Why are some families more creative?
June 27, 2007 1:44 PM Subscribe
A friend of mine is a gifted writer. Her brother is a songwriter, her mother is a painter, her father was an artist and her grandfather was a famous writer AND painter. Does creativity come in the genes? What does science say?
I want to find books and studies about artistic families. Why are some families filled with creativity and others not?
I want to find books and studies about artistic families. Why are some families filled with creativity and others not?
Don't forget to take into account that the exceptionally creative descendants of famous artists also tend to have exceptional connections that make it far more likely for them to be able to find an audience for their art than it is for some random unconnected equally creative person.
posted by transona5 at 2:01 PM on June 27, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by transona5 at 2:01 PM on June 27, 2007 [2 favorites]
also those that are descendants of famous creative folks sometimes have the financial resources needed to spend time being creative, cause it aint easy when you're busting ass all day to pay the bills...
"Loafing is the most productive part of a writer's life." ~James Norman Hall
posted by Salvatorparadise at 2:06 PM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
"Loafing is the most productive part of a writer's life." ~James Norman Hall
posted by Salvatorparadise at 2:06 PM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
Kay Jamison argues in Touched With Fire that this sort of creativity might have a genetic component that's linked to bipolar disorder. Get some of the genetic predispositions to bipolar, and you come out creative but functional. Get the full thing, and you get to have bipolar.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:08 PM on June 27, 2007
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:08 PM on June 27, 2007
There has always been an argument between Nature and Nurture. I pick Nurture.
Why pick? It's almost certain that it's both genotype and phenotype. There are strong indications that different types of intelligence are heritable. Why should this be any different?
At the same time, it's undeniable that environment strongly influences development too. See the recent studies correlating IQ with birth order, for example.
Picking one factor over the other is a false dichotomy. Both are important. I'd argue that highly artistic and creative families have won the draw twice: genetically and culturally. The first may select for the second, though. that would be a fascinating bit of research.
posted by bonehead at 2:59 PM on June 27, 2007
Why pick? It's almost certain that it's both genotype and phenotype. There are strong indications that different types of intelligence are heritable. Why should this be any different?
At the same time, it's undeniable that environment strongly influences development too. See the recent studies correlating IQ with birth order, for example.
Picking one factor over the other is a false dichotomy. Both are important. I'd argue that highly artistic and creative families have won the draw twice: genetically and culturally. The first may select for the second, though. that would be a fascinating bit of research.
posted by bonehead at 2:59 PM on June 27, 2007
In the absence of retardation or other disorders, most evidence points to complex traits like creativity as being the result of environmental influences.
posted by chrisamiller at 3:30 PM on June 27, 2007
posted by chrisamiller at 3:30 PM on June 27, 2007
Best answer: I think we've got a predisposition towards certain "behaviors," which environment can nuture or not - but if you're not an "artistic" person by nature, you're just not really ever going to be one.
There have been loads of studies of twins who were separated (from each other) and kids separated from the parents nearly at birth - it's astonishing the regularity with which these kids share traits with their birth parents (or sibling, in the case of twins) but not the people whose environment they shared.
People discuss nature/nurture as if it's a fifty/fifty thing, but the truth is that science is uncovering more and more evidence for "nature" (that is, genetics) as a greater determiner than environment - and for some surprising things. It'll never be entirely one or the other, but our genes are a bit more powerfully than most people think.
I more or less agree with Bonehead - really creative people have probably benefited from genes and a willingness on someone's part to allow that genetic predisposition to flourish.
On the other hand, the recent studies relating birth order to high IQ are not so obviously in the domain of environment. Scientists are investigating the idea that a woman's first pregnancy (or her first pregnancy in a great while) causes her body to react in different ways than it does in later one. I can't recall the exact terminology, but essentially the idea is that with a first pregnancy, the woman's body goes "all out" producing extra hormones and providing extra nutrition to the baby. In later pregnancies, the body does not stress itself as much to "help" the baby. (This is a poor paraphrasing of something I read months ago, but hopefully the reader will get the idea!) The end result is (the theory goes) that first born children had extra benefits in the womb which could explain their higher IQs. I reckon the jury's still out, but it's an interesting idea.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 3:36 PM on June 27, 2007
There have been loads of studies of twins who were separated (from each other) and kids separated from the parents nearly at birth - it's astonishing the regularity with which these kids share traits with their birth parents (or sibling, in the case of twins) but not the people whose environment they shared.
People discuss nature/nurture as if it's a fifty/fifty thing, but the truth is that science is uncovering more and more evidence for "nature" (that is, genetics) as a greater determiner than environment - and for some surprising things. It'll never be entirely one or the other, but our genes are a bit more powerfully than most people think.
I more or less agree with Bonehead - really creative people have probably benefited from genes and a willingness on someone's part to allow that genetic predisposition to flourish.
On the other hand, the recent studies relating birth order to high IQ are not so obviously in the domain of environment. Scientists are investigating the idea that a woman's first pregnancy (or her first pregnancy in a great while) causes her body to react in different ways than it does in later one. I can't recall the exact terminology, but essentially the idea is that with a first pregnancy, the woman's body goes "all out" producing extra hormones and providing extra nutrition to the baby. In later pregnancies, the body does not stress itself as much to "help" the baby. (This is a poor paraphrasing of something I read months ago, but hopefully the reader will get the idea!) The end result is (the theory goes) that first born children had extra benefits in the womb which could explain their higher IQs. I reckon the jury's still out, but it's an interesting idea.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 3:36 PM on June 27, 2007
Best answer: At the same time, a lot of things that were thought to be in the realm of genetics are discovered quite often to be merely faculties that are learned in extreme infancy. Perfect pitch, for example, is thought to be in-born, but many data belie that (long article, but it mentions the strong correlations between perfect pitch and early musical training, perfect pitch and language).
I'm sure it's a combination of both, but it's impossible to say at the moment. There's no conclusive genetic evidence of this being true, merely correlations that could be the result of genes or not. There's also no conclusive evidence against it.
My hypothesis, therefore, is a revision of the "little bit of both" one stated above: it's probably genetic to some degree (to varying degrees, in fact, depending on the person) but intense exposure and work can make up for any deficiencies in this regard.
Someone incredibly genetically gifted could probably, combined with the same amount of work and exposure, reach stratospheric levels of skill...but luckily for everyone else, there's no real way to tell yet.
posted by invitapriore at 4:29 PM on June 27, 2007
I'm sure it's a combination of both, but it's impossible to say at the moment. There's no conclusive genetic evidence of this being true, merely correlations that could be the result of genes or not. There's also no conclusive evidence against it.
My hypothesis, therefore, is a revision of the "little bit of both" one stated above: it's probably genetic to some degree (to varying degrees, in fact, depending on the person) but intense exposure and work can make up for any deficiencies in this regard.
Someone incredibly genetically gifted could probably, combined with the same amount of work and exposure, reach stratospheric levels of skill...but luckily for everyone else, there's no real way to tell yet.
posted by invitapriore at 4:29 PM on June 27, 2007
Best answer: Well, here's my believe, cobbled together from some human evolution education, in combination with my experience as a child, niece (on two sides) and great-granddaughter of artists, and as an observer of many, many children from a variety of backgrounds:
Creativity is innate and abundant in every human. Creativity is fundamentally the ability to think of novel solutions to problems and novel process towards goals. A combination of environment and temperament helps determine what problems and/or processes individuals devote their creativity to. In our (read North American, late 20th/early 21st century) culture particular types of problems and goals are dubbed "creative" and those who pursue them are seen as more inherently creative than those who pursue other types of problems and goals. To really get a grasp on the biological influences of creativity though, one would have to expand the investigation to include pursuits that may not be "artistic" but nevertheless can be the product of creative endeavour.
posted by carmen at 7:33 PM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
Creativity is innate and abundant in every human. Creativity is fundamentally the ability to think of novel solutions to problems and novel process towards goals. A combination of environment and temperament helps determine what problems and/or processes individuals devote their creativity to. In our (read North American, late 20th/early 21st century) culture particular types of problems and goals are dubbed "creative" and those who pursue them are seen as more inherently creative than those who pursue other types of problems and goals. To really get a grasp on the biological influences of creativity though, one would have to expand the investigation to include pursuits that may not be "artistic" but nevertheless can be the product of creative endeavour.
posted by carmen at 7:33 PM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's the environment. If you want to be a cowboy, you hang out with cowboys.
posted by pmbuko at 7:38 PM on June 27, 2007
posted by pmbuko at 7:38 PM on June 27, 2007
Best answer: pmbuko: Yeah, but why do they want to hang out with cowboys?
up!Rock: If you're interested in the nature/nurture debate as it applies to life in general (and not just creativity), pick up The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker -- he writes very well, and addresses the nature/nurture debate in extreme depth, although I don't know if he hits "creativity" on the nose (I can't remember).
Basically, he'd say, yes, genes have an effect, but they're not the end-all of the situation.
In it, and especially in Chapter 19, he argues that all behavioural traits can be hereditary, and that the effect of family on behaviour is less than the effect of outside sources on behaviour (40-50% genes, 0-10% family, and 50% everyone else, roughly, with a lot of error margin, and a lot of controversy about these numbers -- blablabla genes! blablabla cultural relativism! blabla you devil!).
So you take creative people, who have offspring that will tend towards creativity unless there's a the recessive Accountant Gene comes out to play (kidding, and oversimplifying), and you surround them with a creative family, who will probably support the kid in finding creative friends and activities, and you tend to get creative little biddies.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 11:59 PM on June 27, 2007
up!Rock: If you're interested in the nature/nurture debate as it applies to life in general (and not just creativity), pick up The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker -- he writes very well, and addresses the nature/nurture debate in extreme depth, although I don't know if he hits "creativity" on the nose (I can't remember).
Basically, he'd say, yes, genes have an effect, but they're not the end-all of the situation.
In it, and especially in Chapter 19, he argues that all behavioural traits can be hereditary, and that the effect of family on behaviour is less than the effect of outside sources on behaviour (40-50% genes, 0-10% family, and 50% everyone else, roughly, with a lot of error margin, and a lot of controversy about these numbers -- blablabla genes! blablabla cultural relativism! blabla you devil!).
So you take creative people, who have offspring that will tend towards creativity unless there's a the recessive Accountant Gene comes out to play (kidding, and oversimplifying), and you surround them with a creative family, who will probably support the kid in finding creative friends and activities, and you tend to get creative little biddies.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 11:59 PM on June 27, 2007
Low maternal stress and good diet, both pre- and post-natal.
posted by meehawl at 7:12 AM on June 28, 2007
posted by meehawl at 7:12 AM on June 28, 2007
anecdotally:
i tend more towards nature. my brother and i are both very talented artistically (i'm a designer by profession, he is a talented illustrator though he never developed it beyond high school art classes). i believe we both got that from my mother. however, the only time in my life my mother has ever demonstrated that she had any artistic talent at all is when i was a child and she used to draw pictures for me by copying illustrations. i knew from an early age (six) that i wanted to be a designer but my family was never overtly encouraging about it. even now, i'm sure my mother prefers that i had a "normal" job. but i am convinced that it's her side of the family (her mother used to be a hair stylist) that the creativity comes from.
posted by violetk at 11:34 AM on June 28, 2007
i tend more towards nature. my brother and i are both very talented artistically (i'm a designer by profession, he is a talented illustrator though he never developed it beyond high school art classes). i believe we both got that from my mother. however, the only time in my life my mother has ever demonstrated that she had any artistic talent at all is when i was a child and she used to draw pictures for me by copying illustrations. i knew from an early age (six) that i wanted to be a designer but my family was never overtly encouraging about it. even now, i'm sure my mother prefers that i had a "normal" job. but i am convinced that it's her side of the family (her mother used to be a hair stylist) that the creativity comes from.
posted by violetk at 11:34 AM on June 28, 2007
Using your example - I would think that the original couple were drawn to each other because they were artistic, and as they had kids they encouraged them to be artistic too.
posted by divabat at 5:57 AM on June 29, 2007
posted by divabat at 5:57 AM on June 29, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by JJ86 at 1:48 PM on June 27, 2007