Dr. Robert Bilder directs the consortium for Neuropsychiatric Phenomics, which is a team of more than 50 investigators most centered at the University of California in Los Angeles. This consortium aims to understand neuropsychological phenotypes on a genome wide scale. Through a combination of human research, basic research, and informatic strategies. Basically, Dr. Bilder is digging to create a fundamentally new understanding of how to look at personality disorders and diseases that have an effect on personality. In this regard, Dr. Bilder also directs and co-directs a slew of other important centers. But of the most interest to us, Dr. Bilder is the Director of the Tennenbaum Center for the Biology of Creativity one of the most important programs in the country involved in the study of creativity. So with that, it's a pleasure to speak here with Dr Robert Bilder. Thank you so much for joining us here today Dr Bilder. You're one of the world's foremost experts on creativity. So I have a question for you, sometimes my students will tell me. Now, wait a minute. Other people have solved this problem before. So, if I think about it and figure out how to solve this problem, I'm actually not being creative while I'm solving this problem, because other people have already solved this problem. What are your thoughts on that situation?
>> Well, I think until you've solved the problem yourself you haven't exercised your brain and made the unique connections in your brain, that are needed to solve that problem. So, we could distinguish between those things that are created for the world, which that may not be creative with respect to everything else that's been done before. But if we think about what's been done that's unique for you, something new for you and that has value to you, then that satisfies a criteria for creativity. And it's important for your, your brain to do that in order to pursue other creative problems.
>> Well, I couldn't agree more. So I, I'm glad you made that point. When you're trying to learn something new, and you speak publicly, sometimes you, like everyone, is criticized for it. What advice do you have for handling this kind of criticism?
>> You know, someone told me something that I'm surprised I only heard a few weeks ago. And they said leadership is the ability to disguise panic. And I think that if I had to think of all of the occasions i've had when i've had great concerns about what was going on, or about handling criticisms, and I think that it may only be through repeated experience that one learns how to cope with that a little bit better. Always difficult but I think the only advice I can give to others is to always adopt the same kind of curiosity about your own shortcomings and your own difficulty getting the big picture and understanding the entire scope of the problem that you would apply to others and to, to any problem in general.
>> I like that too, sort of be, be willing to accept discomfort sometimes because that's necessary. You know, some people would say that it's only when you experience some discomfort that you're actually accomplishing some kind of change. So, to the extent that one wants to make progress, it's necessarily going to involve some degree of discomfort. That's the nature of change. Physical change in the brain has to involve some work and that work has to involve some, some discomfort. But I couldn't agree more.
>> I'm reminded, my old swimming coach used to say no pain, no gain.
>> [LAUGH] Yes, indeed.
>> And that may also be true of the brain.
>> Sometimes those old proverbs are really so true. You know, that's why they're proverbs. You have some very interesting insights regarding creativity and being disagreeable. Could you give our viewers just a little bit of insight about that.
>> Sure, sure so it's interesting that when we have studied personality it turns out that there are various models of personality, or temperament or character. But they pretty much all boil down to five factors, and these have been very reliably seen over time. And the way that I find easiest to remember those five factors is to use the acronym OCEAN, which stands for openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticisim. And now that we've looked at that personality characteristics of people and then tried to relate their personality characteristics to their degree of creative achievement. We find that there are two correlations here one of them's not surprising at all. Openness to a new experience is associated with great achievement. But then we find something that's perhaps not quite as intuitive, there is a correlation also with agreeableness but that correlation is negative. So it means that people who are less agreeable or more disagreeable tend to show higher creative achievement. And I think that we might consider this to be a facet of nonconformism. Those who tend to challenge the status quo, challenge models, and don't believe things just because other people have said them. I think that these are our folks who are more likely to be creative achievers. I think so, too. That's, that's a very interesting and it's a counter-intuitive finding.
>> Yes. Usually people think agreeableness is, you know, a nice, positive trait. And, indeed, agreeableness is a nice, positive trait. yet, there are occasions when disagreeableness. Can push the envelope, help us to challenge prior conventions and make the kinds of pushes forward you know, that are outside the box.
>> I think sometimes it's just, it's hard to walk that fine line between being being a, being agreeable. Because things make sense. And then sometimes stepping back and being willing to be disagreeable because it doesn't make sense to you, and then sometimes you find out, actually, it does make sense. But sometimes, you're right to be disagreeable. So finding that fine line of where to agree and where to disagree, and being willing to disagree if you think that something is not quite right,. I think that's an important important line to find.
>> Yeah, it's, it's difficult to know how to balance the correct approach. And indeed, I think that's one of the cornerstones of creativity, just by following from the root definitions of, of creativity. Which typically emphasize on the one hand whatever the product is, to be considered creative has to be new. But then it also has to be useful or valued by someone. So, this involves a kind of attention between doing something that may be totally driven by your own vision of things, and those things that are going to end up being adopted or used by others. So it means that you can create things that may be novel, wonderful, and strange. But if they're too novel, too strange, then they're not going to be considered wonderful by others. So finding this sweet spot in the range between what you find to be the newest and most valuable and exciting. And what others believe is I think that's a life long process of, of deliberation and balance.
>> That's so true. I, I think writers in particular, writers and inventors are both, they have to face what other people's opinions of their work are. And sometimes it's just surprising what they'll come back with, something that you thought was perfect, a real gem. People will come back and, and give you insights that allow you to understand that maybe your perceptions weren't quite right.
>> That's right, yeah. I've gotten that feedback you know quite routinely, and [LAUGH] may be a little defensive at first. And then, you know try to warm up to it, and try to understand well, what, what do they have in mind.
>> Any particular tips on how you learn most effectively?
>> Well, I think people vary a lot in terms of the degree to which they are dominated by words or images. You know some verbal versus visual learning styles. And so I find that I do best if I can go between the two. Because I love words and language. I was actually once accused by my students of being a sesquipedalian and got a little plaque from them. I didn't know what sesquipedalian meant until I got the plaque. And then anybody who watches this can then look it up. Anyhow I love words, and so there's a nuance there that I really like. But at the same time I feel like I don't have a complete understanding unless i've somehow mapped it, graphed it. Or visualized it. And so I like to go back and forth between those two kinds of approaches. The other thing that I really like to do, and sometimes we've recommended this in exercises to enhance creativity. Is to do a powers of ten exercise. And for those who haven't seen it, there's a great video. You can easily get it online. Well you just look up powers of ten video I think that will do the job. It basically starts with an imagine of a man sitting or lying in a hammock. And then the camera zooms ten feet above, then 100 feet above, then 1,000 feet above, it goes by powers of ten. Ultimately you're exploring the cosmos in outer space. And then it zooms back down into the man. Then it goes powers of ten inside the skin. Goes into the cell, goes down and reveals the molecules, and then finally, and what's really mind blowing, is how far you have to go when you start getting into subatomic space. Where you're really surrounded by nothingness. More vast than the universe itself. So I think that getting that kind of exercise, getting that perspective. Trying to figure out what's the higher altitude view, stepping back from a problem and thinking about well, why am I doing this? What's the bigger picture? But then also drilling into individual facets and details, by zooming in and zooming out from a problem. I usually find I get a much better idea of the problem scope and different perspective on that problem.
>> That is very worth while. I've never really thought of problem solving in that perspective. I think that's maybe a little bit what you do. A bit subconsciousness or is it just naturally when you get away from the problem. I mean, do you get new perspective when you're just going out for a walk. Or something like that? But that's an interesting perspective. Zooming in and zooming out.
>> I think the brain probably does some of this spontaneously and particularly during sleep. Because if you think about what happens during sleep. You've got a washing away of all of the conscious, top down, cognitive control over your thoughts. And it probably permits different neural networks to assemble themselves in ways that may make sense spontaneously, but are free from the guided process of our top down mind. And so I think that's one of the reason why people will awake from sleep, dreams, or other relaxed states, when they're not thinking about problems. And all the sudden have come up with a solution. All components were there that required a release at least temporarily of the constraints, that would be applied to the problem to recognize a new solution. That may be how August Kekule recognized the benzene ring, from seeing that snake biting it's tail.
>> Yeah I think it's sometimes, I like to think of it as an octopus of attention, and turns off during sleep. And so the tentacles of the octopus can randomly go about and that's what helps create some of the innovative new ideas.
>> Well, that's interesting. You were, I think you were reading my mind because when I was thinking of August Kekule, who dreamt about a snake biting his tail, I was also thinking of well, what if instead of a snake biting it's tail, he imagined a spider, or it could have been an octopus. But, then we'd have a completely different structure of organic chemistry before us. We would never have discovered the benzene ring.
>> Well that's what they say, insights that rise from the subconscious like that, they are, they can sometimes be invaluable. But you always gotta check 'em because sometimes they may seem right, but they're not actually right.
That's right, yeah. And there, you know, I'm mindful of speaking of spiders, the fantastic experiments that were done in the early investigation of LSD, the hallucinogen, where different drugs were given to spiders and see what impact it had on their webmaking skills. And while many people felt that they became incredibly creative while under the influence of LSD, and while many people felt they had great insights while they're under the influence of LSD, the spiders it turns out, made really lousy webs when they were under the influence of LSD. And I think a lot of people who had been putting down what they were thinking about at the time that they were doing LSD, found later, when they were no longer under the influence, that the products that they had created were not exactly what they had hoped. (See also "LSD: My Problem Child" in reading list)
>> That's, that's, I think that's true, there's interesting perspectives from history of different people's insights whilst under drugs and not under drugs, and sometimes I think it's, it's actually surprisingly good. But other times, it's surprisingly terrible. So so there's definitely a mixture there.
>> This is, this is true. I was just reviewing with a class different kinds of visual representations of dualities or balances between opposing forces. So we were talking about the yin yang symbol, the Tibetan eternal knot. But one of the symbols that's one of my, one of my favorites probably because I understand it the least, is the intersecting gyres or intersecting cones that were described by Yeats and his wife George. And those, those images were probably created while they were under the influence of opium.
>> I will definitely have to go look those up now. [LAUGH].
>> So, Doctor Bilder, I, I, I so appreciate your, your an abecedarian polymath. [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGH]So I greatly appreciate your insights here, and on behalf of all the students of learning how to learn. I, I thank you.
>> Thank you, Barb. It's always great talking to you. [BLANK_AUDIO]
Robert Bilder博士是神经精神病理学表型联盟的负责人，该联盟是一个由50多名研究人员组成的团队，大部分集中在加州大学洛杉矶分校。该联盟旨在全面了解神经心理学表型。通过结合人类研究、基础研究和信息策略来实现。基本上，Bilder博士正在努力创造一种从根本上全新的理解方式，以看待对人格产生影响的人格障碍和疾病。在这方面，Bilder博士还指导和共同指导了一系列其他重要中心。但最令我们感兴趣的是，Bilder博士是坦南鲍姆生物创造力中心的主任，这是美国参与创造力研究最重要的项目之一。因此，很高兴在这里与Robert Bilder博士交谈。非常感谢您今天加入我们，Bilder博士。
“您是世界上最著名的创造力专家之一。所以我有一个问题要问你，有时我的学生告诉我。现在，等一下。其他人已经解决了这个问题。所以，如果我思考并找出如何解决这个问题，实际上在解决问题时我并不具有创造力，因为其他人已经解决了这个问题。你对这种情况有什么想法？”
“我认为在你亲自解决这个问题之前，你还没有锻炼你的大脑并使你的大脑中形成解决该问题所需的独特连接。因此，我们可以区分那些为世界所创造的东西，这可能不是相对于之前所做的一切而言的创造性。但是如果我们考虑对你来说是什么独特的东西，对你来说是新的东西并且对你有价值，那么这就满足了创造力的标准。为了追求其他创造性问题，你的大脑这样做是很重要的。 ”
“我非常同意。所以我很高兴你提出了这一点。当你试图学习新东西并在公开场合发表时，有时候你会像每个人一样受到批评。你有什么建议来处理这种批评？ 你知道，有人告诉我一些让我惊讶的事情，我只在几周前才听说。他们说领导力是掩饰恐慌的能力。我想如果我必须想到所有我曾经有过的关于正在发生的事情或处理批评的巨大担忧的时候，我想只有通过反复的经验才能学会更好地应对。总是很困难，但我想我能给别人的唯一建议是对你自己的缺点和你自己的困难始终保持同样的好奇心，从整体上理解问题的全貌和理解整个问题的范围，就像你对别人和其他任何问题一样。 我也喜欢这样，有点愿意接受不适感，因为这是必要的。你知道，有些人会说只有在你经历某种不适时才能真正实现某种改变。因此，在某种程度上想要取得进步就必然涉及到一定程度的不适感。这就是变化的本质。大脑的物理变化必须涉及一些工作，而这项工作必须涉及一些不适感。但我非常同意。我想起了我的老游泳教练曾经说的“没有痛苦就没有收获”。
“ [笑声]是的，确实如此。这可能也适用于大脑。”
“有时候这些古老的谚语真的非常真实。你知道这是为什么它们是谚语的原因。”
“你对创造力和不和谐有一些非常深刻的理解。你能给我们的观众一点洞察力吗？”
“当然可以，当我们研究人格时发现人格有不同的模型、气质或性格。但它们几乎都可以归结为五个因素，这些因素随着时间的推移一直非常可靠地存在。我发现最容易记住这五个因素的方法是使用OCEAN这个缩写词，它代表开放性、尽责性、外向性、宜人性和神经质。现在我们研究了人们的人格特征并试图将他们的人格特征与他们的创造力成就程度联系起来。我们发现这里有两种相关性，其中一种并不令人惊讶。对新经验的开放性与伟大的成就有关。但我们发现也许并不是那么直观的是，与宜人性也存在相关性，但这种相关性是负相关的。这意味着不太宜人或更不和谐的人往往表现出更高的创造力成就。我认为我们可以考虑这是一个非常规的方面。那些倾向于挑战现状、挑战模式并且不相信只是因为别人说的话就相信事情的人。我认为这些人更有可能成为创造性的成就者。我也是这么认为的。这是一个非常有趣且违反直觉的发现。”
“是的。通常人们认为宜人性是一种好的品质，积极的特质。的确，宜人性是一种好的品质。然而，有时候不和谐也能推动事物的发展，帮助我们挑战先前的传统观念，实现一些跳出常规的创新突破。我认为有时候很难在宜人和不和谐之间找到平衡点。因为有些事情很有道理。但有时你需要退后一步，愿意表现出不和谐，因为你认为这是不合理的。然后有时候你会发现，实际上这是有道理的。但有时候，你坚持不和谐是正确的。所以找到同意和不同意之间的界限，如果你认为某件事不太对劲，愿意提出异议，这是很重要的。”
“是的，要找到正确的方法确实很难。而且，我认为这正是创造力的基石之一，从创造力的根本定义来看。它一方面强调任何被认为是创造性的产品必须是新的。但它也必须被某人认为是有用的或有价值的。因此，这涉及到一种平衡，既要做一些完全由你自己的观念驱动的事情，也要考虑到这些最终会被他人采纳或使用的事物。这意味着你可以创造出新奇、奇妙、甚至奇怪的东西。但如果它们太新、太奇怪了，那么别人就不会认为它们是美妙的。所以要在你发现最新颖、最有价值和最令人兴奋的事物与其他人认为有价值的事物之间找到一个甜蜜点。这是一个终身的过程，需要深思熟虑和平衡。”
“说得非常对。我认为特别是作家和发明家，他们必须面对人们对他们作品的看法。有时候他们会给出令人惊讶的反馈，你认为完美的东西，一个真正的宝石。人们会回来给你提供见解，让你明白你的感知可能并不完全正确。 ”
“没错，我经常会收到这样的反馈[笑]起初可能会有点防御心理。然后，你知道尝试去接受它，试图理解他们的想法是什么。”
“你有什么特别的学习技巧吗？ 嗯，我认为人们在多大程度上被文字或图像所主导方面差异很大。一些人是言语型的学习方式，另一些人是视觉型的。我发现如果我能在两者之间转换是最好的。因为我热爱文字和语言。我曾经被学生指责为冗长的人，并得到了一个小奖牌。直到我得到奖牌我才知道我被指责的是什么。然后任何人都可以在网上查找它的含义。无论如何我爱文字，所以我喜欢其中的细微差别。但同时我觉得如果没有某种方式将其映射、图形化或可视化出来的话，我就没有完全的理解。所以我喜欢在这些两种方法之间来回切换。另一件我喜欢做的事情是做“十进制力量”练习。对于那些还没看过的人来说，有一个很棒的视频可以在线轻松获得。你只需要搜索“十进制力量”视频就可以了。基本上从一个坐在吊床上的男人开始想象，然后摄像机向上移动十英尺、一百英尺、一千英尺，以十进制的方式递增。最终你在探索外太空的宇宙。然后它又回到男人身上。接着进入皮肤内部做十进制的缩放，进入细胞内部，向下揭示分子结构，最后真正令人震惊的是当你开始进入亚原子空间时你必须走多远。那里你真的被虚无包围着。比宇宙本身还要广阔得多。所以我认为通过这种练习获得那种视角很重要。尝试弄清楚什么是更高海拔的视角，从问题中后退一步思考为什么我要做这个？更大的图景是什么？但也通过放大和缩小来深入到问题的各个细节和方面。我通常发现我能更好地了解问题的范畴和问题的不同视角。 这是非常值得的。我从未真正从这个角度考虑过问题解决的方法。我想这可能是你所做的一点潜意识工作或者当你远离问题时自然而然就会发生的。我的意思是，当你只是出去散步时你会获得新的视角吗？但这是一个很有趣的视角——放大和缩小的视角。 我认为大脑可能在睡眠期间自发地进行一些这样的活动。因为如果你想想睡眠期间发生的事情。你会有所有有意识的自上而下的认知控制的洗涤过程消失掉的感觉。这可能允许不同的神经网络以可能自发地有意义的方式组装自己，而不受我们自上而下思维指导的过程的影响。所以我认为这就是为什么人们在睡眠、做梦或其他放松状态下醒来时突然想出解决方案的原因之一。所有的组件都在那里，至少暂时性地释放了对问题的约束条件，从而识别出新的解决方案。这可能是奥古斯特·凯库勒如何从看到蛇咬尾巴的场景中认出苯环的灵感来源之一。“
“[笑] 是的，我认为这有时候就像注意力的章鱼触手一样在睡眠中关闭了。[笑]章鱼的触须可以随机游走，这就是帮助创造一些创新想法的原因所在。”
“[笑] 那很有趣。[笑]你是在读我的心声。因为当我想到奥古斯特·凯库勒梦见蛇咬自己的尾巴时我也在想如果他不是梦见蛇咬尾巴而是想象一只蜘蛛或者可能是一只章鱼那我们就面临着一个全新的有机化学结构在我们面前了我们永远也不会发现苯环的存在。”
“这就是他们所说的，从潜意识中产生的洞察力，它们确实是，有时是无价的。但你总是要检查它们，因为有时它们看起来是对的，但实际上并不正确。”
“没错，是的。在那里，你知道，我注意到了蜘蛛，在早期对致幻剂LSD的研究中所做的奇妙实验，给蜘蛛服用不同的药物，看看它对它们的网络制作技能有什么影响。虽然许多人觉得他们在服用LSD的过程中变得非常有创造力，虽然许多人认为他们在服用迷幻药的过程中有很好的洞察力，但事实证明，蜘蛛在服用迷幻剂的过程中结出了非常糟糕的网。我认为，很多人在做LSD时一直在放下他们的想法，后来，当他们不再受到影响时，他们发现他们创造的产品并不是他们所希望的。（另请参阅阅读列表中的“LSD:我的问题孩子”）”
“这是，这是，我认为这是真的，从历史上看，在吸毒和不吸毒的情况下，不同的人的见解是有趣的，有时我认为这真的很好。但其他时候，情况却出奇地糟糕。所以那里肯定有一种混合物。”
“这是真的。我只是在和一个班一起复习不同种类的对立力量之间的对偶或平衡的视觉表现。所以我们谈论的是阴阳符号，西藏永恒的结。但其中一个符号是我的，我最喜欢的符号之一，可能是因为我最不了解它，叶芝和他的妻子乔治描述的相交的漩涡或相交的圆锥体。这些图像可能是在鸦片的影响下创作的。”
“我现在肯定得去查一下。[笑]。”
“所以，比尔德医生，我，我，非常感谢你，你是一位初出茅庐的学者。[听不清][笑]所以我非常感谢你在这里的见解，并代表所有学习如何学习的学生。我感谢你。”
“谢谢你，Barb。和你谈话总是很棒的。”
扫一扫
2477
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
