You're viewing a single thread.
Fun fact! Drugs (at least pot) make you think you're more creative, but they don't actually make you more creative! It turns out, being inebriated just makes you more easily impressed by things
this is what is said but makes no sense to me as in my opinion creativity is your ability to take anything as inspiration and create something cool
which is pot makes u see more inspiration then it makes u more creative by proxy imo
i say as a stoner art student
I mean, you are the authority on the matter after all.
I too enjoy pot and I agree, finding inspiration is one of the hardest parts of the creative process for me, so getting high makes it easier to start making cool stuff ..(or just make things like listening to music way better)
I don't believe you, where is your proof?
BRB letting every musician ever know that the pot doesn't actually do anything for them and they only think they're being creative.
"pot doesn't make you creative just helps you be creative" seems like a semantics thing
Might want to talk to the ones who got sober...
You mean the ones who continue to draw inspiration from the experiences they had while doing drugs?
You might want to talk to them rather than guessing their experiences.
Fear of losing creativity is one reason people stay in a drug addiction cycle for way longer than is necessary. Folks who come out the other side often are surprised by how much easier it is to be creative. They find they can suddenly match their non-drug addicted counterparts and as a bonus can keep a job!
Lmao this is such a DARE line it's painful.
Man this is such a reddit moment.
I'm someone working towards sobriety from hard drugs who has spent the last 8 years in and out of sober spaces such as 12-step programs, Recovery Dharma and their secular alternatives (SMART and LifeRing).
I presently attend a harm reduction program full of people trying to reach abstinence goals from a variety of substances.
I'm literally just telling you what actual people have said in my presence (obviously paraphrased since I didn't write that shit down).
The problem with the way drugs is talked about in general is they're all lumped together.
Weed is not going to be nearly as harmful or addictive as opiates for example, I can definitely empathize with people addicted to harder substances (including Alcohol IMO) and the definite harm it causes.
I just don't like when weed or psychedelics are lumped in under the "drugs" banner and are treated just as addictive or harmful when they simply aren't.
Not to mention I personally believe that most drugs should be legalized and regulated because the way we deal with them (criminally) causes so much more harm to the people stuck in addiction, much less likely to seek help out of fear.
The line I specifically didn't like was when you said, "and can keep a job too!" As if people who use drugs recreationally can't keep a job.
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
It's a challenging conversation to have with nuance. I meant to emphasize that I was talking about people who had crossed the line from casual use to destructive use with my "addictive cycle" phrasing, and I agree that not all drug use is equal or bad.
My boyfriend is a regular pot user. He'll take a gummy once per week and go on hikes with his friends and come back on time for dinner all chipper. It's adorable and not remotely a problem.
That isn't to say that pot can't be a problem. The specific person I was channeling from my current harm reduction abstinence group IS someone who is there because pot is a problem for him. He's the most recent to have talked about how much easier it was to be creative when he's sober but it's a thing I've heard quite a few times in the past.
My boyfriend's brother is also someone who struggles to keep down a job and as far as I know pot is his drug of choice.
Conversely, my drug of choice is crystal meth and I've maintained my career, never having lost a job. I've even excelled at my job through my hardest using (thanks covid wfh!).
And nobody in their right mind would say that meth use of any kind is better than the hardest of pot use.
At the end of the day, I don't think that pot use harms creativity, but I don't think it helps it either. And the people who think they NEED pot to be creative I do think are potentially hurting themselves.
Unfortunately scihub is dead, so I can't link to any full research papers, but here's my source
Try shrooms or LSD, but more so shrooms and see if you aren't left with perceptive changes to the world. Plus shrooms have a natural antidepressant effect that can last up to six months.
Many of my art pieces are attempts at recreating what I see on shrooms, I definitely feel my creative that way.
I don't know, some of my most interesting art pieces have come about when I've been stoned. My sober ones always lack a certain pizazz. I've read through that research article I think you're mentioning, the methodology seemed too small in scope to really capture a change in something intangible like creativity. I think a study that takes sober artists with zero drug experience, have them create something, spend a few months smoking weed, and then create something again would be more encompassing on THC's affects on creativity.
Also I'd be curious to see how stress relief and a good mood affects creativity as well. Sure some art comes from dark places, but I'd imagine its easier to be creative when you're in a good place mentally.
This is according to a few studies that have questionable methodologies, such as how they measure "creativity" but yeah, in general drugs only bring out what already exists in someone's personality. If you're a really creative person to begin with, drugs can shift your perspective, which can be useful. But it isn't magic smart people juice.