What is Creativity? || The Human Potential Lab

of seemingly paradoxical ideas. Over the years, there's been a large number of scientific studies which I've sought to measure creativity. Not only that, but researchers have been able to identify what predicts divergent thinking and its association with certain personality traits. Other fascinating areas of investigation include the link between mental illness and creativity and the neuroscience behind the creative process. Today,

we will touch on all these exciting areas. So without further ado, I bring you today's episode of the Human Potential Lab. What is creativity? Is it shooting rockets into space? Is it challenging the teacher in the classroom? Is it playing a beautiful cello concerto? Is it this new hairdoo that I got is it all of these things or

none of these things. Today we're going to do a deep dive into this question what is creativity and distinguish creativity from intelligence, which is a topic I covered last time in the Human Potential Lab series. Today, we're going to take multiple perspectives on this question. We're going to look at it from a long titunal over time perspective, We're going to look at it from a behavioral personality perspective.

And we're also going to end talking about the neuroscience of creativity or the latest neuroscience of creativity, which is really exciting. Actually it's a whole new burgeoning field. But let's start our investigation today into the question of what is creativity by looking at one of my favorite studies of all time, conducted by the great creativity researcher E. Paul Torrance. Believe it or not, Prior to the fifties

in psychology, there really wasn't much research on creativity. A lot of researchers just assumed that a high IQ would be equivalent to a creative life. But E. Paul Torrance came around, and some other psychologists around that time, such as Guildford came around and said, you know what, folks, I really think that creativity is a topic worthy of scientific investigation in the field of psychology all in its own right. It's not the same thing as high IQ, or at the very least, let's see if it is

the same thing as high IQ. So what E. Paul Torrens did is he initiated a study in the fifties. He looked at a number of different elementary schools and he wanted to know how would creativity naturally arise throughout the course of the human life span? What are the major predictors oftivity across the humans light across the human

life span? And what he did is he, for this purposes of studying and tracking people over time, he created a test of creativity which he called the Torreds Test of creativity, where he looked at a lot of different ways of being imaginative or thinking of or multiple possible solutions to a problem. He looked at instances for example, examples pertain to a given category like list round things as may round things as you can. He looked at alternative uses, so possible uses for a familiar obity, So

how many uses are there for a newspaper. He also looked at consequences, so outcomes of hypothetical situations. What would happen if people were able to understand the language of animals? For instance, one really good divergent thinking item I really like is this example, what would happen if people could become invisible at will? This is some original responses to

this question. You could see only beautiful people on the beaches, cops would wear infrared goggles, Papa rots, you would be more effective, you could escape a bad date, it would be harder to play hide and seek. And they also Torrents also developed some non verbal tests of divergent thinking, so not just verbal tests, but also maybe some people are more nonverbally inclined towards creativity or divertent thinking and come up with a lot of different geometrical patterns, you know,

for instance. And the way that these tests are scored is that you tend to bring together a bunch of raiders, maybe three raiders, people that maybe they're fellow psychologists or people in the general public, and you have them rate on a scale of it could be one to five or one to seven, how creative. The responses are based on a number of different categories. So one category is fluency, how many just how many responses are there that are

relevant to the question in hand? Originality, what's the frequency of your response compared to the rest of the sample. So that's why it's good to get very large sample sizes so you can really look to see how original a particular participant is relative to the rest of the sample. Flexibility, so how many is categories, variety of categories of responses are there in the person's response. Are they going down the same pathway or are they changing and diversifying their categories?

And then elaboration, what is the detail of their responses. Each of these four aspects of divergent thinking do tend to be correlated with each other, and sometimes creativity researchers look at a single total divergent thinking score, which is the summation of each of these components. But there may be other purposes where you want to look at each of these aspects separately from each other. So what did

Epaul Torrance find? Torrents found at the twenty two year follow up, so they did it at the first major follow twenty two year follow up. They found that these divergent thinking questions were a better predictor of a lot of important life outcomes above and beyond IQ tests. So, for instance, researchers found a correlation of between divergent thinking

items the number of high school creative achievements. Then they found a correlation between these divergent thinking items and the number of post high school creative achievements, number of creative style living achievements such as hobbies, or even I think what items was how many different kinds of socks do you have in your in your drawer or do you color your hair different colors? Things like that, quality of highest creative achievement ratings, and quality of future career images.

So divergent thinking at the twenty two year fallve was correlate a lot of these things, and researchers found that it predicted creative achievements three times compared better three times better compared to IQ tests. So this was a really huge finding showing that IQ cannot be reduced or cannot

be considered to nononomous with creative potential. It might be an important ingredient of creative potential, but it's not all there is to creative potential, and it may not even be the most important aspect of creative potential, although it may depend on the domain in question. Another important finding

is cultural fairness. So whereas IQ tests tend to show on average differences between different racial and ethnic groups, they found that these divergent thinking tests showed few differences between African Americans and European Americans, and Native Americans, few differences between Hispanic Americans and European Americans on nonverbal assessments of divergent thinking, and few differences between Asian Americans and non

Asian Americans on measures of verbal, mathematical, and artistic creativity. So there's a good case to be made for using divergent thinking tests if you're interested in cultural fairness, which I hope you are. But Torrence was not only interested in the extent to which his measures of divergent thinking

correly with lifetime creave achievement. He was also interested in personal characteristics, and he came up with the whole list of characteristics he called the Beyonder characteristics, and he found that some of these beyonder characteristics did an even better job of predicting lifelong creativity compared to even his own

divergent thinking tests. So some of the major factors or beyonder characteristics he found were important for lifelong creativity included a love of work, persistence, feeling a deep purpose in your life, having deep thinking, and really valuing deep thinking not the same thing necessarily as fast thinking, which is what you tend to find on IQ tests, having a great tolerance of mistakes, being openness to change, taking risks. And this one's really interesting, feeling comfortable is a minority

of one. Tarrance talked to a lot of these elementary school kids and he asked them, you know, if you're the only one in the classroom who believes something, you know you're a minority of one, will you stick to it or will you change your mind based on whatever everyone else is saying? And he found that those who felt comfortable being a minority of one showed much higher levels of creativity throughout their lives than those who didn't.

But out of all the beyonder characteristics he looked at, there was one that kept that stood out as really

really important for creativity and creative thinking. And it's not on this list because I'm trying to be dramatic, but drum roll, please, da da da da da e Paul Torrens found that the extent to which kids fell in love with a future image of themselves was really one of the best predictors of life along creativity, compared to even his diversion thinking tests and these other beyonder characteristics.

One of my favorite quotes from Torrents comes from a paper where he's summarizing his life's work and he says life's most energizing and exciting moments occur in those split seconds when our struggling and searching are suddenly trained, transformed into the dazzling aura of the profoundly new an image of the future. One of the most powerful well springs of creative energy, outstanding accomplishment, and self fulfillment, seems to be falling in love with something, your dream, your image

of the future. Torrance came up with a whole manifesto for children later in his life, which I really love. Here is the Torrants Manifesto for children. Don't be afraid to fall in love with something and pursue it with intensity. Know, understand, take pride in practice, develop, exploit and enjoy your greatest strengths. Learn to free yourself from the expectations of others and walk away from the games they impose on you. Is this one was really near and dear to my heart.

You know, a lot of people know my own personal story of being in special ed with a learning an auditory learning disability when I was a kid and deciding in ninth grade I wasn't going to play the game of the school anymore. I was going to walk away from special ahead and see what I was capable of on my own terms. And it turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever made in my life. Free yourself to play your own game. So that's why I did. I freed myself to play your own game.

And I encourage each of you, as creative beings, to free yourself to play your own game and start to make your own rules about how you want to live your life. Find a teacher or a mentor who will help you so. Seek out inspiring examples of people, learn the skills of interdependence. Don't waste your time trying to be well rounded. Really master something and do what you love and can do well. So I really like this Foundational Creativity study. I think it highlights a lot of

aspects of creativity that are really important to highlight. But what does modern day science show about the science of creativity? How does it confirm or disconfirm Epaul Torrance's seminal study. So let's now take a deep dive into understanding the creative personality. My own entry way into understanding the creative personality was in my cognitive dissertation, where I became really

interested in the personality trait openness to experience. There are many ways that we differ from each other in this world in terms of personality. Could be introversion, extraversion, conscientiousness, or how disorganized are you, neuroticism, how neurotic are you? Or emotionally stable are you? Or how agreeable are you? Or how disagreeable are you? But one of the major dimensions of personality that seems to be most correlated with

creativities openness to experience. Openness to experience is curious about many different things. Is inventive, finds clever ways to do things, Believe in the importance of art, likes philosophical discussions, love to reflect on things, often get lost in thought, often daydream like poetry, get deeply immersed in music, or need a creative outlet. My research has shown that openness to

experience is correlated with creative achievement across the lifespan. And we looked at crave achievement using the CAAQ test that Carson, Peterson and Higgins developed in two thousand and five. We looked at the visual arts, music, dance, architecture, creative writing, humor, inventions, scientific discovery, theater, film, and culinary arts, and we found out of all the other dimensions of personality, openness to experience was the best predictor of creative achievement in one's life.

It was even a better predictor than IQ. However, there's some nuance here that I like to talk about. I always love talking about the nuance. IQ was a better predictor of cretive achievement in the sciences compared to crave achievement in the arts. So these correlations average over different forms of creative achievement. And also you may notice here a correlation zero with neuroticism. That's interesting because there's this myth of the neurotic genius, and we found that there

really isn't a correlation. There also agreeableness there, we didn't find a correlation. And this is interesting considering we want to think that people who are most creative are doing it for the good of humanity, but that's clearly not the case if you look throughout the course of human history. And also we found a basically a zero correlation with conscientiousness, which some people may be very confused by because it seems like obviously putting in a lot of hard work

is going to help you with your creativity. But there's a lot of nuance, a lot of nuance here when we really double click on the correlation with conscientious aspect of personality, because each of these forms of personality have subcomponents, and conscientiousness has multiple subcomponents, or grit has multiple subcomponents, such as how much industrious how such as how industrious

are you? How much can you persevere despite obstacles? And we found that that aspect of conscientiousness was correlated positively with lifelong creativity. But other aspects of conscientiousness, such as orderliness or how much do you are you? How consistent are you and your goals, weren't as relevant to lifelong creativity as possible. And that's probably because creativity involves jumping around and doing a lot of trial and error and

not necessarily being consistent but being variable. So that's we found that we thought that was very interesting. And then lastly, if you look here, we found a correlation with extra version,

a very small positive correlation with extraversion. This research is again some summing over various different types of creativity, but when you actually double click on this, you find that there are some forms of creativity we looked at, such as creative writing, that are more correlated with introversion, whereas there are some forms of creativity such as such as the performing arts, that are that is correlated with extraversion. But when you average over all different forms of creativity,

these are the findings. And most importantly I want to highlight here that regardless of the form of creativity, openness to experience was positively correlated. But openness to experience as a broad domain has different facets as well, such as intellectual curiosity and an openness to experience, to actually our

rich emotional tapestry and to our new experiences. And we found that within that openness to experience demean it, intellectual curiosity was a stronger predictor of creative achievement in the sciences, whereas openness to aesthetics and emotions and to imagination was more strongly correlated with creative achievement in the arts, but never less, openness to experience was the best predictor across

creativity across the board. And this research on openness to experience is I believe is consistent with some earlier research on creativity, such as the Big IPAR Study of Creativity iParty. IPAR stands for the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research, which was initiated in the fifties where researchers what they did is they brought some of the most creative people of the time to a renovated fraternity house at Berkeley University of Berkeley, and they looked to see, well, what

are the most creative people like? In a lot of ways, this is the exact opposite study of the epul Torn study. Whereas the epul Torn study looked at elementary school children and try to follow them up to see what are the greatest predictors of creativity throughout the lifespan, Frank Barron and his colleagues looked at already existing creative adults and to see what is it that they have? What are

successful people like? So what did Frank barn find? Well, first of all, Frank Barron found that creative people are less likely to conform, such as in the Ashes famous experimental procedure. In the famous Ash study, you have people look in a psychology study at a line, and you go around the room. You look at two lines, and one line is obviously bigger than the other, and the

psychologist asks, are these lines the same? Or is one line bigger than the other, And they go around the room and they ask everyone to give their opinion, and they have the participant go last. Unknown to the participant, they've paid other people to be actors in the study and say that the lines are different even though they might be obviously the same, or to say that the lines are the same even though the lines are obviously different.

And the question is how likely are you to conform to everyone else's opinion when the reality is as obvious as can be? And he Paul Toorns found that creative adults were much less likely to conform in this particular experimental procedure. So when the lines were obviously different, participants the creative people were like, look, folks, they're different. You all are crazy over here, you know, I don't know

why you're all saying the same. They're obviously different. Another interesting finding is that he found that creative people scored very very high in measures of mental sanity or mental health, and they also scored higher than average on measures of

mental insanity than the general population. So he found that creative adults would score a little bit elevated on lots of measures of mental illness, but they also had what he called ego strength, the ability to have that and at the same time come up with rational, useful, creative products the world. So, summarizing his studies, Frank Barron said, thus, the creative genius may be at once naive and knowledgeable, being at home equally to primitive symbolism and to rigorous logic.

He is both more primitive and more cultured, more destructive and more constructive, occasionally crazier, and yet adamantly saner than the average person. This is very much in line with Mihai chickset Mehi's research on creative people, who also found there wasn't this rigid structure of personality, as he said, what dictates their behavior is not a rigid inner structure, but the demands of the interaction between them and the

domain in which they are working. In my view, all of these findings relate to the work we've done on openness to experience. And if I had to define the creative person in a single word, in a single phrase, I would say, creative people have messy minds, and I mean this in a positive way. I think we need to embrace and appreciate the messy minds in our society more because I think these messy minds are going to have a higher likelihood of having creative ideas in this world.

As Mihai Chick sent me, High found, creative people really do mix and match seemingly contradictory things in the service of their creativity. So, for instance, and I've come up with some of these paradoxes, creative people seem to be mindful daydreamers. They seem to have a lot of mindfulness and the ability to intensely concentrate, but also have the capacity to daydream when needed. Creative people are imaginatively gritty, So they aren't just gritty and just head down and

solve and reach their goals. But they're gritty and are able to be flexible in imagining new possibilities and new paths. They know one to grit and no one to quit. Creative people can be passionately introverted. What I mean by this is that they may be socially introverted or may seem very introverted, but when you get them talking about the thing they love, they are so passionate about it,

so very domain general extraversion, perhaps openly sensitive. So creative people can be very sensitive souls, but also can have a very deep openness and vulnerability in what they talk about, so they're not afraid of being sensitive and putting it into their work. Playfully serious, creative people can come across as very serious at times but also very playful at times. They're able to go back and forth, and even when they're being serious, they can still keep a sort of

absurdity about what they're doing. Creative people are logically intuitive, so they can mix and match logic with intuition. They can draw on their intuition, but then they can use their rational mind to see test whether or not that intuition is correct. They can be vulnerably resilient, so they can be really resilient and persevering and reaching their goals while at the same time being very vulnerable to the

things that are happening to them. Again, can go along with their high sensitivity while still be resilient at the same time. And lastly, they can be rebellious experts. What I mean by rebellious experts, Well, creative people can be very expert at something and really master something, but they also can can buck the trend. They can challenge the

status quo and be rebellious in what they've learned. So I think all these things can character can characterize creative people, and I think a lot of this comes down to the personality trait openness to experience, or that ability to

go back and forth between different modes of thought. I think that that's a very common thing among creative people, is their ability to have that flexibility and combine seemingly incompatible traits or characteristics, but then integrating them and bringing them into a greater whole than maybe people were aware of. That's what's one of the great functions of creative people in our society. They can give us new meanings for

seemingly contradictory aspects of the human experience. So now I want to talk about the neuroscience of creativity or the latest neuroscience of creativity, and then link it back to what we know about all this other research we've been talking about, I want to focus first on a brain network that's a rather recent discovery in the neuroscience of creativity,

and that's what scientists call the default mode brain network. So, up until about thirty years ago or so, neuroscientists treated everything that the participant did in the fMRI machine that wasn't relevant to the task they were asking them to do.

They treated that as noise. So, for instance, if the cognouroscientists was like, we want you to do this task where we want you to process this visual spatial stimuli and then we'll scan your brain while doing it, all the thoughts that were happening that were not related to the specific instructions of the participant were considered noise, not relevant,

and not important to study. Well, a bunch of rogue cognitive neuroscientists came around and said, you know what, maybe the thing that kind of cognition that happens at rest is really important. You know, like maybe our deep daydreams and our automatic spontaneous daydreams and visions of the future

are important. So neuroscientists started studying what happens, started studying these cognitions that happen at rest in the fMRI machine, and they called the brain network the defaulible network, but I like to call the imagination network. There's something beautiful about the architecture of the brain. When you look out throughout the course of human evolution, it seems like a lot of the brain areas in the met surface of the brain. So if you were to slice the brain open.

Don't try this at home, but if you were a slice the brain open and look at the inside of the brain, particularly the areas of the prefontal cortex in the medial surface, you would find that these brain areas are most active when we are imagining our future, when we're daydreaming. Let's look at all the different cognitive processes that have been associated with the imagination network in recent years.

We find that the imagination network is associated with mind wandering, daydreaming, imagining and planning the future, self awareness, reflective compassion, reasoning about moral dilemmas, reading fiction, retrieving deeply personal memories, evaluating the social and emotional implications of another persons situation. You know, in a lot of ways, perspective taking is a leap of imagination. I assume that you can't literally read the

minds of others. But in order to read the minds of others, you really have to imagine what someone is thinking and feeling. And in order to do that, you tie it to your own personal memories and link it to what you've experienced to be able to make that connection to what someone else is experiencing. The imagination network has been associated with monitoring one's emotional state. It's been

associated with reflective consideration of a meaning of experiences. The meaning making seems to be this brain network seems to be essential for the construction of the meaning of our experiences and also mentally stimulating the perspective of another person. As I already briefly mentioned. So one essential brain network for creativity is the imagination brain network. Another essential network for the neuroscience of creativity is the executive control network.

So the executive control network is more on the lateral surface of the brain, whereas the imagination network is more on the medial or inside surface of the brain, especially the prefontal cortex. So when we look at brain activations of the prefontal cortex on the outer surface of the brain, and it's it's particularly its relationship and its connections to the parietal lobe, certain aspects of the parietal lobe on

the lateral surface. You tend to find that these activations happen when you're trying to integrate lots of other information intentionally, You're trying to hold a number of things in your working memory at once. You try to inhibit things, you try to inhibit ideas, and when you try to be flexible in your attention. But a lot of this is really related to conscious focusing and top down control of your attention. So this is an important aspect of creative thinking.

And then thirdly, the third major brain network that is associated that I want to highlight today that is associated that is associated with creativity is the salience network. I think the network is the most underrated brain network when it comes to creativity and understanding the neuroscience of creativity. What is the salient's brain network, Well, this tends to include areas of the brain like the dorsal interior singular courtesies the dACC for short, and the anterior insula or

the AI. And what the salience network does for us it seems to be one of the functions of it is at a subconscious level. It seems to tag information as relevant or irrelevant to a higher level goal and then pass that information like a baton, you know, in a race, pass it on to either our executive attention network to get to work on it, or to our

imagination network to continue daydreaming about it. This is related to a concept that I am very that is very near and dear to my heart and was a central part of my PhD dissertation, which is called latent inhibition. So those with a very high latent latent inhibition tend to be very good inhibiting things automatically that seem to be irrelevant to one's goals. They don't even entertain the possibility that things might might be relevant if it's not

obviously relevant. Those with very low or reduced leadent inhibition tend to let everything come into the stream of consciousness and if you're in a reduced inhibition has been correlated with schizophrenia and psychosis and with some mental disorders, but it has also been correlated with increased creativity. So we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water here. Creativity, the link between creativity and mental illness

is a very nuanced and interesting one. It seems like those who maybe have a certain elevated traits on certain measures of mental illness, in combination with their ability to have executive attentional control and reflection and the ability today dream to have that flexibility tend to be the most creative people of them all. And this leaks to the

Frank barn study. This links to their work on openness to experience, the work of Mihi Chick sent me High, and being able to mix and match different seemingly contradictory modes of existence for creativity. So all these things we see, we start to see at all these different levels of analysis that all these things are coming together to paint the picture of the creative mind and the creative human.

Let me tell you some research we've conducted on the on these three brain networks and how they interact and play a role in creativity. So one paper in the journal Nature Scientific Reports, which in this study was led by Roger Ebt, So huge shout out to Roger Beatty for pioneering these studies and for allowing me to be a part of the right along for the ride in

this research. What we did is we wanted to look at how the default or the imagination brain network and the executive attention network couple together to support idea production. One finding which is really important to illustrate here is that creativity is not left brain or right brain, but it's whole brain. You know, when you actually zoom out and look at the whole creative process or look at the creative thinking process, you tend to find it activates

all these different brain networks. A network analysis is much more useful when looking at creative thinking than the old school sort of left brain right brain dichotomy. So here this is just a Nerdier graph called graph theory analysis.

And efficiency of how these different brain networks are communicating with each other is positively correlated with divergent thinking ability, So that's a really important finding as well to illustrate divergent thinking involves this flexibility and going back and forth between all these different brain networks. But we also found

that the time course of creativity is really important. So in the initial stage of creative thinking, it's important to perhaps, as we found, reduce functioning of the executive attention network just a little bit so you don't have such you don't have too much top down control, and you can let the ideas flow. You can let things, the ideas move back and forth in your imagination brain network, and you can imagine a future image of yourself or future

or future ideas of future possibilities. But then as the time course of the creative thinking process continues, you may want to turn up the activation of your executive attention network so that you can you can really start to make sure that the ideas you've generated are practical and useful. So knowing which brain networks to activate at which times of the creative process seems to be more important than just linking one creative network to the whole creative process.

So that's an exciting new area of the neuroscience of creativity is looking at the time scale of creative thinking and looking at the interaction and efficiency of multiple brain networks. However, something I want to emphasize here is that importance of at certain times deactivating your executive attentional control over the creative process. And this finding here is consistent with the great research Charles Lim and his colleagues have done on

creative jazz and improvisation on creative rappers. They've actually put rappers and creative jazz improvisers in the fMRI machine and have them do their thing when they're improvising versus when they're they have they're just doing something that's pre planned, and they find that when they're improvising, they tend to reduce their cognitive functioning of that executive attention network enough that they can get really deeply in touch with their

imagination network, the rich imagination network, and kind of get in that flow state. It seems like that flow state is absolutely essential for creativity, especially in the earliest stages of the creative process, or the stages in which you want to improvise or come up with lots of different possible solutions to a problem. And then other researchers have carried on that great work by Charles Limm and have

found very similar findings among poets, among artists. So there seems to be a great confluence of research here from many different perspectives. It starts to get us closer at looking at the science of the creative mind. It seems like creativity involves both novelty and usefulness. If all you have is novelty, you may get to the point of

being put in a mental institution. You know, and I say that, you know, I say that with all due care and concern that we call people crazy too soon in our society just because they have a reduced laden inhibition and everyone else in society has too high a laden inhibition. But we need to respect and acknowledge, especially in the school children. Especially among school children. I think the kids who challenge us, the kids who say, you know what, I think, actually this over here, well it

doesn't seem relevant. It might actually connect the dots in a way that's a lot more creative, and allow them to then take that idea without calling them crazy. But then allow them and teach them the skills of executive attention, to allow them to further apply their attention and their rational facilities to decide whether or it's practical. But if you have too much practical utility without the originality, I also see that as problematic for creativity. I also see

that as not conducive to creativity. If you have too much practicalness, you may miss out on potentially original ideas. So as I like to joke around, if you have too much originality without the practicalness, you can get something looking like this. I actually paid for this picture because I thought it was a good illustration of maybe too much originality without the practicalness, or if you have too much originality without the practicalness, you may get this hairdoo.

Although if you like this hairdoo, please do leave a comment in the comments and let me know. So creativity involves both originality and usefulness, or the capacity to come up with original ideas and to create new meanings for society and to interpret things that may seem irrelevant in ways that actually give us new meanings in our society.

I think that's a great function of artists and scientists to discover new truths that none of us ever would have discovered before, but also combine that with relevance and practicality so that we know what the we can make sense of it. You know, you can come up with a new meaning all you want in your own head, but if no one else understands why that new meaning matters at all, you know you are prone to be

labeled as crazy rather than creative. But I think the line between crazy and creative is a very fine line, and we need to in our society be much more

open to new ideas is to move society forward. So I hope that this little primer on the latest science of creativity as well as the old science of creativity, and how all these things all this research, the original research on creativity that was conducted in the fifties, sixties, and seventies and eighties, and the modern science, how it all sort of paints this picture of the creative person.

And I hope also it helps stimulate us to think of new ways of supporting and encouraging creative people in our society. So I hope you found this episode of the Human Potential Lab helpful, and as always, please leave comments in the comments section on the website or on the YouTube channel. Thank you, and until next time, peace out. Thanks for listening to this episode of The Psychology Podcast.

If you'd like to react in some way to something you heard, I encourage you to join in the discussion at the psychologypodcast dot com on our YouTube page the Psychology Podcast. We also put up some videos of some episodes on our YouTube page as well, so you'll want to check that out. Thanks for being such a great supporter of the show, and tune in next time for more on the mind, brain, behavior, and creativity.