There's a persistent idea—stubborn, seductive—that madness and creativity share a root system. That suffering is not merely an obstacle but a wellspring. The artist must suffer. The thinker must descend into hell.

It's worth taking this seriously before taking it apart. People do create during periods of profound difficulty. Sometimes the work feels essential in ways that more comfortable times do not yield. This is real—and for some, it may remain true. The goal here is not to invalidate that experience but to question whether it must be universalized. The leap from observation to causation is where things can go sideways.

The distinction that matters: creativity as a response to suffering is not the same as suffering as a source of creativity. When someone creates during a depressive episode, the creative act may be a rope thrown toward survival—an attempt to metabolize what would otherwise remain unbearable. The work is not a product of the illness but a counterweight to it. If we conflate these, we credit the darkness for what the person did to survive it. Trauma is sometimes described as a gift—having my own experience of early, terrible loss, I don't see it that way, at all. The gift, if there is any, is in how we receive adversity.

There's a confirmation bias operating here as well. We hear about the suffering artists who achieved greatness. We hear less about those who suffered and did not create, or those who created from joy, wonder, or quiet absorption. The narrative selects for its own evidence.

Psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion's framework1 helps clarify the mechanism. He described two developmental paths: an apparatus for thinking, or one for projection. The apparatus for thinking involves holding experience, tolerating its weight, transforming it into something that can be examined and used. The apparatus for projection evacuates what cannot be borne—splitting it off, idealizing or demonizing it, but not integrating it. We may shift back and forth in how we think, or fail........

© Psychology Today