我发现所有人都在逃避，逃避那些自己不愿意面对的事情，逃避工作，逃避糟糕的人际关系，逃避家庭，逃避学习……他们的出口也不尽相同，有电影，书籍，音乐，写东西，做手工，画画，弹琴，甚至也可以是学习。他们做这些事情的原因可能并非出于热爱。但在事实上，这些东西在事实上困住了他们。
是的，看起来高高在上的爱好——读书、创作、艺术，都只是一个消极的精神避难所。其实谁不是这样呢？惊世骇俗的艺术家，梵高也罢，高更也罢，艺术并没在生前给他们带来财富与荣耀，支撑他们创作的无非胸中无处发泄的表达欲望，而这股欲望的来源恰恰就是精神世界与现实世界的「错位」。他们不安于这世界，但又无力改变，只能悄悄潜入另一个世界获得虚妄的安慰。不要觉得这虚妄可悲可耻，古往今来哪一个艺术作品不是诞生于痛苦？那些艺术，你们能看见，能听见，甚至能感受，但是这种错位的激情，我们永远无法经历，这就是艺术，她只能存在于另一个世界。
但是，往往精神避难所稍有不慎就长成了身体的囚笼……
或许学会和这个世界相处是另一种艺术。
本期文摘模仿了黄集伟老师的一周语文，可惜我的阅读量并没有黄老师那么大，这一期其实攒了好久，但由于种种原因，只找到了这三篇，我认为值得分享的文章。
「三观警察」： 三观警察不是什么新概念，我们过去有一个更加通俗易懂的说法——道德卫士。道德卫士守的是被时代抛弃的「旧道德」，三观警察保护得也不是什么新东西。其实这种人在我们的日常生活中很常见，大家平时也就一笑了之，大不了不和他做朋友嘛。但是当这些「警察」通过网络发声，甚至抱团评批不符合他们三观的文艺作品时，一幅可怕的景象不由得在脑海里浮现起来。正如界面记者张之琪在文中说
……所以，“三观警察”的要求大概是：不仅是婚姻内的男女不能越雷池半步，恋爱中的人也必须从一而终。……在电影电视作品领域，一种早就被钉入棺材板的“贞操观”仿佛突然上升为了至高无上的原则，不仅高于个人的情感、欲望以及处置自己身体的自由之上，甚至可以让人们忽视一种压迫性的社会结构对个人的宰制，与权力亲近，对弱者无情。 ……在这里，三观似乎又获得了其规范性的一面，它追求的是一种可怕的一致——不需要独立思考，也不需要同理心，需要的仅仅是无条件的接受与服从。
「艺术玩晒论」： 玩晒是粤语，意指事事做主，你玩晒就是全都你说了算。作者杨天帅笔下的艺术玩晒论批评了现今艺术圈的一个怪象：艺术创作者在解释艺术作品时总喜欢随意联想，过度解读，无法自圆其说。杨在文中说：
現今當代藝術界有一種普遍現象，我稱之為「藝術的極端多元主義」 ，或曰「藝術玩晒論」。這種論調流行於許多策展人、藝術家，甚至商界與普羅大眾。在這種論調下，「藝術沒有對錯，沒有好壞，沒有優劣。因為都是觀點與角度的問題，只要講得通就行。」……顧名思義，因為它是藝術，所以它玩晒，一如中國內政，旁人不得說三道四。
最后这个中国内政的比喻，用得入木三分。
**「我反對你我就有自認為足夠說服你的理由而不需要給你上口塞讓你閉嘴。」：**语出端传媒圆桌话题《公開談論港獨是應有的自由嗎？你如何看陳浩天演講風波？》网友 @釋放 的评论。真理确实越辩越明，但公开讨论需要直面矛盾的勇气、承认对方的胸襟、说服对方的自信，而我们有这种勇气、胸襟、和最关键的自信吗？我们的电视机里有制度自信和有文化自信，但我们，没有。
附@釋放评论原文：
……虽然我反对且反感分裂行为，但并不反对把分裂主义拿出来讨论，甚至还挺支持把这些尖锐的观点摆上台面，毕竟真理越辩越明，讨论也不应设禁区，我反对你我就有自认为足够说服你的理由而不需要给你上口塞让你闭嘴。只是对于政府来说，处理这类言论的余地反而较窄，指望大家坐下来摆事实讲道理有点不切实际。
富人握有大量闲置房产，穷人却无家可归，为什么呢？
因为房子从住所被异化成了财产和或者说是理财工具 。
这是哈佛大学社会学系教授 Matthew Desmond 的新作——《扫地出门：美国城市的贫穷与暴利》——里指出的观一个事实。
澎湃新闻刊发了牛津大学人类学院教授项飙为本书做的导读，项教授是中国人，在关于房子与土地这样的话题身上，中国人比美国人体会的更为深刻。
以下摘抄两段导读：
为什么空出来的房子不能成为被驱逐者的家园？占有者不愿意。我 10 万买下来的房子，白给别人住，岂不是降低了房子的价值？中国二线以下城市政府办公楼前和房产开发商公司门口时不时有业主静坐，对房子降价表示抗议。不许房产降价，直接动机是保护自己投资的价值。但从另一个角度看，也就是不许那些比我穷的人拥有和我一样的房子。宁可让房子空着，也不能让别人便宜地住。业主当然不是坏人；然而，一旦必需品成为利润的源泉，对利润的追逐就难免沦为“要命”的肉搏。
正是因为我们失去了公共感，我们把家绝对化成为一个私人祭坛。如果家是我们“忙完学习工作之余、在街头历劫种种之后的去处”，那么，工作越折磨、学校越有压力，街头越危险，家就越显得温馨而珍贵。也许，我们生活在这样的循环里：为了买房安家，我们承受更多的工作折磨；工作折磨又让家居这个避风港显得愈加宝贵。于是，人之为人的基本需求（住所）成了我们全力拼搏的目标，实现人之为人的基本手段（工作、学习、在街上和人相遇交流）成了折磨和负担。
有人说中国房子能炒起来，是因为中国人重视家庭与土地，这是观念上的历史包袱。这和文章里提及的“家天堂”、“人人成为业主”的意识一样。 那么，未来的房子还会不会如此重要，就看现在这代人能不能卸下这个历史包袱了。
Have you ever wondered why creative individuals seem to spot things that others miss? Whether it’s an inventor who finds an innovative solution to a familiar problem or an artist who reinterprets a landscape in a fresh way, many creative people have a special ability to find significance even in the mundane. Research suggests this isn’t just a coincidence: differences in the way someone’s brain prioritises information might actually fuel creative thinking.
Let’s consider how your brain prioritises information in everyday contexts. Every time you open your eyes, you’re flooded with visual information – way more than your brain can handle at once. Yet you aren’t overwhelmed, thanks to sophisticated attention mechanisms that filter out unnecessary stuff. These mechanisms typically prioritise information based on how important, valuable, surprising or relevant it seems. For example, you might be admiring some ripe pomegranates in a tree (a valuable resource), but if a snake suddenly slithers down the bough, your attention will snap to the snake because its presence is far more urgent. Evolution has fine-tuned this process to ensure we react quickly and appropriately to the most critical information; this may be a valuable resource in one moment (eg, pomegranates) but a dangerous obstacle the next (eg, snakes). As a result, people tend to notice similar things in their environment. But there are some intriguing differences in what captures each person’s attention. That’s where our research comes in.
My work explores the ways in which creative individuals prioritise information differently to their less creative counterparts. In one of our studies, my research collaborators and I used a classic task to see how the brain responds to another type of high priority information: surprising information. Participants listened to mostly repetitive auditory tones with the occasional rare – or ‘oddball’ – tone, while their brain activity was recorded using an electroencephalogram. Typically, individuals’ brains respond to the rare stimulus with a well-defined spike in neural activity, known as the P300, which indicates surprise. But for creative individuals? We find this spike is less pronounced.
In other words, it seems that creative people don’t see unusual information as quite so unusual. This may offer a big advantage for creative thinking because it blurs the line between what’s typical and atypical, allowing unusual ideas to be considered – and ensuring that the most obvious parts of a problem do not take up all the attention.
**The idea that creativity and attention **are linked isn’t new. Research has long shown connections between creativity and different types of attention, including links to ADHD, broad or unfocused attention, and so-called ‘leaky’ attention – that is, a less efficient attentional filter, through which irrelevant information is able to ‘leak’ into focus. Our research is suggesting that these differences in attention may come down to variations in how our brains prioritise sensory data – a dopamine-driven process called ‘incentive salience attribution’.
Incentive salience attribution is the process by which raw sensory data is unconsciously assigned significance and deemed worthy of attention, making certain information stand out from the rest. This process is closely tied to attention but also plays a major role in motivating thoughts and actions in response to significant information. This motivational aspect seems to be key to understanding how salience processes support creative thinking.
Newton saw an apple fall from a tree – something most people might view as trivial. Yet, he saw the apple’s fall as significant
Several theories of attention – such as the idea that creatives have a ‘leaky filter’ – help explain why creative individuals notice new information, but not why they are motivated by it. Creative minds seem irresistibly attracted to novel or unconventional information. My colleague Jonathan Schooler and I propose that this attraction is driven by the motivational properties of salience. When unconventional information gets flagged, it acts like a magnet, compelling individuals to explore it. This exploration boosts the chances that novel information will become a part of the creative problem-solving process, sparking innovative ideas.
This framework offers a new way to understand both creative traits and creative states. By creative traits, I mean the consistent differences in creativity that we observe when we compare individuals. Research indicates that how a person processes what’s important – the brain’s salience system – varies systematically from person to person. For example, people with schizotypy or autism often show unique patterns of salience processing, meaning they are naturally drawn to unconventional details. For example, individuals with autism tend to pay less attention to faces and social cues, such as where someone is looking, but more attention to mechanical objects or objects related to their specific interests. Similarly, we suggest that variations in the salience system may predispose some individuals to notice and then consider the unconventional, fostering a natural tendency toward original, creative thinking.
Now, let’s delve into creative states – those spontaneous bursts of creativity that can happen at any moment. Even the most creative individuals aren’t always in a state of creativity, nor are they creative in every situation. But during moments of creative insight, less obvious aspects of a problem can suddenly stand out, leading to that thrilling ‘eureka’ moment when new connections are made. On the other hand, uncreative ideas often emerge when someone can’t see beyond the obvious, getting stuck on familiar patterns. This is where common barriers to creativity come into play, including functional fixedness – a cognitive bias that prevents people from seeing alternative uses for objects or alternative solutions to problems.
We suggest that the functioning of the salience system plays a crucial role in these different modes. When attention is captured by an aspect of a problem or situation that isn’t usually prominent or relevant, the salience system has flagged atypical information for further processing, paving the way to a creative insight. On the other hand, creative blocks, such as functional fixedness, may arise under ‘typical’ salience functioning, where the system flags only the most prominent, obvious features of the problem for consideration.
Think about Isaac Newton’s famous insight into gravity. According to the story, Newton saw an apple fall from a tree – something most people might view as trivial. Yet, in this instance, he saw the apple’s fall as significant, prompting him to contemplate it more deeply. Entertaining the potential importance of this seemingly irrelevant occurrence led to a breakthrough connection: that the same force causing the apple to fall also influences celestial bodies like the Moon.
In this example, the creative individual’s brain flags unusual or ‘irrelevant’ information as significant, prompting them to explore it further. This exploration allows them to consider remote ideas and associations that others overlook, increasing the likelihood of a creative insight. Notice how the information that gets flagged doesn’t necessarily have to be directly related to the problem at hand; its value lies in the potential connections it can inspire, leading to innovative and unexpected outcomes. A similar process likely unfolds in artistic contexts, such as when a painter, musician or filmmaker sees a seemingly irrelevant detail as meaningful. For instance, an artist may find themselves captivated by the shadow cast by an object, finding it more interesting than the object itself. This might inspire a series of works exploring the hidden beauty of shadows.
**Thinking of this atypical salience functioning **as a state suggests that it could be ‘switched on’, potentially leading to creative thinking. Although direct evidence is lacking, there are several examples that hint at this possibility.
One example comes from individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD). In particular, some patients receiving dopaminergic therapy to treat their PD have been shown to exhibit the characteristic symptoms of atypical salience processing; they sometimes report experiencing the world as teeming with unusual significance, where even trivial or irrelevant information seems to carry hidden meaning. A separate line of research shows that treated PD patients can experience sudden artistic developments or a drive to create. An open question is whether the atypical salience processing in these patients motivates this artistic drive.
What might seem like irrelevant information could actually offer an adaptive advantage, leading to unexpected insights
Certain kinds of everyday experiences might also influence how the brain assigns salience. For instance, some types of visual art, such as abstract or surrealist works, disrupt a viewer’s usual way of seeing by creating paradoxes and visual conflicts that don’t occur in nature. We believe that the unconventional nature of abstract art encourages the brain to enter a different state, relaxing its default perceptual predictions to accommodate the unusual sensory input. Supporting this idea, our lab has found that viewing art leads to some of the outcomes we theorise are associated with atypical incentive processing – including creativity. Now, we intend to examine whether atypical salience processing is responsible for driving the effect of art on these outcomes.
Another example where creativity and atypical salience processing intersect is in the context of cannabis use. Many users claim that cannabis sparks their creativity, helping them think outside the box and come up with original ideas. This perception might be linked to cannabis’s ability to induce atypical salience processing, which has been shown to drive some of the downstream effects associated with its consumption. However, the connection between creativity and cannabis is challenging to observe in laboratory settings. Most scientific research examining creativity and cannabis has focused on very specific types of creative thinking – such as the kind captured by lab-based tasks in which participants must generate as many ideas as possible in a limited time. These tasks rely heavily on cognitive control, which is the ability to focus and filter out irrelevant information. This style of thinking may actually conflict with the more free-flowing, open-minded attention style associated with atypical salience processing. Thus, existing research may be obscuring the broader impacts of cannabis on creative thinking.
This brings us to a crucial point: the concept of creativity is broad and multifaceted. Under the umbrella of ‘creativity’, researchers have identified two distinct attention styles. One of these, described previously, is leaky attention, which has been linked to real-life creative achievements. The other type of attention is characterised by highly controlled, ‘watertight’ focus. People with this attentional style are great at blocking out distractions and can shift their attention based on what’s needed for the task at hand. And this kind of attention is often a strong predictor of success in lab-based creativity tasks, especially those that are time-sensitive and require generating lots of ideas quickly.
Our atypical salience framework aligns best with the leaky attentional style and is therefore most likely to explain creative performance in artistic domains and predict real-life creative accomplishments. By distinguishing between these types of attention, we can better understand the diverse ways creativity manifests, and tailor our approaches to studying and fostering creativity across different contexts.
Taking a step back, our research proposes a new outlook on what is traditionally seen as ‘healthy’ neural functioning. While it’s often helpful, of course, to focus on the most clearly relevant information, this can sometimes constrain creative potential. In contrast, what might seem like irrelevant information could actually offer an adaptive advantage, leading to unexpected insights. From this perspective, the uniqueness of creative individuals lies in their ability to perceive and prioritise information in distinctive ways, embracing the unconventional and unexpected.