Not So Crazy After

book reviews profound harmony between the theoretical all the usual suspects are there, but when it and experimental practice of Ampère, Fara- comes to evolutionary psychology we find a day, F. Neumann, W. Weber, Kelvin, Maxwell, very skewed sample. On the one hand, the Helmholtz and Hertz. major figures in the field are notable by their

Darrigol’s guided tour of the “lofty sum- absence. The Machiavellian intelligence BETTMAN/CORBIS mits of the history of electrodynamics’’ will hypothesis is discussed (although not appeal to historians and philosophers of named), but there is no mention of Nicholas science, as well as to physicists, mathe- Humphrey, who first proposed it, and Robin maticians, and engineers interested in the Dunbar, who has done much to test this origins and evolution of field theory. hypothesis, only gets a brief nod in the Regardless of how one may feel about the acknowledgements (Richard Byrne and chances for success of non-Maxwellian alter- Andrew Whiten don’t even get that). Like- natives a century ago, Darrigol’s informed wise, Nettle advances something suspicious- analysis of the evolution of electromagnetic ly like Randolph Nesse’s propitiousness theory and experiment effectively illustrates hypothesis of mood without mentioning the subtle ways by which Maxwell’s equa- Nesse’s name at all. tions came to shape visions of the future. I On the other hand, the authorities who Scott Walter is in the Department of Philosophy, are mentioned are among the least trust- Archives Henri Poincaré, Université Nancy 2, worthy, and several ideas are misattributed. 23 Bd Albert 1er, 54015 Nancy Cédex, France. Nettle seems particularly impressed by Anthony Stevens and John Price, although their book, Evolutionary Psychiatry (Rout- Sylvia Plath: creative and depressed — but why? ledge), is among the more dubious contribu- tions to the field, and he credits them with Not so crazy after all phrenia have remained in the gene pool the idea that the modern world has changed Strong Imagination: Madness, because they also enhance creativity. too fast for the human mind, which is still Creativity and Human Nature From the chatty style, and the fact that adapted to the pleistocene. Now, Stevens and by Daniel Nettle even such basic biological entities as neuro- Price may well have baptized this hypothesis Oxford University Press: 2001. 192 pp. £16.99 transmitters and recessive genes are with a particularly catchy name — they call it Dylan Evans explained in simple terms, it is clear that the the ‘genome lag’ hypothesis — but it is cer- book is aimed at the general reader with very tainly not their invention. It is, in fact, one of “I have long had a suspicion,” wrote the little knowledge of psychiatry or evolution- the staple ideas in evolutionary psychology, great Victorian psychiatrist Henry Mauds- ary theory. Such readers will no doubt learn a and goes back at least as far as John Bowlby. ley in 1871, “that mankind is indebted for lot from the book, as it covers an impressive The one evolutionary psychologist who much of its individuality and for certain range of material, from the history of ideas is both a major player in the field and cited forms of genius to individuals [with] some about mental illness in the twentieth century frequently in the book is Geoffrey Miller. predisposition to insanity. They have often and the basic principles of neurochemistry, Miller’s view that sexual selection has played a taken up the by-paths of thought, which to the phenomenology of psychosis and the much greater role than natural selection in have been overlooked by more stable intel- theory of sexual selection. They may even shaping the most distinctively human aspects lects.” In Strong Imagination, Daniel Nettle find themselves persuaded by Nettle’s thesis. of our minds is linked suggestively with the takes up Maudsley’s suspicion and runs Those already familiar with the literature, view that the genes for madness are also genes with it. He argues that the genes that predis- however, will find the book less convincing. for creativity. Indeed, the main virtue of Net- pose people to schizophrenia and manic Nettle frequently claims to have “argued” tle’s book is that it brings these two hypothe- depression have been maintained in the gene for some claim or even “demonstrated” it, ses together in a single work for the first time. pool by natural selection because of their when in fact he has merely proposed or This is a task that needed to be done, and we beneficial effects in enhancing creativity. assumed it. The result is a text that may must be grateful to Nettle for undertaking it. The idea that madness and creative please the converted but will not persuade Despite the occasional stylistic infelicity genius are but two sides of the same coin has a the sceptic. This is perhaps most obvious and the overuse of the first person singular, long and distinguished pedigree, originating when Nettle discusses the supposed evolu- Nettle writes well. He enlivens the scientific long before Maudsley. In the past few tionary advantages for psychological traits data with fascinating clinical vignettes, decades, the idea has been subjected to inge- such as low/high mood and creative flair. anthropological observations, and well- nious statistical tests by Kay Redfield Jami- “How,” he asks at one point, “can low mood chosen quotations from Shakespeare. The son, Arnold Ludwig, Nancy Andreasen, Felix be adaptive, given that in all primate groups, book may not contain anything strikingly Post and others. Nettle reviews this litera- status is positively related to reproductive new or original, but it does constitute a read- ture, and suggests a couple of reasons why a success, and low mood makes us drop in sta- able and up-to-date review of a very large little dose of madness might be a good thing tus?” One obvious answer is that low mood body of literature on a fascinating subject. for a creative artist; mania provides the ener- might not be adaptive at all, but Nettle The lack of novelty may seem odd in a book gy and drive necessary for sustained lonely doesn’t even consider this possibility. This is about creativity, but perhaps this is no bad work, and schizotypy favours divergent just the kind of approach that has got adapta- thing. If Nettle is right, novelty is often pur- thinking. Add to this the idea that creativity tionism a bad name, and which more cau- chased at the price of delusion. It is reassur- leads to greater reproductive success, and the tious adaptationists such as George Williams ing, then, to read that one of the studies cited result is an adaptationist account of schizo- have repeatedly criticized. in the book shows that, out of a wide range of phrenia. The account is adaptationist, not Nettle’s grasp of evolutionary theory is “eminent people”, scientists had one of the because it requires that schizophrenics have much weaker than his grasp of psychiatry, lowest lifetime rates of mental disorder. I more babies — Nettle rightly draws back which is generally sound. Reflecting this Dylan Evans is in the Department of Philosophy, from this claim — but because it implies that imbalance, the citation of authorities is also King’s College London, 160 The Strand, London the genes that predispose towards schizo- very uneven: in the chapters about psychosis WC2R 2LS, UK.