 Creativity, inventiveness, and genius. Composer Robert Schumann and painter Vincent Van Gogh embodied these concepts. But they may have had something else in common. Some scholars think that they both had bipolar disorder. A mental illness is characterized by unusual shifts in mood and activity levels. And some scientists suggest that their mental health disorder was intimately linked to their genius. That the same genes that code for creativity also code for bipolar disorder. Hence the concept of the mad genius. There is some support for the idea of the mad genius in the scientific world. In 2013, for instance, researchers in Sweden found that writers were more likely to be diagnosed with either bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. And more recently, geneticists in Iceland found a genetic link between both these disorders and creativity. I mean, just look at these headlines. Researchers found a way to boost their brain frames and found a way to reduce their brain discrepancy. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that study isn't as conclusive as those headlines suggest. So the authors building on previous work have shown that if you take a collection of variants throughout the entire human genome, you can show that this collection of variants explains about 5 or 6 percent of schizophrenia. Those exact same variants throughout the entire human genome also explain about a quarter percent of the variance in whether or not someone grows up to be a professional artist. This is David Cutler. I'm a human geneticist from Emory University. He has another way of interpreting the study that brings us closer to what the findings actually mean. Let's imagine that the difference between the sort of least schizophrenic person and the most schizophrenic person is a mile. These variants together for schizophrenia explain about 300 feet. So you can sort of think of 300 feet out of a mile as, you know, a start. But it's not telling you most of the story. When looking at these same variants for whether or not you grow up to be a professional artist, they explain about 13 feet out of the mile. 13 feet is probably a lot less than taking a good art class would get you. I suspect that one art class would move me a lot closer to being a professional artist than if I had been born these 13 feet closer. But there's another reason to question those headlines. The definition for creativity that was used in the study was only based on whether somebody belonged to an artistic profession or society. I think we all know that some people are creative outside of an artistic society. There are probably plenty of people that don't have them as a professional artist by title, so to speak. Defining creativity by profession might be the best definition that we have, but it's also a really bad one. Some artists aren't all that creative, and some coders are super inventive. And none of that was captured in this study. This kind of demystifies the whole idea of the mad genius. Fine, you say. Why should we care? Well, for some, believing in this myth means avoiding treatment for their mental illness because they think it might jeopardize their creativity. And in general, it just perpetuates stigma, either relating to being a creative individual or to having a mental illness. It's just another way of othering people because they deviate from the norm. So the next time you look at Starry Night or listen to Papillon, think of these creators and people like them as geniuses in their own right. Their mental health was probably unrelated to their creativity.
 Creativity, inventiveness, and genius.
 Composer Robert Schumann and painter Vincent Van Gogh embodied these concepts.
 But they may have had something else in common.
 Some scholars think that they both had bipolar disorder.
 A mental illness is characterized by unusual shifts in mood and activity levels.
 And some scientists suggest that their mental health disorder was intimately linked to their
 genius. That the same genes that code for creativity also code for bipolar disorder.
 Hence the concept of the mad genius.
 There is some support for the idea of the mad genius in the scientific world.
 In 2013, for instance, researchers in Sweden found that writers were more likely to be
 diagnosed with either bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.
 And more recently, geneticists in Iceland found a genetic link between both these disorders
 and creativity.
 I mean, just look at these headlines.
 Researchers found a way to boost their brain frames and found a way to reduce their brain
 discrepancy.
 Sorry to burst your bubble, but that study isn't as conclusive as those headlines suggest.
 So the authors building on previous work have shown that if you take a collection of variants
 throughout the entire human genome, you can show that this collection of variants explains
 about 5 or 6 percent of schizophrenia.
 Those exact same variants throughout the entire human genome also explain about a quarter
 percent of the variance in whether or not someone grows up to be a professional artist.
 This is David Cutler.
 I'm a human geneticist from Emory University.
 He has another way of interpreting the study that brings us closer to what the findings
 actually mean.
 Let's imagine that the difference between the sort of least schizophrenic person and
 the most schizophrenic person is a mile.
 These variants together for schizophrenia explain about 300 feet.
 So you can sort of think of 300 feet out of a mile as, you know, a start.
 But it's not telling you most of the story.
 When looking at these same variants for whether or not you grow up to be a professional artist,
 they explain about 13 feet out of the mile.
 13 feet is probably a lot less than taking a good art class would get you.
 I suspect that one art class would move me a lot closer to being a professional artist
 than if I had been born these 13 feet closer.
 But there's another reason to question those headlines.
 The definition for creativity that was used in the study was only based on whether somebody
 belonged to an artistic profession or society.
 I think we all know that some people are creative outside of an artistic society.
 There are probably plenty of people that don't have them as a professional artist by title,
 so to speak.
 Defining creativity by profession might be the best definition that we have, but it's
 also a really bad one.
 Some artists aren't all that creative, and some coders are super inventive.
 And none of that was captured in this study.
 This kind of demystifies the whole idea of the mad genius.
 Fine, you say.
 Why should we care?
 Well, for some, believing in this myth means avoiding treatment for their mental illness
 because they think it might jeopardize their creativity.
 And in general, it just perpetuates stigma, either relating to being a creative individual
 or to having a mental illness.
 It's just another way of othering people because they deviate from the norm.
 So the next time you look at Starry Night or listen to Papillon, think of these creators
 and people like them as geniuses in their own right.
 Their mental health was probably unrelated to their creativity.