In vino veritas?
There’s long been speculation about the existence of a mysterious “Churchill gene” which enables some people to remain healthy and brilliant despite alcohol consumption that would kill others. Other than the great man himself, who quipped “always remember that I have taken more alcohol than it has taken out of me,” William Faulkner, Mark Twain, Graham Greene, Beethoven, Van Gough, Jason Pollock and Francis Bacon also appear to have fit the mould. Drinking, it seemed, enhanced their creativity, rather than vice versa.
But now, reports Philip Hunter in this month’s Prospect, scientists at the University of Colorado have hard evidence that 15 per cent of Caucasians have what is known as the “G-variant gene,” which makes alcohol behave more like an opiate, like morphine. This has a stronger than normal effect on mood and behaviour, prompting an endorphin release which—far from causing people to become morose or drowsy—is “positive and pleasant to behold,” lending weight to the theory of alcohol-enhanced creativity.
So, does this mean that the government should scrap its earlier advice and abandon its plans to set a minimum price of 50p per alcohol unit? Or is this “Churchill gene” a very suspect, indeed self-serving, notion? Weigh in here.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
The booze has the effect of increasing your emotional reaction to stimuli while at the same time inhibiting the clarity of abstract reasoning. Churchill was the great rationalizer, the great motivator of short term solutions to pressing problems – the great justifier of those acts as effective respective to long term consequences as well. That was the nature of his creativity – one that creates a substitute for the fuller truths that remain tantalizingly out of reach.
[...] Some people seem to need an excuse to get pished. That’s never been a problem for your diligent correspondent. I’ve got plenty reason to take to the whisky, without having to resort to scientific historical analysis like the folks over at Prospect – “Why Booze is Good For You”. [...]
This reminds me of an xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/323/
I would to hear if there are genes that effect coffee in the same way. Great article thanks=).
Also is it just me, or does that article piss anyone else on fundamental level? I’m quite a heavy drinker but suggesting alcohol is inducive to creativity is completely irresponsible. Do a quick Google and you’ll find plenty of studies countering this point. I think having an understanding of the detrimental effects of alcohol is vitally important to using it responsibility. That article uses the exact kind of vague pseudo-science language and logic that can fool most people into believing it’s correct. It should be the writer’s responsibility to check these facts. Someone should be holding him responsible.
I don’t know how Philip Hunter got his job as a “science journalist”, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t study any science to get there.
grumble grumble I must be getting old. I’ve never argued on the anti-drug side before.
[...] This post was Twitted by zemaj – Real-url.org [...]
From the article:
“This may be why Francis Bacon, by his own admission, worked well after a few drinks, but not when drunk.”
I can personally attest to this effect. I have written scores (maybe hundreds, it’s been many years) of technical reports and technical proposals, as well as book reviews for my website, while sitting in my favorite pubs. I do my best work there. I found that the creative augmentation (development of deeper understanding of the issues at hand, new insight, organization of presentation, novel solutions and lateral thinking) began after I had finished my first pint and ended as I was finishing my third. For this reason, I would nurse the third for an hour.
Whether this is a genetic issue or not, I believe it is a proper subject for scientific investigation and not, as has been suggested here, rationalization.
(written while sober)
An interesting and funny experiment about how drinking a beer becomes creativity:
http://www.zoogami.net/beer
@James. Yes, me too. Prospect pitches itself as Britain’s intelligent conversation, but this is just tabloid science reporting. Filling people’s brains with rubbish so they can tell their mates down the pub. Prospect has this tendency in general: favouring smarmy controversial tone even if accompanied by a mocking self-irony over any actual belief/politics. It comes to the fore here, and it’s what’s crippling Britain in general, when other countries (Germany, the USA) actually have intellectual conversation and it’s reflected in their politicians and the attitudes of their young.This is just an embarrassment for the writer (as he surely knows) and for the magazine (as it seems not to).
I feel that alcohol does NOT spur creativity, but it does take the edge off some people. Therefore, once the edge is off and all that anxiety and paranoia is gone, ones mind becomes free enough to think clearly and creatively. Right?