Study suggests drunk people are better at creative problem solving | Hacker News Reader

Study suggests drunk people are better at creative problem solving

hbr.org

77 pointsanigbrowl29 comments

Why do people need excuses for doing things they enjoy?

I'm fed up with studies that say drinking makes you creative, coffee makes you smarter and chocolate makes you live longer or whatever.

So the benefit of being slightly drunk is that it removes your focus, so that you might find creative solutions which until then where outside of your radar.

I guess that's true, but don't you get the same effect by having a long walk or a good night's sleep?

Hmm, actually this reminds me of the 4am creativity boost I've experienced and then heard mentioned again on Studio 60 ("4 A.M. Miracle") where they say it "erodes your internal sensors."

... that sounds like a bad thing.

Only on about day three when you are trying to straighten up the computer screen which is wonky in directions that don’t exist.

I'm confused, how would getting a night's sleep decrease focus?

During your waking day, when you think about a problem you start tackling it with a specific strategy and accumulate thoughts (assumptions) regarding those strategies. Even if you discard them over the course of your day, you are still biased/focused towards that train of thought.

A good night's sleep which takes your mind out of conscious thought then resets/defocuses your mind again and you are more receptible to new ways of tackling the problem.

(All of the above is just vague anecdotal evidence, and I have no idea if there is any scientific basis for any of it.)

The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field by Jacques Hadamard, himself a mathematician is not scientific but a good source of anecdotes and systematic attempts at introspection.

I find that 'stepping away' from the details after immersion for a few days and allowing the pieces to re-align themselves does seem to pay benefits, even with the mundane and practical problems I need to solve. I agree with the grandparent post that alcohol is not the only de-focusing agent around.

Related: I was reading somewhere yesterday (reddit?) about hypnogogia and how creative types used the gap between sleep and wakefullness to tap the minds creative/artistic thought.

Basically a light version of using drugs for creative stimulation: instead of creating the altered state, tapping the altered states that are already present at certain times.

Not necessarily the sleep itself, but I've had many good ideas while trying to fall asleep, when I wasn't actively focusing on anything.

The default mode network is thought to be involved in creative thinking, and it's most active when you're not actively focused on a task: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network

What about showering? What's that about? Is it the water, or just standing naked in a small room?

I hope Google et.al. will attempt to replicate this finding on a larger scale internally. Imagine whole SV jumping on to that bandwagon!

The quest for the Ballmer Peak is a dangerous endeavor.

This sounds right, but for me the lucid problem-solving window is too short to be useful. Then I get sleepy and irritated.

I don't drink, smoke or do narcotics, so I have no first hand account to agree or disagree with the veracity of this study. However, what I have experienced is sleep deprivation (not insomnia but self induced sleep deprivation because there is just not enough time to do stuff) makes me creative. I find solutions that are innovative, out of the box, laterally thought etc to problems that keep bugging me (I don't mean just programming or software problems). The strange thing is, the solutions come out of nowhere, like a divine inspiration or something.

And just like being drunk, the sleep deprivation, at least to me, causes noticeable loss in physical strength, makes me irritable and generally less socially convivial, causes gas, heart burn and bad breath, even shows signs of the dreaded ED, but the benefit of solution epiphany makes me want to go through it often. I know its bad for the health, so, now that I am over 35, I use it quite sparingly, only to problems that I estimate are really worth it.

The epiphany thing doesn't need sleep deprivation and there are several 'aha moments' in the normal state. I am sure most people who routinely ponder on problems have had this experience. But the quality of solutions and the thrill it provides makes the Sleep Deprived Solution Epiphany (tm) quite a stimulating and almost spiritual experience. I feel refreshed and more confident in my abilities after an episode.

Given just how many variables are at play and how imprecise the categories of problem-solving are, a study with a sample size of 20 is...unconvincing.

Having just ventured over from the topic about the beneficial effects of psychedelics, I can't help but notice in the comments how the potential benefits of psychedelics are taken as indisputable fact while a similar article about alcohol is met with skepticism and denial.

My confirmation bias is telling me that this is definately true.

Mad Men is a whole TV series devoted to this hypothesis.

The best advertising copywriters are old drunks, that is just a fact.

Best way to rephrase the post title...

Brutally honest people are better at creative problem solving.

Thank you for this. This resonates with me.

I don't drink, but I'm too truthful to be good. I'm also good at creative problem solving.

Just after science made clear there is no safe amount for drinking alcohol, we get this study, feeding us a new feel-good / excuse story for drinking.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but who paid for this research?

Your cynicism is warranted:

„Federal Agency Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking“

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/health/nih-alcohol-study-...

Cynicism is always warranted IMO.

In terms of vested interests your cynicism may be warranted, but that doesn't mean both claims can't be right.

There is no safe level of automobile use either. But using a car can be useful and worth the risk for many.

It's such a small study, it probably didn't need a sponsor. They got 20 college students, gave them some vodka, and administered a simple standard test.

https://www.xkcd.com/323/

Ballmer's curve strikes again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com