*The study comparing art students and social science students found: the art students slept longer but reported more sleep disturbances and dysfunction during the day
Dreaming of being a Picasso? A new study conducted at the University of Haifa among art and social science students found that people who are visually creative evaluate their sleep as less quality. "Visually creative people reported disturbed sleep and, as a result, difficulty functioning in everyday life. In people who are verbally creative, we found something else - they slept more hours and went to bed and got up later. In other words, the two types of creativity were related to different characteristics of sleep, which strengthens the argument that different psychobiological mechanisms are involved in the processing and expression of visual versus verbal creativity," said PhD student Neta Ram-Volsov, one of the authors of the study.
Creativity according to a central approach in the field is defined in four characteristics: fluency - the ability to provide a wide variety of ideas; Flexibility - the ability to easily switch between different thought patterns to satisfy the variety of ideas; Originality - the uniqueness of the idea in relation to the ideas of the environment; And refinement - the ability to develop each idea separately.
In the current study conducted by Prof. Tamar Shochat from the Department of Nursing, PhD student Neta Ram-Walsov from the School of Art Therapy at the University of Haifa, together with Amit Green from the Institute of Sleep Medicine at Assuta Medical Center and Prof. Orna Tsyshinsky from Emek Jezreel College, the researchers asked to examine how two types of creativity - visual (visually) and verbally - will affect objective sleep characteristics - the duration of sleep, the timing of sleep in measures such as the time of falling asleep and waking up - and subjective - the quality of sleep.
30 undergraduate students from seven academic institutions participated in the study, half of them studied art (single course) and half studied social sciences (single course) during which the subjects slept in a sleep laboratory, wore an actigraph (a device that tests sleep objectively), filled out a sleep tracking diary and a sleep habits questionnaire to measure sleep patterns and sleep quality and creativity tests - visual and verbal.
From the results of the study it emerged that among all the subjects, the higher the level of visual creativity was, the poorer the quality of sleep, which was manifested, among other things, in sleep disorders and poorer daily dysfunction. It was also found that the more verbal creativity the subjects had, the more hours they slept and went to sleep and woke up later. When the researchers sought to compare the sleep patterns of art students and students who do not practice art, it was found that the art students sleep more, but the long sleep is absolutely not a guarantee of good sleep: the art students rated their sleep as less quality, reported more sleep disturbances and dysfunction during the day, compared to the students who did not engage in art.
According to the researchers, possible explanations can be found for the connections found between the two types of creativity and sleep patterns, and additional studies may be able to answer the question of whether creativity affects sleep or whether sleep affects creativity - and perhaps neither. "It is possible that the 'excess' of visual creativity brings the person to a state of hyperarousal - and it is this that may lead to sleep disorders. On the other hand, it is possible that the prolonged sleep among creative people is literally the one that enables processing processes that support the occurrence of the creative process while awake. In any case, the findings are further evidence that creativity is not of one piece and that the visual versus the verbal expression is activated - and activated - by different brain mechanisms", the researchers concluded.
23 תגובות
A, also try to understand what her friend is saying. Don't be a jerk 🙂
Maya
Anyway, I'll wait to hear what your company says
א
His ability is like that of man.
The difference is that the human is more developed than the horse on the cognitive level, which allows the human to understand more quickly and correctly the conduct of his environment.
I know cats that are more intelligent than some people I know.
Maya
It's not like Hans hasn't practiced before. It can be said that his whole life he trained by watching the reaction of humans + training focused on the action he performed.
It is certainly admirable that he "read" a reaction of her life that is different from his, but a human being can do that too.
It is clear that language does not replace the need for emotional intelligence. But it's like seeing doesn't replace the need for hearing and smelling but still a blind person will hear and smell better.
What the smart miracle did amazes us mainly because he is a horse whose life is not considered particularly intelligent. If I tell you that it is possible without so much training (Hans tried all his life to understand when his master is pleased, probably so as not to get beaten) to perform a "magic" where you are asked to choose a card and then you pass the cards one by one to the poor man and you can recognize the reaction when you get to the right card. You wouldn't be so impressed. In short, what I want to say, Hans demonstrated a high and impressive emotional intelligence, but it cannot be said that his ability is higher than that of a human.
א
No need, she was released 🙂 (but not so interesting, I think)
In any case, regarding what you wrote about the human brain versus the animal brain, I really don't like to say things about things I have no idea about and the structure of the brain is definitely one of them. I have a neurobiological mine. I will ask her what she thinks 🙂
Maya
At least give a hint until the response is released?
In connection with building an image with the help of sounds, it turns out that humans can too. There are a number of blind people who are actually able to "see" with the help of the return of sounds they make, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a device that consists of a camera and headphones
And he turns the image into sounds (the musical instrument symbolizes the color, the pitch and the time of its appearance symbolized the location in space) after a very long training the blind were able to actually "see" (the experimenters hope to get even better results when they get permission to involve small children in the research)
What I'm trying to say is that it would be difficult to prove that the ability of the bat for example is necessarily due to brain ability and not just a better ear structure. Maybe if we had the ears of a bat, our brain would also be able to construct a picture from the echoes of the sounds in a while.
The human brain is not only very strong, it is also very flexible and can excel even in tasks it was not originally "intended" for. By using other parts of the brain (it turned out that the blind in the experiment activated the same parts of the brain that a normal person activates in sight) so that with a little training it does not seem to me that there is a brain task that the human cannot beat any animal.
A. and Maya, thank you very much for answering all my questions, regarding the intelligence in comparison of animals to humans, I think that man is more aware of himself and his environment and therefore he is superior, and as A. mentioned the transfer of information from generation to generation and its processing, and language are what have largely made us what we are today.
This does not mean that there are not animals that use extraordinary intelligence and there are many more that we do not know.
Also, animals live in balance with their environment and there are some people for whom the whole world is not enough)
And humans are unique in that the next evolution that occurs is as a result of their own hands, the physical-technological evolution in which the rules will change and everyone will be able to develop into what they want or what they can afford.
א
Like I said, waiting. But I do say that I also thought about the bat example and I wasn't sure if it counted or not. At the very least, we are talking about abilities that are clearly superior to those of humans (in this field) and really relevant to the brain. It is difficult for me to decide whether I would call it "intelligence" or not, but I am both part of society and I am also a prisoner of the concept of what intelligence is according to the arbitrary determination of human beings...
Maya
Or you consider the ability of the dolphin or the bat to build a picture from sounds as intelligence. There is perhaps a basis for saying so because it is a process that takes place in the brain. But still seems a bit weak to me.
Maya
I can also think of "musical intelligence" that certain birds have more than certain humans (me for example) there are definitely birds that can create better and more complex music (although I have no idea how exactly it is measured) but in the general test I am pretty sure that humans pass any animal Even in this (if you ignore musical handicaps like me)
Oh, and one more thing I wanted to add in response to Eran: I just wanted to say that it is clear that sometimes the solution to population dynamics, or if you will, the only state of stable equilibrium, would be the destruction of both populations or one of them. Obviously, this also happens sometimes depending on the conditions. But this is not the only possible outcome.
א
waiting
א
No, I meant broadly what you said (even the miracle horse was exactly the example I had in mind...)
In everything if you practice you will improve. You could probably teach the horse to really count too if you did it right... but he didn't just read the comments, he read the comments of a completely different species, not of another horse. There is no doubt that this ability is much more developed in horses than in people. Language is important (and horses also have it, for example, to a certain level) but I really don't agree that it replaces the need for this intuitive understanding of social interaction. In any case, the way we define intelligence is very academic. Even among humans there are people who are very talented for example in the arts and creative people in an unusual way and in our eyes they will always seem less intelligent than a successful scientist. Because their intelligence is "considered less". These are simply our "social conventions". In short, the bottom line is that there is more than one way to define intelligence and no human or animal will succeed in all forms but there are average animals that will succeed better than the average human in certain aspects.
Apparently, by the way, there is something in the one way in which we define intelligence, because probably thanks to (or because of) this very specific form we control the whole world today, including these animals with the high emotional intelligence...
Maya
By what measure of intelligence are there animals that surpass humans?
I would think maybe social intelligence. That is, the ability to understand the emotions of other individuals, such as the story about the horse "the wise miracle" (a horse that learned to answer math questions by stomping on the ground. When in fact he would only recognize the person's reaction when he came to the answer). But humans can do this too with great success and many illusionists use it. It's probably just a matter of training. Humans need this ability less because they use language. Whereas the horse must use only non-verbal communication throughout its life. In any case, in my opinion, it is impossible to say that animals have higher "intelligence" abilities in this field.
Or did you mean something else?
Maya
By what measure of intelligence are there animals that surpass humans?
I would think maybe social intelligence. That is, the ability to understand the emotions of other individuals, such as the story about the horse "the wise miracle" (a horse that learned to answer math questions by stomping on the ground. When in fact he would only recognize the person's reaction when he came to the answer). But humans can do this too with great success and many illusionists use it. It's probably just a matter of training. Humans need this ability less because they use language. Whereas the horse must use only non-verbal communication throughout its life. In any case, in my opinion, it is impossible to say that animals have higher "intelligence" abilities in this area.
Or did you mean something else?
-
Eran
"They had thousands of years to go extinct before the brain evolved in a way that really gave it an advantage against the threats of that time period." Humans did not turn from sturdy monkeys to intelligent and gentle humans in one day. This is a process in which mental ability slowly increases and physical abilities that are no longer required or even constitute a disadvantage decrease (for example, finer hands that allow the construction of better and sharper weapons). In any case, at each stage, a balance is maintained between mental and physical ability that enables survival. No physical ability will degenerate without sufficient mental ability to replace it.
Eran
I don't know why you think a chimpanzee is better than a human at survival, the human is an excellent survivor. It can survive (as a group, which is what is important in terms of evolution) in almost any region on Earth. Despite the concept of "the strongest survives" in nature this is not necessarily true, it is more true that those who are flexible and able to adapt to changes survive. With the help of the human brain, man can adapt to a wide variety of situations and areas of life.
The comparison between a single chimpanzee and a single person is meaningless (and even then it is not certain that a person is less good)
It seems to me that you are also taking out of the equation the ability of man to transfer information between generations (not that it is a unique ability to man. But only man is able to improve this information so quickly) but it is an important part of man's ability to survive. It is impossible to refer to human survival without referring to technology. Each group of people will develop a technology that will fit the situation in a short time. (I'm talking about basic technology like a spear or clothes)
post Scriptum.
There is no reason to think that a monkey's immune system is better than a human's. If an animal is raised in human conditions, it will suffer no less from diseases and the same if a person lives in more natural conditions. (There are some exceptions such as scavengers who need a naturally stronger immune system)
Eran
Your way of looking is very natural. You put yourself (or the person) in the center. What about cockroaches? What are their physical advantages in the outside world? After all, humans are physically superior to them - you step on them and the cockroach's life is over. What about mice you can also strangle with one hand? Moose and deer who also need to find solutions for prey animals that are looking for them? and many more examples. Why did all these survive? Why wasn't some kind of predator created for destroying them all?
The first thing you need to understand is that your question is not specific about the person. Man is really not special in terms of the fact of his survival. There are many other creatures that are even stranger that have survived than man. Man is indeed a unique question regarding how he survived - that is, how this lamellar managed to become the undisputed ruler of the world. There are many theories about this. Nissim here insists that it is language, Prof. Yuval Noah Harari says that it is the ability to understand abstract concepts. I'm not sure it's about "intelligence". There are other animals that are more intelligent than us, depending on how you define intelligence. It is clear that in our definition of intelligence we are winning, but it is really not clear that this is the only way to define the concept.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that your question is actually a general one: how do physically weaker species, which are more preyed upon, survive? And the answer to this is complex but basically related to two factors: one is at the level of the individual: finding the specific niche for the species and adapting the species to its specific environmental conditions - this is a process that evolution does in an unusually impressive way. The second is looking at the dynamics of the entire environment as a whole. After all, if we are devoured and the predator devours us to the end, it will also die, because it will have nothing to eat - therefore the system will reach some sort of equilibrium, which is also constantly changing because the conditions are constantly changing. The predators will prey and prey until the prey population decreases and then the predator population decreases as a result of starvation, which will increase the prey population, which will increase the predator population and God forbid. These models are called predator-prey and they are basic models in population dynamics (and of course there are much more complicated models than this simplistic model which beautifully describe all kinds of specific dynamics happening in the world).
Eran,
"Also, why aren't there millions of skeletons of our ancestors, I understood that they found only a very small number of bones, while the dinosaurs that lived a very long time before them are found in almost every corner of the world"
It's simple, the dinosaurs existed for a much longer period of time (hundreds of millions of years) and therefore many of them had time to eat, man, on the other hand, has barely existed for 3 million years, so we don't have many fossils of him.
Thanks for the answers, I agree with everything you wrote, it gives an explanation for the biological diversity that surrounds us.
However, man is very different from other animals, the development of the brain certainly gives an advantage in the modern world, but physical advantages were more beneficial to creatures that lived in nature and were exposed to prey and weather.
Even today if you put a modern human in the wild with a chimpanzee, the chimpanzee will survive longer and its immune system is better than ours.
If evolution is a process of tens of thousands of years, in my opinion it is not impossible that primitive humans who began to understand their environment would have been devoured and extinct long ago in the ancient world where the animals of prey ruled, they had thousands of years to become extinct before the brain developed in a way that really gave an advantage against the threats of that period in time .
Besides that animals also have a certain intelligence, they hunt in groups and some take care of the offspring.
I'm just speculating it's a little strange that we've survived to this day.
Also why aren't there millions of skeletons of our ancestors, I understood that they found only a very small number of bones while the dinosaurs that lived a very long time before them are found in almost every corner of the world.
The lack of physical evidence in the amount to be confirmed is also very problematic, there should have been hundreds of thousands of evidence and there is not.
Eran
The monkeys did change. The thought that we are some kind of perfect creature of nature and some kind of goal towards which evolution is directed is mistaken. Why stop at monkeys? There are also birds and reptiles and bacteria in the world. Why didn't they "evolve" into man? This is because at every stage of evolutionary history there have been splits. These splits do not leave one thing behind but cause two things to develop at the same time but in different directions. For various reasons of slightly different environments, searching for other niches or just a random matter, one species split into two species. Neither species is more developed than the other. We and the apes are equally developed, we've gone through the same amount of evolution. They simply found a different niche than ours. The question you are asking is actually why there is a variety of species in nature at all if there is only one correct answer (ie, man) and the answer to that is that we are absolutely not the correct answer. We evolved to be what we are according to the conditions around us. All the biological diversity you see around you is a diversity that is developed just like us only for slightly different conditions. Hope this helped.
Eran
As far as I understand, the creatures that did not develop the particular mutations that led to the change of the creature, probably did not change. That is, the monkeys continued to be monkeys, and a certain group of monkeys in which mutations did develop that led to the change of the organism over time - developed into humans.
Hello, I have a question that is not at all related to the article.
If we came from monkeys and natural selection is that everyone who is not adapted to the environment becomes extinct and the next generation that adapted in the most suitable way to the environment continues to live and develop more and more according to natural selection and local evolution.
As there are still "human" species that live together with us, there are also hundreds of types of monkeys.
Why didn't they evolve to be human?
If they survived perfectly in the environment because they are still here and are part of our family, why did only we evolve from one specific species to be what we are today?
Why aren't there other human species that evolved from other apes? After all, there was enough time for evolution to develop in all monkey species.
Also if we only evolved from one strain, why did this particular strain evolve from the rest of the strains, obviously the rest of the strains in their primitive form are thriving.
Why was it necessary for us to develop?
Something incomprehensible, if there was some kind of global disaster most of the species would be destroyed except for the most adapted to the environment and not all of them thrive and one suddenly evolved into the man we know today.
I would love to get a factual answer. I'm not a religious person, I just thought about it and it's not clear to me.
The assumption that art students are more creative than another sample group is completely non-trivial, and requires in itself research confirmation (which itself needs to consistently define a quantitative measure regarding the degree of creativity).