Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast with doctor Scott
Speaker 1: Barry Kaufman, where we give you insights into the mind, brain, behavior,
Speaker 1: and creativity. Each episode will feature a new guest who
Speaker 1: will stimulate your mind and give you a greater understanding
Speaker 1: of yourself, others, and the world we live in. Hopefully
Speaker 1: we'll also provide a glimpse into human possibility. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening and enjoy the podcast right now, We're really excited
Speaker 1: to be speaking with our guest. Gail's Salts. Gail is
Speaker 1: a clinical Associate Professor of psychiatry the New York Presbyterian Hospital,
Speaker 1: WYO Cornell Medical College, and a psychoanalyst with the New
Speaker 1: York Psychoanalytic Institute. A frequent contributor in the media, she's
Speaker 1: a columnist, best selling author, podcast host, and television commentator,
Speaker 1: and one of the nations foremost go to experts on
Speaker 1: a variety of psychological and mental health issues, especially those
Speaker 1: between the women's emotional wellbeing relationships and the mental health
Speaker 1: aspects of current news. Her latest book is The Power
Speaker 1: of Different The Link between Disorder and Genius. Hey, Gail,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for being on the show today. Well, Scott,
Speaker 1: thanks for inviting me because, as you know, we both
Speaker 1: love this topic and you, of course were a major
Speaker 1: expert for me in constructing my book. So I'm really
Speaker 1: delighted that I'm here. Well, that's really kind of you
Speaker 1: to say this book is, as first of allus, been
Speaker 1: doing very well. I see it's doing for so it
Speaker 1: really resonated with a lot of people. What do you
Speaker 1: think is resonating so much? Yeah, I'm really excited about that,
Speaker 1: And I think that it's just sort of congeals and
Speaker 1: brings to light something that many people who are struggling
Speaker 1: with some sort of symptom of what I would call
Speaker 1: a brain difference. So you know, it may be a
Speaker 1: mental illness, it might be a learning difference or disability
Speaker 1: know and parents that those kids know that while their
Speaker 1: kid is struggling, that they also have sort of some
Speaker 1: sort of unique strength. But you know, very few people
Speaker 1: have put words to that, and mostly what they find,
Speaker 1: depressingly so is that there's a lot of stigma. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of shame. Educational systems are rather immobile in
Speaker 1: terms of both supporting but also gleaning the possibility that
Speaker 1: there is something really able about their child. So to
Speaker 1: see something I think in writing that it shows them
Speaker 1: the science and gives them the language for understanding that
Speaker 1: there's a wiring issue here that explains what's going on.
Speaker 1: I think is both relieving and maybe hopefully somewhat inspiring
Speaker 1: for people. It's probably both for sure. Yeah, you cover
Speaker 1: quite the gamut of things that I start to wonder,
Speaker 1: who's not different in your book? Who's left? I mean,
Speaker 1: did you basically just write a book saying that, like
Speaker 1: for anyone in this world, if you have anything that
Speaker 1: you're not proud of, maybe it's a gift and that's
Speaker 1: why everyone's buying your book. Well, you know, that's a
Speaker 1: really fair question. And in fact, you know, part of
Speaker 1: my goal was actually to say that while we want
Speaker 1: to as a country say only these few people are
Speaker 1: different and so we can negate them, that couldn't be
Speaker 1: further from the truth. That the reality is right close
Speaker 1: to fifty percent of Americans at some point in their
Speaker 1: lifetime will have or meet criteria for a mental health diagnosis.
Speaker 1: So hard to keep saying people are abnormal. If you know,
Speaker 1: we're talking to close to fifty percent by definition statistically,
Speaker 1: you know, it's hard to say that's abnormal. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I am talking about a lot of people, and that
Speaker 1: was part of my goal because you know, as you
Speaker 1: and I have spoken about, I think the reality is
Speaker 1: that all of these things that we end up calling
Speaker 1: diagnoses are really just further out on the continuum of
Speaker 1: normal behavior. I mean, things that every that he does
Speaker 1: struggle with. Sometimes it's just that maybe it becomes so
Speaker 1: repetitive and continuous and interfering with their functioning that it
Speaker 1: then qualifies as a diagnosis. Yeah. As you know, the
Speaker 1: people that are arguing against the DSM, the psychologists are
Speaker 1: coming up with alternative model of all these things that's
Speaker 1: more dimensional, so that we're all somewhere on these every
Speaker 1: single one of these is a continuum. And that's why
Speaker 1: I chose to actually frame the chapters in terms of
Speaker 1: symptoms and not diagnoses. I mean, yes, I do talk
Speaker 1: about the diagnoses because as a psychiatrist is hard not
Speaker 1: to since that's the language that so many people are
Speaker 1: familiar with. But I really try to, at least early
Speaker 1: on in the book, also dispel the idea that, you know,
Speaker 1: these diagnoses are the most meaningful thing. They're really just language.
Speaker 1: They're boxes that were constructs and not they don't really
Speaker 1: reflect the symptomatology, which is what clinicians treat. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm a psychiatrist, but still a psychiatrist. Most of my
Speaker 1: colleagues are really treating symptoms and not quote diagnoses. I
Speaker 1: think that is an important distinction. But the other distinction
Speaker 1: is that I use this term brain difference is because
Speaker 1: for lack of a better one, because I really want
Speaker 1: people to understand that to some degree, we all have
Speaker 1: different wirings that you know, the idea that the brain
Speaker 1: is an organ, and so we have to stop blaming
Speaker 1: people for the differences that they have as though they
Speaker 1: could you know, it's a moral failing. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, it's an organ, very different from the heart,
Speaker 1: where there is sort of a normal construct and an
Speaker 1: abnormal construct. The brain there's such a variation in wiring,
Speaker 1: as you know, between men and women, between individuals, and
Speaker 1: it's so individual that if we don't start understanding it
Speaker 1: and looking at it that way, we really do a
Speaker 1: disservice to so many of us. Yeah, why didn't you
Speaker 1: include sex differences chapter the Power of being a Male
Speaker 1: or the Power of being Female? Yeah, maybe that's my
Speaker 1: next book. Too controversial, maybe too controversial. It would be
Speaker 1: controversial for sure, But but you know, I mean, of
Speaker 1: course there are you know, that's not a hard and
Speaker 1: fast rule either. There are probably more variations between people
Speaker 1: within a sex than there are, you know, uniformly just
Speaker 1: between the sexes. But there are differences of course between
Speaker 1: the sexes because hormones influence brain wiring. And I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe we should just think about everything differently as this
Speaker 1: emerging model and not have exceptions. Yeah, it's a really
Speaker 1: good point. I think we do need to think about
Speaker 1: a whole lot of things differently. This was sort of
Speaker 1: my hopeful entree with the data that I could call,
Speaker 1: let's say, but you know, I think we are on
Speaker 1: a potential burgeoning era, let's say, in terms of imaging
Speaker 1: and different methods of imaging that hopefully will give us
Speaker 1: a lot more information about you know, the this archaic
Speaker 1: pattern of quantifying and qualifying everyone isn't really working any longer,
Speaker 1: and that we really need to create a different model
Speaker 1: of understanding these brain differences or even variations of a
Speaker 1: person within their lifetime, because of course the brain is plastic,
Speaker 1: and you know, so changes can keep occurring. People can
Speaker 1: traditionally make change, but of course the environment is always
Speaker 1: you know, epigenetically turning off and on our genes and
Speaker 1: changing things, and we need to think of that in
Speaker 1: our model of accounting for things as well. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: let's talk about some of these specific ones and hopefully
Speaker 1: by the end of this episode will have covered all
Speaker 1: of our listeners. That's probably so in some way. And
Speaker 1: I'm sure that, like you know, because these are dimensional,
Speaker 1: you can see a bit of yourself in every single
Speaker 1: one of these. But obviously it does exist, though we
Speaker 1: don't want to, you know, say that it isn't a
Speaker 1: real thing either. You know that people really can't score
Speaker 1: really high in these each of these dimensions in a
Speaker 1: way that is meaningful. Yeah, it's Stiorth talking about. So
Speaker 1: let's talk about dyslexia and what are some of the
Speaker 1: latest scientific findings surrounding that. Well, you know, I realized
Speaker 1: that I am now speaking with someone who knows science,
Speaker 1: knows science well, and will probably take umbrage with some
Speaker 1: of the you know, how hard and fast some of
Speaker 1: these things are so and something I wanted to be
Speaker 1: clear that, you know, the difficulty is mean little bits
Speaker 1: here and there from the science, but it's not hard
Speaker 1: and fast. But I think, to me, what I hope
Speaker 1: to be the bigger takeaway points regarding dyslexia. We're one
Speaker 1: something that has been known for a long time but
Speaker 1: many people don't understand, which is there is a real
Speaker 1: and complete separation between IQ and dyslexia, and that you know,
Speaker 1: many many people with dyslexia are are extremely bright, they
Speaker 1: may have difficulty reading and processing. And also that dyslexia
Speaker 1: is does not mean one thing. It is actually again
Speaker 1: unfortunately it's our box that we have a name for.
Speaker 1: You know, you have difficulty reading, and it has to
Speaker 1: do with wiring in some way. But people it's probably
Speaker 1: going to turn out to be many different things dyslexia.
Speaker 1: You know, people tend to think it's purely you don't
Speaker 1: see what you're reading correctly, but it really has to
Speaker 1: do more with the wiring for processing what you are
Speaker 1: seeing correctly. Again, there are variations between individuals and how
Speaker 1: that presents. But what I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: don't know is that there is some data to support
Speaker 1: the idea that people are many people with dyslexia, probably
Speaker 1: not everybody have this wider net for visual, auditory and
Speaker 1: cognitive material that they have this wider spatial attention. And
Speaker 1: that is clearly because they are processing differently. And in fact,
Speaker 1: you know people who do their workarounds to be able
Speaker 1: to read material though they have dyslexia. You know, the
Speaker 1: reading seems to happen in a different process. It's not
Speaker 1: that they are then doing the same thing that for instance,
Speaker 1: I do when I read, because I don't have that
Speaker 1: st ruggle. They are reading hemispherically in a different path
Speaker 1: even though they are reading. So one can create wiring,
Speaker 1: let's say, or super highway, a small pathway that is
Speaker 1: wired to enable one to do something better, and that
Speaker 1: is what people often with dyslexia do when they are
Speaker 1: taught to be able to process their reading. But it
Speaker 1: does seem to correlate with and I am using the
Speaker 1: word correlate and not cause this wider spatial attention, this
Speaker 1: increased ability to discern patterns, and that often applies to
Speaker 1: special spatial relations strengths. So for example, I do profile
Speaker 1: certain people to try to illustrate this in the book.
Speaker 1: I think doctor Beryl Benis Rap is a great example
Speaker 1: of a highly accomplished physician who discovered how to diagnose
Speaker 1: down syndrome in utero via ultrasound and that is because
Speaker 1: though she has actually quite substantial dyslexia that still makes
Speaker 1: reading and writing very difficult for her. She found that
Speaker 1: she could see things on X ray and ultrasound that
Speaker 1: really other people simply did not see. I mean, it
Speaker 1: would not pop out at them in the way that
Speaker 1: it popped out for her. She didn't even realize that
Speaker 1: that was something you know, sort of special or particular
Speaker 1: strength that she had until in attending pointed out, you know,
Speaker 1: you see this, You to point this out to me,
Speaker 1: for me to be able to see this, and to
Speaker 1: her she described it to me as sort of almost magically,
Speaker 1: you know, almost like they were floating in front of
Speaker 1: you know, they stood out in this kind of almost
Speaker 1: dimensional way for her, and that is something that you know,
Speaker 1: many people with dyslexia do report. Yeah, I think the
Speaker 1: million dollar question is to what extent is that statistically
Speaker 1: probabilistically likely if you have dyslexua that you're going to
Speaker 1: then have that or is it just at a chance
Speaker 1: that there are people with dyslexia who also have that talent,
Speaker 1: So like talent might be an independent variable that just
Speaker 1: happens to co occur with dyslexia amongst certain people, or
Speaker 1: is that something that dyslexia really makes it more likely
Speaker 1: that you'll develop I don't know if we have the
Speaker 1: one hundred percent the answer that question. Yet I think
Speaker 1: that's fair because, as I said, you know, the data
Speaker 1: the studies I reported on are really their correlation studies,
Speaker 1: you know, and so there's no you know, that makes
Speaker 1: it difficult to say it's cause and effect. That's that's
Speaker 1: the difficulty. I think in all of the neuroscience research,
Speaker 1: it's been very difficult to say cause and effect as
Speaker 1: opposed to correlation. But you know, there does seem to
Speaker 1: be let's say, an uptick in correlation enough that it
Speaker 1: certainly would make one suspect that this is the case. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and regardless, it still points to that the fact that
Speaker 1: having a learning difference I love the phrase learning difference
Speaker 1: so much over learning disability. Yeah, that having learning different
Speaker 1: doesn't preclude you from having these talents. Absolutely absolutely not.
Speaker 1: And in fact, you know, really what I try to,
Speaker 1: let's say, advise toward the end of the book is
Speaker 1: ways that parents, you know, if their child is presenting
Speaker 1: with dyslexia, can help their child and then hopefully also
Speaker 1: help their child's educator to discover, you know, what potential
Speaker 1: strengths that child has and play to those strengths or
Speaker 1: you know, allow room for that totally. And I'm totally
Speaker 1: on board with that. You've heard of the phrase twice exceptional, yes,
Speaker 1: and it's I just wrapped up a book on twice exceptional,
Speaker 1: supporting the twice Exceptional Children, which it's an editive volume,
Speaker 1: so there's like a scientist in there and representing their
Speaker 1: own views and stuff. And there's some debate about, you know,
Speaker 1: the extent to which is every child with dyslexia twice exceptional,
Speaker 1: you know, would be an interesting question. You know, probably
Speaker 1: not one thing I end up talking about, and I'd
Speaker 1: be curious to know your thought on this regarding dyslexia
Speaker 1: and twice exceptional. But you know, I talk about the
Speaker 1: U shaped curve theory of this, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: if you have sort of a milder to a more
Speaker 1: moderate version of whatever the difference is, and you incorporate
Speaker 1: I think, you know, whatever workarounds needed so that it's
Speaker 1: not extreme enough to hold you back, you have this
Speaker 1: higher likelihood of being able to utilize certainly and possibly
Speaker 1: also have the strength that goes along with the issue.
Speaker 1: So you know, as I said, you know, IQ might
Speaker 1: be separate from dyslexia. But that doesn't mean everybody with
Speaker 1: dyslexia has a high IQ, right, just means dyslexia doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that you can't have a high IQ and so,
Speaker 1: and in fact, dyslexia doesn't mean you have a higher
Speaker 1: chance of having a lower IQ. They're just separate. And
Speaker 1: so certainly, if you really struggling other arenas, let's say,
Speaker 1: and you also have dyslexia, you know that might I'm
Speaker 1: not sure what to say about the strengths that might
Speaker 1: make it difficult to manifest one's potential totally. And I
Speaker 1: realized for my listeners they probably don't even know what
Speaker 1: the phrase twice exceptional means. I should say that it's
Speaker 1: usually described as having an extraordinary ability coupled with disability
Speaker 1: of some sort, and it could include any of the disabilities,
Speaker 1: not just learning differences, but you know, mood disorders or
Speaker 1: you know, autism. So did you find and did you
Speaker 1: find that it was more likely to be the people
Speaker 1: who have sort of a more moderate or less severe
Speaker 1: case of whatever the situation is, or not necessarily in
Speaker 1: dislex in particular, sure or others. Well, that's you know,
Speaker 1: that's a great question. I don't think that these chapters
Speaker 1: really differentiate between the most severe versions versus the less
Speaker 1: severe versions. That's actually really interesting to actually look at.
Speaker 1: That would be a good line of research to look
Speaker 1: at kind of that upper end and see vice versa.
Speaker 1: It'd be really interesting. There's not a lot of studies
Speaker 1: looking at the extreme upper end of IQ and picking
Speaker 1: out that because there's just not enough of them, you know,
Speaker 1: to study. But that would be really interesting too, because
Speaker 1: there's been some anecdotal reports that like Gifted Development Center
Speaker 1: and stuff that at that extremely high level, then you
Speaker 1: start to find some cocomitant at least social isolation and
Speaker 1: other things that might be considered disabilities of some sort.
Speaker 1: But I don't know if that's automatically the case, and
Speaker 1: I just think there should be more research on that
Speaker 1: topic for sure. Yeah. Yeah, So let's go to my
Speaker 1: favorite one because I identify with it quite well, and
Speaker 1: that's a distractability. Yes, So I wanted to call it
Speaker 1: obviously distractability because I think most people do understand that
Speaker 1: we're often on some continuum and in life, and depending
Speaker 1: on what's going on, we can really fluctuate, but obviously
Speaker 1: I was mostly addressing you know, when distractability becomes such
Speaker 1: a you know, constant and ongoing issue that you know,
Speaker 1: it creates problems for children in school. This is the
Speaker 1: most common diagnosis for school age children actually, And you know,
Speaker 1: again dispelling the myth that it's that you just can't
Speaker 1: concentrate or pay attention, which is not the case. That
Speaker 1: it's this collection, that the wiring has to do with
Speaker 1: what's called the default system, and that it has to
Speaker 1: do with almost what you might think of as sort
Speaker 1: of a faulty switch or one's ability to regulate when
Speaker 1: one wants to pay attention more than you can't pay attention.
Speaker 1: And because of that, and because things that are very
Speaker 1: appealing and interesting, super interesting to the person who struggles
Speaker 1: with this, and when you're super interested in something and
Speaker 1: excited about it, you know, you tend to release more
Speaker 1: of the neurotransmitter dopamine, the neurotransmitter reward and bathing one's
Speaker 1: brain or parts of one's brain, and dopamine creates the
Speaker 1: desire to stay in it and do it more, as
Speaker 1: it were, It's like a positive feedback. People with issues
Speaker 1: with attention tend to hyper focus on things that they're
Speaker 1: really interested in. So, you know, while obviously I advocate
Speaker 1: for treatment, particularly in terms of coping skills, one can
Speaker 1: implement if this is particularly difficult in terms of distractability
Speaker 1: but also impulsiveness, but more so organization, which is often
Speaker 1: an issue for this group in terms of, oh, difficulty
Speaker 1: with executive function instead, or give you some anecdotal reports
Speaker 1: there couldn't we all but yes, So on the one hand,
Speaker 1: that's difficult and you do want to attend to that.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, it is striking how many
Speaker 1: CEOs or people who are in sort of leadership and
Speaker 1: creative leadership positions I'm talking to you, Scott Barry Kalfman,
Speaker 1: you know, are exceptionally original and creative in thought, and
Speaker 1: that probably has to do with the same wiring that
Speaker 1: the time one is distractable is also the time one
Speaker 1: day dreams and thinks a lot of thoughts. And to
Speaker 1: quote somebody very smart, got ary Catherine, are you quoting me?
Speaker 1: That's never happened on the psychology podcast before. It is
Speaker 1: that combination of having a messy brain and a non
Speaker 1: messy brain back and forth that allows for high creativity
Speaker 1: and originality so the messiness allowing for all these thoughts
Speaker 1: to be going on, but then you know, coming back
Speaker 1: to a grounded place where you can implement the thoughts.
Speaker 1: So people with attentional issues often are you know, very creative, original,
Speaker 1: high energy, lots of output, disinhibited thought and the ability
Speaker 1: to spot connections and analogies in those thoughts that are
Speaker 1: really make them particularly able. Yeah, well said being because
Speaker 1: you quoted me. So there's a lot of of comorbidity
Speaker 1: among a lot of these is among some of these
Speaker 1: things on your list, And in terms of like which
Speaker 1: want to talk about next? I actually want to talk
Speaker 1: about what are some similarities between ADHD and bipolar, particularly
Speaker 1: the manic state. Are there similarities between that the hypomanic state?
Speaker 1: You could be in an ADHD kind of state, well,
Speaker 1: in the sense that symptomatically, the rush of ideas, the
Speaker 1: time spent making you know, having ideas that are maybe
Speaker 1: sort of not fully in your consciousness but not unconscious,
Speaker 1: and the diversity of thought, the potential for unusual juxtaposition
Speaker 1: of different ideas are actually I think similarities. I mean,
Speaker 1: in hypomania we call it flight of ideas, many ideas
Speaker 1: and seeing those and they have some connection. They may
Speaker 1: seem pretty remote to the person listening to those flight
Speaker 1: of ideas, but they are associations from one to the next.
Speaker 1: And people with ADD they have similar kinds of thoughts
Speaker 1: going on. They may not feel as rushed or as speedy,
Speaker 1: and they don't have some of the other things that
Speaker 1: are going on with hypomania, and also that sort of
Speaker 1: restlessness of thinking. I guess you could also describe it
Speaker 1: as something that happens for people in hypomania. And I
Speaker 1: think often people with ADD particularly if they have ADHD,
Speaker 1: which is hyperactivity involved, and that may actually sort of
Speaker 1: charge them in terms of getting stuff done. Let's say,
Speaker 1: you know, I guess I would describe those as the similarities,
Speaker 1: but certainly in hypomania. I think the data is even
Speaker 1: more compelling that people in hypomanic states are often highly creative,
Speaker 1: do much of their most creative work. And also, unlike
Speaker 1: add volume of work that is really an ability in hypomania,
Speaker 1: would that people could just stay in a hypomanic a
Speaker 1: low hypomanic state. Unfortunately that is never the case. Well,
Speaker 1: I alread drink enough coffee every day, see how I
Speaker 1: love my coffee. Don't get me wrong, I love my
Speaker 1: coffee and it does help me think I was going
Speaker 1: to say that does he get you there? But I
Speaker 1: don't think that it makes me as creative as the
Speaker 1: ernest hemingways and the you know, Kay Jamison has written
Speaker 1: on this extensively, and I think her numbers are really compelling.
Speaker 1: Of the number of artists and writers, and particularly people
Speaker 1: in the arts, but some people in sciences as well
Speaker 1: that really do during hypomania have this experience of not
Speaker 1: only you know, highly creative, rapid thought, but also and
Speaker 1: there is some there was a recent study think about
Speaker 1: six months ago and the American Journal of Psychiatry about
Speaker 1: first degree relatives who don't have the bipolar disorder but
Speaker 1: seem to be conferred some of the same you know,
Speaker 1: heightened linguistic ability and personability, social ability that brings people
Speaker 1: to them in a way and adds to their let's say,
Speaker 1: quote successfulness in life, including a diversity of thought. But
Speaker 1: it's probably even more present in those with hypomania during
Speaker 1: that brief time that they're in hypomania. Are people when
Speaker 1: they're in hypomania in general, are there thoughts and creative
Speaker 1: ideas not just quantity, but it is a quality better
Speaker 1: I mean, how do you like match that? What do
Speaker 1: you match that to? You don't want to compare it
Speaker 1: to when they're depressed, because that's not a fair comparison,
Speaker 1: But what do you want to compare it to in others? Well,
Speaker 1: that's a really good question. So, I mean, most of
Speaker 1: the work that I've seen seems to be saying that
Speaker 1: it's somewhat both, but the fact that the quality is
Speaker 1: good may not be more than somebody else who's you know,
Speaker 1: right and creative. Because, by the way, I don't mean
Speaker 1: to be implying in any way that people who don't
Speaker 1: have any of these issues can't be creative all that
Speaker 1: they exactly can. They certainly can. It's just that they
Speaker 1: just don't seem to be so at quite the number
Speaker 1: that people with mild to moderate let's say, bipolar disorder are.
Speaker 1: But it may be because there's such a high quantity
Speaker 1: that once you you know, have such a large number,
Speaker 1: you're going to statistically have a greater number of really
Speaker 1: good ones, you know, equalads, equalads role. Yes, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: a fair point. Yeah, this stuff gets tricky, Like I mean,
Speaker 1: like if I had to pick like one mental disability,
Speaker 1: which one would you pick? Like, what has anyone compared
Speaker 1: like every single thing on your list to each other,
Speaker 1: to like say which is the winner? Which is the winner?
Speaker 1: Nobody has done that, Scott, what a highly creative thought.
Speaker 1: Nobody has done that. You know. Unfortunately most of us
Speaker 1: don't get to pick. I would definitely place myself in
Speaker 1: the anxiety pool, you know, and I don't know if
Speaker 1: I would pick that one. It certainly has made me
Speaker 1: a pretty driven, vigilant person. You said, unfortunately, we don't
Speaker 1: get to pick. It's interesting to use the word unfortunately
Speaker 1: as opposed the word fortunately, considering we're talking about a
Speaker 1: lot of the positives that come with But I think
Speaker 1: I'm glad you said unfortunately, because we don't want to
Speaker 1: trivialize mental illness. And I think like you are careful
Speaker 1: too to make it clear that we still need to
Speaker 1: address suffering. Right, there's no question, there's no question. I mean,
Speaker 1: I really try to be as really upfront and demonstrative
Speaker 1: as possible in this book that at every juncture I
Speaker 1: am recommending treatment. I mean, and treatment is not going
Speaker 1: to rob you of the strength that you have. It's
Speaker 1: going to make you more able to utilize it. That's
Speaker 1: really where I'm coming from, so I really think that
Speaker 1: for the most part, people who present with difficulty are
Speaker 1: derailed from, you know, their normal developmental path if they're
Speaker 1: a kid, and as an adult, they're derailed from you know,
Speaker 1: the happiness or comfort that they could be having in
Speaker 1: their current lives. And it does cause suffering. And I
Speaker 1: do really hope that people will seek treatment because there
Speaker 1: are often treatments that are useful for absolutely it doesn't
Speaker 1: diminish you know. I don't know if you've ever spoken
Speaker 1: with Nasir Graimy. He's sort of an expert in bipolar
Speaker 1: disorder up a toughs and you know, he sees many
Speaker 1: many very you know, creative students people in the Boston area,
Speaker 1: which there's you know, there are a lot of academics
Speaker 1: you know, pulled to that area who are very concerned
Speaker 1: about taking medication because of diminishing their creativity, because they
Speaker 1: know this is part of the package for them. And
Speaker 1: he's very clear that if you with a lighter hand,
Speaker 1: as he would say, you know, he really tightrates carefully
Speaker 1: to keep you in the sweet spot of because if
Speaker 1: you become manic, if you become depressed, it really does
Speaker 1: diminish your output. Not to mention making you very unhappy
Speaker 1: and also probably disrupting your social relationships, et cetera. When
Speaker 1: he has looked at outcome by keeping people perhaps not
Speaker 1: at the you know, one hundred percent of creative potential,
Speaker 1: but more like ninety five, but keeping them even so
Speaker 1: that they can take those that ninety five percent and
Speaker 1: do something with it, he really has found people to
Speaker 1: be able to have more creative output. And obviously, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, while it's lovely to be
Speaker 1: creative in your mind, you know, you do want to
Speaker 1: do something with it, Yeah, for sure, and a lot
Speaker 1: of like you mentioned earlier, a lot of this Storasar
Speaker 1: suggests that it's actually the relatives of people with the
Speaker 1: diagnosis that are most creative. Yeah, not the people, not
Speaker 1: the people with the diagnosis themselves. And I realized this
Speaker 1: is not a fair science leap to make, but it
Speaker 1: does seem to imply that if you do get treatment
Speaker 1: and you can be kept you know, more euthymic, you
Speaker 1: would still have those conferred abilities, but you would, like
Speaker 1: you're like the said who are unaffected, you might have
Speaker 1: more of an ability to use it. And the thing
Speaker 1: I also, you know, really hoped to get across is
Speaker 1: that many people simply don't seek treatment because of stigma,
Speaker 1: you know, and it's not always conscious. It's not that
Speaker 1: they're saying to themselves, I have this, but I'm too ashamed,
Speaker 1: so I'm not going to seek treatment. They can't even
Speaker 1: let themselves know that they're struggling with something like this
Speaker 1: because it just feels too awful. Parents can't see that
Speaker 1: their child is struggling with something that would benefit from
Speaker 1: treatment because it feels like some sort of death sentence
Speaker 1: to imagine that this is what their child is struggling with.
Speaker 1: And so I really hoped that we all frame this
Speaker 1: in a different light so that not so that people
Speaker 1: won't get treatment, but that more people will get treatment
Speaker 1: because they will understand that this is you know, we
Speaker 1: all have different wiring, and it's attending to our wiring,
Speaker 1: which means both you know, seeking treatment for things that
Speaker 1: make you suffer, and playing to the strengths whatever they
Speaker 1: may be, which may actually be very particular and sometimes exceptional,
Speaker 1: as you're going to, I guess further elucidate when you
Speaker 1: are struggling with one of these things. Yeah, do you
Speaker 1: think that treatment can make you lose that creative juice. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that many people fear that they do. I
Speaker 1: think that for the most part, I would say the
Speaker 1: answer in everything that I've looked at is mostly no,
Speaker 1: but not one hundred percent no. So you know, might
Speaker 1: it take the edge off you know, your creativity for instance,
Speaker 1: in you know, in those few days you are super
Speaker 1: hypomnic but not manic, but not coming back down again.
Speaker 1: It might yes, But in terms of creative output, I
Speaker 1: would say no, because you know you have to then
Speaker 1: look at a trajectory and you know the ability to
Speaker 1: use your heightened creativity, and in that sense, I would
Speaker 1: say it benefits you to see treatment. I think most
Speaker 1: people are in not concerned about this with issues like anxiety,
Speaker 1: because certainly being topped out in anxiety is you know,
Speaker 1: definitely going to undermine work output, no question about it.
Speaker 1: And I think that the things that can work for
Speaker 1: you would work for you. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: I'll say this, see plenty of families where the child
Speaker 1: is like an all a student, but terrible anxiety comes
Speaker 1: in gets treatment. Now if you be start showing up,
Speaker 1: kid is much happier, kid is in many ways functioning
Speaker 1: much better. But yeah, they get a be or two,
Speaker 1: because they're not as anxious that they must have all
Speaker 1: a's and the parents are like, what's going on? What
Speaker 1: did you do to my child? Like what you know?
Speaker 1: This is terrible and so you know, it depends what
Speaker 1: your measure is. I guess that's what I would say, Scott.
Speaker 1: It depends what your measure is. I think for the
Speaker 1: long haul, that child is much better off not being
Speaker 1: on the far end of that U shaped curve and
Speaker 1: being able to utilize what they've got and not get
Speaker 1: burned out. But you know, you might see things that
Speaker 1: are objective measures in the short term look a little different.
Speaker 1: That's a great point, Like, what's the life goal? Right?
Speaker 1: If your life goal is to be straight a's right,
Speaker 1: I mean, if it's to be straight a's no matter what,
Speaker 1: and then maybe you have like a complete you know,
Speaker 1: I can't do this anymore, burnout, meltdown, whatever, versus if
Speaker 1: your life goal is to be you know, overall a
Speaker 1: happy person with your ups and downs, overall creative person,
Speaker 1: overall find successes. I think you know pretty much in
Speaker 1: every one of these categories, treatment is an asset. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: you talked about anxiety a little bit, Well, what about depression, yeah,
Speaker 1: So it's interesting with depression. I would say in the
Speaker 1: depths of depression, like again in the worst of the
Speaker 1: U shaped curve, there isn't much conferred. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: thinking slows down, and I think it's an output slows down,
Speaker 1: and that is that is obviously, you know, not a benefit.
Speaker 1: But it seems to be that people who have milder
Speaker 1: to more moderate depression and or post depression or in between,
Speaker 1: you know, they have recurrent depression or disimia or recurrent
Speaker 1: depression in between those episodes, there does seem to be
Speaker 1: some data that supports that they have. Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: people with depression do not necessarily, if they're not in
Speaker 1: the darkest part, see things in a negative way, more
Speaker 1: negative than reality. They may just see things more realistically
Speaker 1: than the people who are not having depression, who tend
Speaker 1: to have a more rose colored view, And so there
Speaker 1: can be benefits to that realism, there can be insights
Speaker 1: to that realism. And certainly there does seem to be
Speaker 1: a lot of reporting of heightened empathy, probably from having
Speaker 1: struggled and suffered and seen and experienced things that you know,
Speaker 1: others may not have to be able to tap into
Speaker 1: others suffering in a certain kind of way. I had
Speaker 1: this conversation with you know, author Andrew Solomon, who really
Speaker 1: feels that, you know, without having had and you know,
Speaker 1: he wrote the Tone on Depression by Noonday Demon but
Speaker 1: without having experienced depression. He really feels his writing and
Speaker 1: his ability to connect with others and empathize truly stand
Speaker 1: in their shoes, truly truly understand suffering at a certain
Speaker 1: level and be able to communicate that in the written
Speaker 1: word would not be what it is without having struggled
Speaker 1: and suffered with depression in the way that he has.
Speaker 1: I think it's a good point, and he's probably right.
Speaker 1: He's probably right. There's a research stay that came out
Speaker 1: showing that people who are optimistic all the time. I
Speaker 1: don't know anyone who's optimistic all the time, but who's
Speaker 1: optimistic more than the average tend to not be as
Speaker 1: empathetic when someone has a negative mood, but they're empathetic
Speaker 1: when someone's positive. But yeah, no, he I mean, you
Speaker 1: hear that all the time in terms of and people
Speaker 1: being around people that are depressed really who have never
Speaker 1: experienced it are like I got to get out of
Speaker 1: Harry Katy even you know, like I can't listen to
Speaker 1: this because I don't want to be pulled in, But
Speaker 1: there are even strategically, there are potential benefits. I did
Speaker 1: this psycho biography on Abraham Lincoln. His you know, of course,
Speaker 1: from all his writings, it seems that he clearly experienced
Speaker 1: recurrent what at the time would have been called melancholy,
Speaker 1: but recurrent depressions, and his ability to realistically see the
Speaker 1: political landscape that was leading toward Civil war, his choice
Speaker 1: in terms of slavery as the cause that was in
Speaker 1: some ways so important to him, and you know, early
Speaker 1: life experiences that really were you know, demonstrative of his
Speaker 1: empathy for all living creatures actually animals, but all humans,
Speaker 1: and certainly his feelings about slavery, but also his realism
Speaker 1: about the war and his ability to bring in groups
Speaker 1: of people or individuals to make strategic plans had a
Speaker 1: lot to do with his being, you know, always at
Speaker 1: the top of the list in terms of greatest presidents ever.
Speaker 1: And actually it's interesting when you look at presidents, you know,
Speaker 1: how high the numbers are in terms of past presidents
Speaker 1: who seem to have had a mental health diagnosis. That
Speaker 1: is a really good point. It's such fascinating to think
Speaker 1: that there's a real causality there. I mean, I realize again,
Speaker 1: you know, we're talking correlations. But I think it's really
Speaker 1: important for people to understand, you know, I see so
Speaker 1: many of these parents are like they're just completely like
Speaker 1: it's over that their child got a diagnosis. You know,
Speaker 1: it's over for them, and you know, the idea that
Speaker 1: this doesn't mean their child can't grow up to be whatever,
Speaker 1: great scientist, a great artist, a great musician, a president
Speaker 1: of the United States. You know. I think it's important
Speaker 1: that people do understand that. I think it will help
Speaker 1: them to get treatment themselves, to get treatment for their child,
Speaker 1: but maybe even more so to look for and expose
Speaker 1: themselves to the things that may really be their strengths
Speaker 1: and will give them self esteem. Yeah, and utilize that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree. I think it's a good point. I want
Speaker 1: to I want to go back to anxiety for a second,
Speaker 1: because I didn't hear anything positive about anxiety when you
Speaker 1: mentioned it before. Good point. Well, of course, I think
Speaker 1: many people have heard of the term performance anxiety, meaning
Speaker 1: that there is a conferred advantage to being a certain
Speaker 1: amount of anxious. It's not over the top anxious. You know,
Speaker 1: it is having some anxiety, and there's lots of data
Speaker 1: about having enough anxiety which makes you perform better in
Speaker 1: a sporting event and better in a test taking situation,
Speaker 1: better on standardized tests. But again not over the top anxiety,
Speaker 1: which obviously you know, there's a window essentially, and so
Speaker 1: I am sort of talking about that window that people
Speaker 1: who tend toward anxiety are often rate high in alertness,
Speaker 1: in diligence, attention to detail. Obviously this can be you know,
Speaker 1: spillover into perfectionism and perfectionism can you know, undo people
Speaker 1: at the highest levels, but a certain amount of perfectionism
Speaker 1: makes them potentially what a great scientist, you know, really
Speaker 1: like this has to be spot on. I am detail oriented.
Speaker 1: I am you know, always striving for the best. And
Speaker 1: so this hyper vigilance, which by the way, not only
Speaker 1: can be there for work, but can be there emotionally.
Speaker 1: Now again, you know, I can end up treating people
Speaker 1: with high anxiety who are so emotionally vigilant that they
Speaker 1: interpret any negativity in someone they're relating to as you know,
Speaker 1: something terrible is going on. That's when you need some help.
Speaker 1: But for anxious people often they have an emotional vigilance,
Speaker 1: which and sensitivity that makes them not only empathic, but
Speaker 1: able to read a situation that is coming down the pipe,
Speaker 1: you know, and even sometimes intervene before things have gone further.
Speaker 1: Let's say so in important you know, relationships, or social
Speaker 1: things or work things, they're often the ones to spot
Speaker 1: something emotionally in the air on someone's face. They're scanning,
Speaker 1: and they're able to move in and analyze, react, do
Speaker 1: something about what's going on. That actually is helpful. In
Speaker 1: the ones, they can often better predict outcomes. That's what
Speaker 1: I would say. And that could be true in work,
Speaker 1: and that could be true emotionally. Someone who's suffered from
Speaker 1: some generalized anxiety disorder, I'd be really happy without it.
Speaker 1: That would take that sacrifice. Yes, And so you asked
Speaker 1: me about my negativity, I really you know, I mean
Speaker 1: terrible anxiety is or terrible, any of these things is terrible.
Speaker 1: And many people would decide, hey, I would not have this,
Speaker 1: to not have the strength associated with it. Although Scott
Speaker 1: I did ask every single person fifty people that I
Speaker 1: interviewed for this book if they would give up their issue,
Speaker 1: their struggle. But you know, whatever that might mean for them. Overall,
Speaker 1: all of them said no. All of them said no
Speaker 1: except one person, Alan Sachs, who suffers with pretty severe schizophrenia.
Speaker 1: You know, she is a psychology and law professor at UCLA,
Speaker 1: and she you know, is extremely accomplished, but you know,
Speaker 1: has really suffered. It has you know, clearly derailed, particularly
Speaker 1: in the later years, her ability to continue to you know,
Speaker 1: publish and work because it's start to have a cognitive effect.
Speaker 1: So she she is like, no, you don't want No
Speaker 1: one wants to have schizophrenia, no matter what gifts are conferred.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a fair statement. But otherwise everybody
Speaker 1: was like, you know, no, this really is part and
Speaker 1: parcel of who I am, and I see it as
Speaker 1: part of the strength that allowed me to do what
Speaker 1: I do for anxiety. You know, David Sedaris is like,
Speaker 1: I would not change the OCD and the general anxiety
Speaker 1: that I've really struggled with. And clearly he has really
Speaker 1: struggled because you know, clearly he has utilized this and
Speaker 1: it is his art form. Yeah, so you know, I
Speaker 1: hear you. I you know, when anxiety is worse for me,
Speaker 1: I really question the advantages. But I would also have
Speaker 1: to say, I am aware that you know, I personally
Speaker 1: am very driven and some of these things do apply
Speaker 1: for me, and they probably have helped me in many ways,
Speaker 1: you know, do the work that I want to do. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's fair. Are you of data which seems
Speaker 1: to imply the high intelligence has coevolved with worry? Oh?
Speaker 1: What a great question. I'm not I see no correlation
Speaker 1: between Well, it depends how you define intelligence, but in
Speaker 1: any definition of intelligence I've seen, I don't see a
Speaker 1: correlation with anxiety. But even in the you know, the
Speaker 1: traditional metric of IQ, there's no correlation with neuroticism, which
Speaker 1: is the main personality dimension for anxiety. So they do
Speaker 1: seem to really independent dimensions. For sure. There's a great resource.
Speaker 1: And my colleague James Kaufman, who I know you interviewed
Speaker 1: for the book Edited on Creativity and Mental Illness, which
Speaker 1: is kind of the most up to date resource on
Speaker 1: the link toing creativity mental illness from the researcher's perspectives.
Speaker 1: And I definitely recommend people to buy your book as
Speaker 1: well as his book, you know, alongside each other. I
Speaker 1: think that they're both great resources and really valuable. James,
Speaker 1: you know, has found that among female poets, they're very,
Speaker 1: very higher rates of pression and suicide. And that research
Speaker 1: was a bit controversial when it first came out. I
Speaker 1: wonder if people are more accepting of it now, of
Speaker 1: the real realities of the data and how certain professions
Speaker 1: because you don't go into professions as much as you
Speaker 1: do about the difference. Yes, but that's true. So he
Speaker 1: re applies the data in terms of high rates of
Speaker 1: depression and suicide in successful female poets. Yeah, mm hmm.
Speaker 1: That's second ate. So you might see some of these.
Speaker 1: For each one of these, you might see attraction to
Speaker 1: certain fields like dyslexia. You may see you see entrepreneurship.
Speaker 1: You see a lot of people dyslexia, and a lot
Speaker 1: of non verbal to means, and it's going down the list.
Speaker 1: You might see certain you know fields linkages there. I
Speaker 1: think that's an important finding as well. We need to
Speaker 1: talk about autism. But absolutely absolutely autism. Yeah, so you
Speaker 1: know similar you know obviously again the EBU shaper severe
Speaker 1: autism or you know where you're perhaps you know, non
Speaker 1: verbal or minimally verbal, or have very low IQ. Obviously,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm really not addressing that group because it does,
Speaker 1: I think obviously cause such impairment that it's hard to
Speaker 1: manifest or look at particular strengths. But it is clear
Speaker 1: that for people who are more high functioning on the
Speaker 1: autism spectrum that there the ability to what's called you know, hypersystemization.
Speaker 1: The ability to classify objects essentially is really increased, and
Speaker 1: the ability to analyze or construct systems or patterns is increased.
Speaker 1: And you know, on the one hand, I think, you know,
Speaker 1: we see that as a symptom, you know, in children
Speaker 1: who are you know, not socializing, but are you know,
Speaker 1: building elaborate block structures or train lineups or you know,
Speaker 1: and it can be hard to get them off of that.
Speaker 1: But actually that is something that may be an exceptional
Speaker 1: strength and may be able to be utilized, you know,
Speaker 1: in important issues that we think about for the future
Speaker 1: of people with autism, you know, how can they work
Speaker 1: and be independent and find satisfaction and the ability to
Speaker 1: perhaps do jobs that maybe you know, you and I
Speaker 1: would be pretty lousy at actually, which is something that
Speaker 1: might be repetitive and very about the ability to spot
Speaker 1: patterns and construct systems. They may be really excellent at
Speaker 1: that and really be able to do that. So I
Speaker 1: think that this greater attention to detail can be a
Speaker 1: strength and what can be a symptom for severation, you know,
Speaker 1: doing something over and over again. That comfort in repetition
Speaker 1: can be something that actually can be an asset in
Speaker 1: very particular areas. Oh yeah, Matt Lerner is doing this
Speaker 1: cool research showing that you get people with autism involved
Speaker 1: in like drama or improv, in particular comedy improv, that
Speaker 1: they can actually be really funny because yeah, the way
Speaker 1: they see the world, Yeah, the way they see the world. Well. Actually,
Speaker 1: so one of the people I profiled for the book,
Speaker 1: actually Matt Savage. Who is this you know, I guess
Speaker 1: you'd have to say savant composer, jazz composer, but you know,
Speaker 1: I mean definitely has you know, is substantial you know,
Speaker 1: autism and his ability to seize patterns in music and
Speaker 1: music competition and his enjoyment into some degree in the
Speaker 1: repetition has made him really an incredible composer. And he's
Speaker 1: played with the Boston Symphony. He's you know, he composes
Speaker 1: and has put out CDs at an extraordinarily young age.
Speaker 1: I certainly don't want to imply that everybody is a
Speaker 1: savant who has autism or kenvy, and in fact, I'm
Speaker 1: not even I'm definitely not talking about only savants for sure,
Speaker 1: but there does seem to be this potential. And I've
Speaker 1: profiled another artist who paints and she's had no art background.
Speaker 1: Her paintings are incredible, but she doesn't paint them the
Speaker 1: way and artist might paint them as a whole. She
Speaker 1: for her, it is about these little patterns and dots
Speaker 1: that she uses that ultimately create this beautiful canvas and scene.
Speaker 1: But it is about pattern recognition. And she's also done
Speaker 1: very well as a day trader because she can see
Speaker 1: certain patterns and stock trading that she's been very successful with.
Speaker 1: So it's really interesting. It's really important because of course,
Speaker 1: I think there is tremendous stigma around autism spectrum issues,
Speaker 1: and we do have to think as a society much
Speaker 1: differently about the future. And because you know, the numbers
Speaker 1: have grown tremendously, I'm sure as you know of people
Speaker 1: with this diagnosis, and we're not sure why. Obviously there's
Speaker 1: somewhat better diagnosis, but that really doesn't explain the increasing numbers,
Speaker 1: and that means that there will be you know, numerous
Speaker 1: adults with you know, on the spectrum, and it's important,
Speaker 1: I think, even from a societal point of view, to
Speaker 1: think about employability. Yeah, that's a really good point. And
Speaker 1: with all this automated jobs and things, we really need
Speaker 1: to really tap the natural resources we have in ways
Speaker 1: that are although you know, people don't want to be used,
Speaker 1: you know, for societal reasons. But of course, of course,
Speaker 1: but I'm really I just don't see this that way.
Speaker 1: I think this is an you know, the question is
Speaker 1: how do you match people who want to be productive
Speaker 1: and feel productive and just like everybody wants to, you know,
Speaker 1: have a job that feels right for them, that they
Speaker 1: feel good and they feel capable in and allows them
Speaker 1: to be independent, yeah, self actualized. Let's end with diversion thinking.
Speaker 1: What does it mean to be a diversion thinker? Well,
Speaker 1: divirgin thinking is basically, you know, unusual thoughts that are
Speaker 1: related to everything, really unusual thoughts, not the typical, and
Speaker 1: it could be related to problem solving, which can be
Speaker 1: an advantage, but it can be it can be anything,
Speaker 1: would you I mean divergent thought that's something that you've
Speaker 1: written about in the literature. We define it technically as
Speaker 1: like the ability to generate multiple possibilities or multiple solutions
Speaker 1: to a problem, because and just contrast from convergent thinking,
Speaker 1: which is like you're ability to converge on a single
Speaker 1: correct answer. But I kind of dig your definition of it.
Speaker 1: It's more applicable to like anything. Yeah, I mean, like
Speaker 1: you're basically saying, you're basically saying it's if you're weird.
Speaker 1: I kind of dig that. There's a way I kind
Speaker 1: of dig that though, to be honest, well, I guess
Speaker 1: it's not as scientific. But you know, if you have
Speaker 1: multiple solutions, some of them are going to be unusual. Yeah,
Speaker 1: oh for sure. For sure. How does that contrast from
Speaker 1: like the word salad you get with people with schizophrenia?
Speaker 1: Though you know that, right, So that's probably not useful
Speaker 1: divergent thinking again to the U shaped curve idea that
Speaker 1: you know, if you are being psychotic in such a
Speaker 1: way that it affects your ability to think in words,
Speaker 1: not just so. I mentioned Ellen Sachs earlier. She has
Speaker 1: circumscribed hallucinations that she now is able to recognize they
Speaker 1: are hallucinatory material, and she is able to sort of
Speaker 1: circumscribe it and say, Okay, I'm just not responding to that,
Speaker 1: and I will leave that over there, not that it
Speaker 1: goes away unfortunately for her, but it doesn't affect her overall.
Speaker 1: You know all of her thoughts. If you are schizotipal,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know and basically you have a lot
Speaker 1: of unusual thoughts, or you know, as you mentioned, you
Speaker 1: know many more thoughts potentially for something than somebody else.
Speaker 1: It could be an advantage for you. But if you
Speaker 1: are actively psychotic and having word salad meaning words are
Speaker 1: going together that actually don't really go together, or maybe
Speaker 1: they have the loosest of associations, and you are therefore
Speaker 1: not able to regulate the difference between messy brain and
Speaker 1: non messy rain, and you've got only MESSI you can't
Speaker 1: produce something with those thoughts, you can't use them. So
Speaker 1: I think divergent thinking. You know, some of the most
Speaker 1: creative people are definitely divergent thinkers. I mean they come
Speaker 1: up with many solutions to and unusual solutions to problems,
Speaker 1: and that is what makes them so creative. I think,
Speaker 1: I don't know, would you view that, I would say
Speaker 1: that's often at the essence of their creativity. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: definitely agree with that, And I think it's important to
Speaker 1: just like a stream diversion, thinking and IQ, they're correlated
Speaker 1: by the same thing. And just because you might be
Speaker 1: really good learner doesn't mean you're going to be really
Speaker 1: good at creating things super important. I'm so glad you
Speaker 1: said that's super important. Yeah, well, you know, you and
Speaker 1: I agree that to some degree. I think on the
Speaker 1: idea that IQ testing is is not a great system
Speaker 1: or testing set up at the moment for defining people's intelligence.
Speaker 1: And you know, obviously intelligence is going to need to
Speaker 1: take on a broader definition than it does for most
Speaker 1: people today. But yes, you know, there are many people
Speaker 1: who will not do well on an IQ test per se,
Speaker 1: but who will be highly creative and highly successful, and
Speaker 1: we in the late public might even think they're brilliant,
Speaker 1: but they might not have a very high IQ. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that's okay. Wow. So this is a really wide
Speaker 1: ranging interview and thanks for your time. Is there some
Speaker 1: sort of final wrap up message or something that you
Speaker 1: really want people to take away from this? I guess
Speaker 1: my main takeaways would be that, you know, I hope
Speaker 1: if you know, on a collective basis, that we could
Speaker 1: digest differences differently so that you know, we can stop
Speaker 1: shaming and stigmatizing people. That takes someone who's already suffering
Speaker 1: and makes them suffer that much more. I hope that
Speaker 1: people can individually look for themselves or look for their child.
Speaker 1: And as you pointed out, you know, so there's so
Speaker 1: much comorbidity in these things that you know, there may
Speaker 1: be more than one area where they're struggling going on,
Speaker 1: and not only seek treatment and help them with workarounds
Speaker 1: for the issues that they're struggling with, but also whether
Speaker 1: that's through neurosyite testing or or through exposing them to
Speaker 1: many things or to you know, exposing them to things
Speaker 1: that might meet certain sweet spots that are emerging. Look
Speaker 1: for the potential strength that your child has or you have,
Speaker 1: and in the case of a child, you know, reach
Speaker 1: out to educators to talk about ways that they can,
Speaker 1: for example, you know, do that upcoming project in a
Speaker 1: way that meets their particular strengths. You know, they're more
Speaker 1: of a visual learner, they're more an auditory learner. You know,
Speaker 1: they have real spatial relations ability, but not you know,
Speaker 1: how can you help design at least some projects that
Speaker 1: plays to your child's strengths to help them develop them
Speaker 1: and feel good about that, and more importantly, learn, really learn,
Speaker 1: as opposed to keeping them boxed in in jumping through
Speaker 1: the same hoop of an area that really is going
Speaker 1: to be a relative weakness sounds like a really important message,
Speaker 1: especially right now. Thank you so much, Riale for challenging
Speaker 1: me today. Thanks so much for having me Scott. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to The Psychology Podcast with Doctor Scott Barak Kaufman.
Speaker 1: I hope you found this episode just as thought for
Speaker 1: booking and interesting as I did. If you'd like to
Speaker 1: read the show notes for this episode or hear past episodes,
Speaker 1: you can visit the Psychology Podcast dot com.