In this commentary article (2008), Ben Sessa reflects on the studies into creativity and psychedelics and proposes that we get back to studying the link between the two.

Abstract

“Human creativity is difficult to define and measure, but it is undoubtedly an important cognitive process. This makes it an interesting challenge for modern neuroscientific exploration — especially given the current interest in developing cognitive enhancers for commercial and clinical uses. There are similarities between the typical traits of creative people and the subjective psychological characteristics of the psychedelic (hallucinogenic) drug experience. This phenomenon was studied in a number of small trials and case studies in the 1960s. Results were inconclusive, and the quality of these studies — by modern research standards — was merely anecdotal. Nevertheless, with today’s current renaissance in psychedelic drug research and the growing interest in cognitive-enhancing drugs, now may be the time to re-visit these studies with contemporary research methods.“

Author: Ben Sessa

Notes

The author makes the strongest link between psychedelics and creativity in the following passage.

“The psychological experience induced in humans under the influence of psychedelic drugs is multifarious and idiosyncratic, but nevertheless a broad range of common characteristics are frequently identified. These include alterations in the user’s perceptions (in all the sensory modalities), changes in the emotions, and expansion in an individual’s sense of thought and identity. A particular feature of the experience – that is encompassed by all the above characteristics and has special relevance to the creative process is, that of a general increase in complexity and openness, such that the usual ego-bound restraints that allow humans to accept given pre-conceived ideas about themselves and the world around them are necessarily challenged. Another important feature is the tendency for users to assign unique and novel meanings to their experience – together with an appreciation that they are part of a bigger, universal cosmic-oneness.”

After reviewing much of the literature, also see our review on creativity, Sessa makes several arguments for why we should be picking up creativity research again. It could lead to new findings for the commercial industry (think Steve Jobs). For clinical research, he mentions work done with people with autism which hasn’t been done since 1969. The set and setting of previously done studies might not have been conducive to creative outbursts and even how they interact/enable creativity is not yet understood.

Finally, he notes that the relatively safe profile of psychedelics (see Drugs Without the Hot Air) and a better political climate, may enable researchers to dive deeper into psychedelics again and the positive outcomes they may enable.

Summary

The cognitive process of creativity is difficult to define and measure, but there are similarities between the typical traits of creative people and the subjective psychological characteristics of the psychedelic drug experience.

Psychedelic drug research is re-emerging, and modern research methods may help improve these studies.

Introduction

Modern research is focusing on the potential clinical applications of psychedelic drugs, but it is also re-opening avenues for experiments with less immediately obvious clinical applications that may shed light on what these unique substances can teach us about the brain.

What is creativity?

The word create derives from the Latin creatus, ‘to have grown’, and means to generate new ideas. It is most frequently applied to art and design, and more recently to advertising.

Formal attempts at defining creativity

In his book The Art of Thought (1926), Graham Wallas described five stages of the creative process, and distinguished between convergent and divergent thinking processes.

Neurobiology of creativity

The Harvard neurologist Alice Flaherty (2005) challenges the ‘left brain – right brain’ model of brain function and suggests that creativity is a three-factor anatomical model that focuses on interactions between the temporal lobes, frontal lobes and limbic system – mediated by dopamine activity.

There is a current trend for exploring the concept of cognitive enhancing drugs, including the use of D-cycloserine as an adjunct to psychotherapy and LSD to enhance associative learning in rabbits.

How is creativity measured?

Since renaissance times, creativity has often been measured by examining the output of so-called creators. However, defining objective measures for the process of creativity is notoriously difficult.

Many tests have been developed to measure creativity, including the Unusual Uses test, the Structure Of Intellect test and Mednick’s Remote Associates Test. Paul Torrance further developed these tests into the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.

Critics of psychometric tests have suggested that it is not possible to articulate clear, objective criteria for a creative product. Expert Opinion is a popular method for assessing creativity in the arts.

Barron (1965) examined the psychological profiles of individuals from different professional fields who frequently produced highly creative, original work, and postulated eight traits that characterised these individuals.

Creativity was not directly linked to IQ, but was instead linked to finding meaning in the world, being intuitive, being introverted, being slightly more ‘psychologically imbalanced’ than the general population, and maintaining independent judgement.

Rogers (1959) described how certain internal and external conditions are necessary to enhance the creative process, including a low psychological defensiveness, a lack of rigidity, a tolerance for ambiguity, a sensitive awareness of feelings, and an aesthetic sensibility.

How the psychedelic experience might enhance the creative process

The term ‘Psychedelic Experience’ was coined in the 1950s to describe the subjective psychological effects of a hallucinogenic drug, such as LSD, mescaline, DMT and psilocybin.

The psychological experience induced by psychedelic drugs is multifarious and idiosyncratic, but shares common characteristics such as a general increase in complexity and openness, and the tendency for users to assign unique and novel meanings to their experience.

Harman, et al. (1966) suggested that using a psychedelic drug under the appropriately controlled test conditions could enhance the creative process.

Anecdotal historic examples of using psychedelic drugs to enhance artistic creativity

There are many anecdotal examples of artists and writers using psychedelic drugs to enhance the creative process, and there are also many examples of pre-historic art work using optical illusions or entoptic phenomena to enhance the visual experience.

The use of opium to influence creativity is well recognised. Thomas De Quincey, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Alexandre Dumas père and Alfred Lord Tennyson have all reported using opium as a creative tool.

Several artists, including Henri Michaux and Aldous Huxley, have used psychedelic drugs and written about their experiences in their later works. Many other artists and musicians acknowledge the influence of psychedelic drug experiences on their work.

Oscar Janiger’s unique study

Oscar Janiger conducted a series of anecdotal case studies with LSD, in which he facilitated sessions for almost 1000 people. The subjects’ experiences varied widely, but adverse reactions were extremely rare, and the vast majority described the experience as valuable and sustaining.

Janiger gave LSD to 60 visual artists over a seven-year period and analysed their work, finding that the artists’ work had a tendency towards more expressionistic work, a sharpening of colour, a greater freedom from prescribed mental sets, an increased syntactical organisation, and a heightened sense of emotional excitement.

Further experiments in creativity and psychedelics

Five studies have been done on the influence of drugs on artists. The results have been positive.

The psychologist Frank Barron gave psilocybin to creative individuals and recorded their subjective impressions. The psychiatrist McGlothlin gave LSD to 72 graduate students.

In an experiment by Zegans, et al. (1967), 19 graduate students were given LSD, alongside 11 students who received a placebo. The results showed that whilst LSD did not improve creativity for all subjects, it did improve creativity for certain subjects with particular ‘creative personality traits’.

Little emphasis was made on the importance of personal mind-set and environmental setting during these studies, which report variable successes in demonstrating the psychedelic drug’s ability to improve creativity.

The pilot study by Harman, et al. (1966) from the Institute of Psychedelic Research of San Francisco State College deserves closer attention. The researchers selected individuals engaged in creative industries and encouraged them to work in groups and as individuals to tackle their chosen problems. All participants showed enhanced abilities on all tests when under the drug compared to the previous non-drug tests. They described 11 ‘Strategies of Enhanced Functioning’ in their subjective written accounts.

Reduced inhibition and reduced anxiety, increased fluency and flexibility of ideas, increased ability to concentrate, increased empathy with objects and processes, increased motivation to obtain closure.

At 8-week follow-up, all subjects reported either improvements or no change in their creative abilities.

The commercial industry implications for enhancing creativity with drugs

The neuroscientific understanding of creativity has vast implications for commercial industry, particularly the advertising industry, where creativity is arguably the most important element of success.

Designers have used psychedelic drugs to improve their skills, including Kyoshi Izumi, who took LSD to see old mental institutions in a new light. He designed what has been called ‘the ideal mental hospital’.

Francis Crick, who discovered the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule, was alleged to have used low doses of LSD and was a well-known admirer of Aldous Huxley.

Nobel Prize winning chemist Dr Kary Mullis invented PCR, and says he learnt this partly on psychedelic drugs.

The 1960s counter-culture of LSD use fostered the creativity of entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, who founded the Apple computer industry.

Clinical implications of drugs that may enhance creativity

Autism patients may benefit from an enhancement of creativity, as they are unable to see the intrinsic connectivity between people and objects. This phenomenon was explored in the early part of the 1960s in a small number of studies using psychedelic drugs on children with autism.

Set and setting

The psychological characteristics of psychedelic drugs are very variable, and fostering a positive set and setting is crucial to a positive outcome. Set and setting must be seen as an active part of the experimental intention when using psychedelic drugs.

When under the acute influence of psychedelic drugs, subjects generally perform worse on standard tests of intelligence, learning, memory and other cognitive functions, as well as certain psychomotor tasks. However, it is often difficult to get meaningful data from such measurements because subjects often lose interest.

What is the benefit of revisiting psychedelics and creativity research now?

Psychedelic research has been spurred on by a more realistic understanding of the safety profile of recreationally abused substances. There are several trials underway throughout the world at present, some of which aim to recreate famous studies of the 1950s and 1960s using modern research methods. One such trial is Walter Pahnke’s 1962 Good Friday Experiment. Roland Griffiths of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, USA used a double-blind technique to give psilocybin to 36 volunteers without previous experience with hallucinogens. The subjects reported increased life satisfaction and sense of well being, but also some significant negative subjective experiences. A recreation of the study by Harman, et al. (1966) could have far greater implications for the clinical and commercial sectors of society.

Conclusion

Psychedelic research has a contentious history, but there is a rich wealth of anecdotal studies from 40 years ago that were abandoned prematurely before their full therapeutic potential was either adequately reported or discounted.