the real life practical application of my paper.
Also--I must admit, although mine was cool, Tatum's was even cooler as it incorporated video interviews of us fellow students and professors alike! Her project was on the creativity of lying! More importantly--I was featured in the video! From the video I was able to see real life examples of creative lying from people that I knew! This really resonated with me and showed me not only first hand examples of creative lies, but the thought process of the creative lair. One thing I noticed from each liar in the video is that they played on there environment and modified their lie based on the situation.
For instance, Dr. Roy was lying about his age in order to buy alcohol, and he modified his lie based on what the cashier was asking him. In my case, I lie to women about having my heart on the right side of my chest. I give them pseudo-medical details and eventually flexing my right pectoral to provide them the evidence they are seeking. This lie is perfect, as there is a dialogue with the girl, there is usually laughter involved, and I get to show off my pec-flexing skills!
All of the projects were fantastically done and provided insight to each individuals paper topics. This exercise was fun and should absolutely be replicated in future years! I feel this is a efficient way to cover a lot of topics while maintaining interest. Be sure to comment on your personal favorites.
Until my next post,
Ryan
This weeks creative project was interesting, in that it allowed the class to reflect on course content and put into practice some theory discussed in the course. I was most impressed by the song that Andrew made! It was very creative and it was aesthetic as well. He incorporated dialog to his song and had a soundtrack to his speech. I was also impressed by the play that Mary came with, as it had a unique conflict, yet addressed all components to her paper topic.
Being biased, I must admit I was a fan of my creative project! I feel showing the sad video from 'up' and having my classmates experience my paper topic was valuable to their understanding. I asked "will you be sad about this video next week?" They answered no! Why? Since humans have developed cognitive mechanisms over the course of our evolutionary history, we have become experts at rationalizing feelings in order to live more productive lives. This experiment is helpful in that it it has the audience see the real life practical application of my paper.
Also--I must admit, although mine was cool, Tatum's was even cooler as it incorporated video interviews of us fellow students and professors alike! Her project was on the creativity of lying! More importantly--I was featured in the video! From the video I was able to see real life examples of creative lying from people that I knew! This really resonated with me and showed me not only first hand examples of creative lies, but the thought process of the creative lair. One thing I noticed from each liar in the video is that they played on there environment and modified their lie based on the situation.
For instance, Dr. Roy was lying about his age in order to buy alcohol, and he modified his lie based on what the cashier was asking him. In my case, I lie to women about having my heart on the right side of my chest. I give them pseudo-medical details and eventually flexing my right pectoral to provide them the evidence they are seeking. This lie is perfect, as there is a dialogue with the girl, there is usually laughter involved, and I get to show off my pec-flexing skills!
All of the projects were fantastically done and provided insight to each individuals paper topics. This exercise was fun and should absolutely be replicated in future years! I feel this is a efficient way to cover a lot of topics while maintaining interest. Be sure to comment on your personal favorites.
Until my next post,
Ryan
Friday, April 24, 2015
Debate Reflection: Should Creativity be Used in Admissions?
Hi All,
After a riveting debate in my PSY327 class concerning creativity in admissions decisions, I came to the following personal conclusion: We all evaluate someones merits when interviewing them. Just because I actually don't test a persons creativity doesn't mean I'm not subconsciously assessing it. Suppose I had a applicant come in and he described himself as a in-the-box thinker, then I would likely develop a immediate bias against him. So then I thought, then perhaps its to the benefit of the institution to test creativity too remove bias? Two problems with that: 1) All test have bias to them 2) Creativity it not equally important for all majors. So then perhaps for the admissions process tests could be given to fit a certain intended major. The Affirmative team used the example that accounting probably requires less creativity than theater so acting majors should be subject to creativity tests. The issue then is how do you deal with changes in majors? Would the student have to reapply to the college? Of course not! Here is my solution: Have applicants be tested for competences that are specific to college! For instance: Evaluate motivation! This can probably be done via a simple assessment. What are your thoughts? How do you think you would do on a test of motivation? What other factors could be tested? Love to hear your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Creative Panel Reflection
Hi All,
This past week in PSY327 we had Dr. Greenberg and Dr. RohrKemper come to our class and discuss creativity! I must say--I was impressed with both of their enthusiasm throughout the discussion. However, I was surprised how little they previously philosophized over the concept of creativity. From Dr. Greenbergs comments it seemed apparent that he considered creativity as a product based entity. But throughout the talk he mentioned how looking at creativity as a process was appealing to him. Dr. RohrKemper seemed to think more deeply about creativity, likely because of the nature of his work.
This discussion perfectly illustrates how the actual philosophy and science of creativity can be included in a variety of fields. I feel that studying the process of creativity in isolation would immensely benefit students of a given field. I would love to follow up with our two speakers and see if their new outlook on the creative process has benefited their work or altered the way they approach teaching their classes.
Questions: Would you prefer if a professor taught creativity in the context of their subject? If so, how much of a course should be dedicated to this? Should a student be graded on their creative product?
Until my next post,
Ryan
This past week in PSY327 we had Dr. Greenberg and Dr. RohrKemper come to our class and discuss creativity! I must say--I was impressed with both of their enthusiasm throughout the discussion. However, I was surprised how little they previously philosophized over the concept of creativity. From Dr. Greenbergs comments it seemed apparent that he considered creativity as a product based entity. But throughout the talk he mentioned how looking at creativity as a process was appealing to him. Dr. RohrKemper seemed to think more deeply about creativity, likely because of the nature of his work.
This discussion perfectly illustrates how the actual philosophy and science of creativity can be included in a variety of fields. I feel that studying the process of creativity in isolation would immensely benefit students of a given field. I would love to follow up with our two speakers and see if their new outlook on the creative process has benefited their work or altered the way they approach teaching their classes.
Questions: Would you prefer if a professor taught creativity in the context of their subject? If so, how much of a course should be dedicated to this? Should a student be graded on their creative product?
Until my next post,
Ryan
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Mcarthur Genius Grant
Hi All,
Today, I'm blogging about Lee Ann Newsom, the recipient of the 2002 Mcarthur Genius Grant. She studies the evolutionary biology of plants (paleoethnobotanist) in the context of the Caribbean, Did the tobacco mosaic virus cause the drastic increase in conifer growth 3000 years ago? Or was it because of the harsh flood? She would not only have to use the paleontological evidence to combine a vision of the ancestral Caribbean plant flora, but also develop reasonable explanatory hypotheses that would match these observations. This is not only creativity, but its problem solving with creativity! This would allow you to practice your creativity but evaluate its plausibility. I feel she would otherwise be very creative in other fields due to how much she is practicing her creative process. Also, while reading her bio I noted that after her graduation from University of Florida, she acted as a curator at a archaeological which undoubtedly build her expertise. This would also be an advantage in terms of developing creativity.
Thinking about my own creativity and field of biology, I feel I have the capacity to be creative by virtue of my interests. Without my interests I would never have the chance to be creative. What do you feel could have been molding to a youth that grows up to receive this genius reward? What is unique about their disposition? Can this experience be systematized? Give me your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Today, I'm blogging about Lee Ann Newsom, the recipient of the 2002 Mcarthur Genius Grant. She studies the evolutionary biology of plants (paleoethnobotanist) in the context of the Caribbean, Did the tobacco mosaic virus cause the drastic increase in conifer growth 3000 years ago? Or was it because of the harsh flood? She would not only have to use the paleontological evidence to combine a vision of the ancestral Caribbean plant flora, but also develop reasonable explanatory hypotheses that would match these observations. This is not only creativity, but its problem solving with creativity! This would allow you to practice your creativity but evaluate its plausibility. I feel she would otherwise be very creative in other fields due to how much she is practicing her creative process. Also, while reading her bio I noted that after her graduation from University of Florida, she acted as a curator at a archaeological which undoubtedly build her expertise. This would also be an advantage in terms of developing creativity.
Thinking about my own creativity and field of biology, I feel I have the capacity to be creative by virtue of my interests. Without my interests I would never have the chance to be creative. What do you feel could have been molding to a youth that grows up to receive this genius reward? What is unique about their disposition? Can this experience be systematized? Give me your thoughts!
Until my next post,
Ryan
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Paper Topic
Hi All,
I'll keep this brief!--I have been brainstorming ways to best organize my term paper, and I thought blogging about it may help by creative process! Sooooo....here is my hypothesis: Organisms with greater diversity of emotions are more likely to have higher ordered intelligence. My reasoning lies in the assumption that emotions were the major evolutionary prerequisite for a theory of mind (TOM), which is a major component of social intelligence, ultimately leading to evolutionary by-products such as proficiencies in math, language, and abstract thinking. TOM has been established as a prerequisite for social intelligence and emotion interpretation have been previously identified as a component of TOM; however, never before has the diversity of emotions been addressed in the context of TOM and subsequently intelligence. The burden is on me to provide evidence which supports this. One type of evidence is to provide association between a organisms emotional diversity and perceived intelligence. I can do this by inferring emotional diversity by using markers such as facial expression diversity (eg a snake has relativity not expression compared to an great ape. Therefore the ape would be expected to have greater emotional diversity). However, this assumes there is no purpose for emotion if you cant express it, which may not necessarily be true ( ex fear. you don't need to express fear in order to act on it and escape from a predator). Considering this, I'll need to couple these observations with cognitive neurobiological data. Also, I can use other non facial ques such as complexity of speech or body language since since emotion can be expressed via these means as well. Throughout all of this I will need to provide parameters of intelligence and frame my argument in a evolutionary context.
Any ideas how to better organize this?
Pass them on!
Until next time,
Ryan
I'll keep this brief!--I have been brainstorming ways to best organize my term paper, and I thought blogging about it may help by creative process! Sooooo....here is my hypothesis: Organisms with greater diversity of emotions are more likely to have higher ordered intelligence. My reasoning lies in the assumption that emotions were the major evolutionary prerequisite for a theory of mind (TOM), which is a major component of social intelligence, ultimately leading to evolutionary by-products such as proficiencies in math, language, and abstract thinking. TOM has been established as a prerequisite for social intelligence and emotion interpretation have been previously identified as a component of TOM; however, never before has the diversity of emotions been addressed in the context of TOM and subsequently intelligence. The burden is on me to provide evidence which supports this. One type of evidence is to provide association between a organisms emotional diversity and perceived intelligence. I can do this by inferring emotional diversity by using markers such as facial expression diversity (eg a snake has relativity not expression compared to an great ape. Therefore the ape would be expected to have greater emotional diversity). However, this assumes there is no purpose for emotion if you cant express it, which may not necessarily be true ( ex fear. you don't need to express fear in order to act on it and escape from a predator). Considering this, I'll need to couple these observations with cognitive neurobiological data. Also, I can use other non facial ques such as complexity of speech or body language since since emotion can be expressed via these means as well. Throughout all of this I will need to provide parameters of intelligence and frame my argument in a evolutionary context.
Any ideas how to better organize this?
Pass them on!
Until next time,
Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)