Creativity and Madness: New Findings and Old Stereotypes [Paperback]

However, since then a rigourous longitudinal study has come out in a book called "The Price of Greatness: Resolving the Creativity and Madness Controversy" found that Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia like psychosis, and other disorders are Much more prevalent among creatively eminent people then they are found in the general population. Studies by Hans Eysenck and others have also shown that psychopathology (or personality traits that predispose to psychosis) is much higher in creative people then in non-creative people in the general population. Also relatives of people with mental disorders are on average more creative then in the general population. To top it all off a study done by Peter Jordanson and colleagues has found one of the biological basis to creativity, which is that creative people score low on measures of latent inhibition which measure one's openness to novel stimuli or new possibilities. People with mental illness, particularly Schizophrenics, also score low on latent inhibition showing they have a trait that is essential for creativity, and that creative achievers also have. Of course Rothenberg obviously wasn't open to this possibility (which has now been scientifically proven), when he wrote this book. While at the same time other creativity researchers were (go figure). While Rothenberg's theory does have some truth in it such as obvious facts that creative achievement and insanity aren't the same thing and in fact that insanity in itself can be destructive to creative achievement; or that not all mentally ill people necessarily become eminent creative achievers. His main premise of the book that there is no link between creativity and madness has been proven false and it is clear that he was probably the one who was biased against any association between creativity and madness to begin with.

Then again psychiatrists, which are in the same profession as Rothenberg, often note that there is some truth in every delusion. Which I suppose means that even though "new findings and old stereotypes" has disproven Rothenberg's "delusion" (or false belief) of their not being any link between creativity and madness, his "delusional theory" should not be thought of as not being true at all. As he does make some (although mostly obvious) points about the subject in his book.