Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print Mental illness and genius | |
|
Ibrahim
seeker of nothing  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 10, 2006 Location: Washington State, USA Total Topics: 28 Total Posts: 374 |
 #1
Subject: Mental illness and genius Many great thinkers and litterateurs throughout history meet the DSM IV ( diagnostic manual) criteria for mental illness and personality disorders. Isaac newton, Abraham Lincoln, Ludwig van Beethoven,Ernest Hemingway, Edgar Allan Poe, Friedrich Nietzshce ,Edgar Allen-Poe ad infinitum. Can you imagine if someone appeared today named Mohammed or Jesus or whomever and claimed to speak to God and Angels? They would surely be branded as insane. The literature in psychology attempts to emphasize cultural relativity and to avoid hasty and unnecessary labels. However, The culture of modern psychology unwittingly permeates a negative stigma about people with mental illness. I often hear people dismiss the opinions of a thinker because they were " mentally unsound" or " crazy." Is psychology unknowingly contributing to nihilism? Many of the greatest achievements of mankind effused from the devout adherence to an ideology or way of life, but if we cannot " look up to" or extol many thinkers because they are "nuts", then aren't we severely limiting the opportunity for great people to arise? I would like to conclude with a quote from Edgar Allan Poe which i love: Men have called me mad, but the question is not yet settled, whether madness is or is not the loftiest intelligence--whether much that is glorious--whether all that is profound--does not spring from disease of thought--from moods of mind exalted at the expense of the general intellect. Those who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night. "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh"--Nietzsche |
|
Lorsban
Initiate  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 02, 2006 Location: Somewhere in the tropics... Total Topics: 5 Total Posts: 8 |
#2
Like any medical profession, Psychology suffers from the same problem of diagnosing anyone with ratings which don't fit in with the norm or standard negatively. Anything in deficit or excess gets the negative rating. Bell curves is how they work, they simply can't properly account for those outside the curve. |
|
wuliheron
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 02, 2003 Location: Chesapeake, VA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 5098 |
#3
Psychology is a science, and as such it deals in black and white quantifiable issues of health and illness. Philosophy is not so limited and there are a number of popular philosophies (especially eastern ones) which deal with what most people think of as mental illness in a more positive light. A large number of the academic population today is thought to possess asperger's "disease", a high functioning form of autism. Like all austists, they tend to obsess about a few subjects. Einstein is considered the classic example. When in trouble, When in doubt, Run in circles, Scream and Shout! |
|
Thoughtless
The Mad Scientist Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 12, 2005 Total Topics: 26 Total Posts: 729 |
#4
What do you mean by "outside the curve"? Bell curves are representations of the degree to which a person has some property or trait, so people who totally lack that property or trait would be arbitrarily far to one side or the other, but they would still be under the curve since it is asymptotic. "Have you ever felt that the self is an illusion? That you're not really 'you', but just a sequence of neurological events?" "It's thought that, yes." |
|
Ibrahim
seeker of nothing Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 10, 2006 Location: Washington State, USA Total Topics: 28 Total Posts: 374 |
#5
wuliheron wrote: Psychology is a science, and as such it deals in black and white quantifiable issues of health and illness. Philosophy is not so limited and there are a number of popular philosophies (especially eastern ones) which deal with what most people think of as mental illness in a more positive light. A large number of the academic population today is thought to possess asperger's "disease", a high functioning form of autism. Like all austists, they tend to obsess about a few subjects. Einstein is considered the classic example. You bring up a pertinent point concerning attitude. I like the term " abnormal psychology" as opposed to psychopathology or mental illness. It conveys a less negative connotation, though not entirely neutral. If I could introduce my own reformations into the clinical psychology culture, I would prefer the label of “outlier psychology" or " psycho-deviant actuarial prediction." The negative implication of using "mental-illness" and " personality disorder" may seem relatively harmless, but they are potentially quite destructive. That being said, some particular conditions such as schizophrenia and somatoform disorder and others are completely and totally debilitating and are deserving of the title " mental illness." I understand that clinical psychologist are simply attempting to tackle problems which " interrupt with everyday function and wellbeing", which I agree is beneficial and necessary, but they should avoid creating problems themselves. Perhaps it is time for a reformation of the categorical assumptions which psychopathology is predicated on. "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh"--Nietzsche |
|
ゲネクス
Rini Montana  Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 27, 2006 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 17 |
#6
The fine line between genius and insanity is success. Call me crazy, but I seem to be very successful. I would like to touch on a topic of insanity that mixes with success. This topic would be megalomania. Megalomania, a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur(1), can cause a person to lose touch with "reality." However, what if the insane person does become successful? What if the insane remains successful and reached high power? Some people believe Hitler had megalomania, yet he was very successful. Is megalomania a bad thing or a good thing? I'm thinking that depends on a person's goals. 1: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en...lomania&btnG=Google+Search |
|
wuliheron
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 02, 2003 Location: Chesapeake, VA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 5098 |
#7
Ibrahim, focusing on issues of normalcy is still stigmatizing to people, in fact, it stigmatizes entire cultures. Better to just emphasis the individual's success in adapting to their environment. Unfortunately, psychology is founded upon issues of normalcy and this is enforced by legislation. Thus the best one can hope for is to soften the judgmental nature of the beast. 0000, your question belongs in the catagory of social darwinism which, is a questionable topic to say the least. For example, some argue that profound advances are made when a singular individual arises to the occassion, while others argue that the occassion merely allows one of many individuals to come out of the woodwork and into the limelight. In a culture focused on normalcy and rugged individualism, such individuals are called "eccentric" rather than mentally ill. Nonetheless, what appears to distinguish guiness is the focus of the individual on a few or even one subjects. Last months Scientific American had an interesting article on this topic. Such behavior is characteristic of autists, who are often quite obsessive compulsive in their focus (as psychologists would word their behavior.) However, their are other types of guinesses as well, the term guiness being applied basicly to whatever a society values at any given time. Van Gogh is a classic example of this. People with his particular "disorder" still paint in a style similar to his because that is precisely what they see. When in trouble, When in doubt, Run in circles, Scream and Shout! |
|
jaoman
On the Road...  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 13, 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Total Topics: 86 Total Posts: 1559 |
#8
Ibrahim wrote: Many great thinkers and litterateurs throughout history meet the DSM IV ( diagnostic manual) criteria for mental illness and personality disorders. Isaac newton, Abraham Lincoln, Ludwig van Beethoven,Ernest Hemingway, Edgar Allan Poe, Friedrich Nietzshce ,Edgar Allen-Poe ad infinitum. Can you imagine if someone appeared today named Mohammed or Jesus or whomever and claimed to speak to God and Angels? They would surely be branded as insane. The literature in psychology attempts to emphasize cultural relativity and to avoid hasty and unnecessary labels. However, The culture of modern psychology unwittingly permeates a negative stigma about people with mental illness. I often hear people dismiss the opinions of a thinker because they were " mentally unsound" or " crazy." Is psychology unknowingly contributing to nihilism? Many of the greatest achievements of mankind effused from the devout adherence to an ideology or way of life, but if we cannot " look up to" or extol many thinkers because they are "nuts", then aren't we severely limiting the opportunity for great people to arise? Your question is a little self defeating. On the one hand, you extol (at least, by implication) the cognitive virtues of your examples, disregarding your own reference to their mental dysfunction; yet, shortly after, you ask if psychology is undermining genius by introducing the concept of mental dysfunction into society. Apparently not. Many of your example led just as, or even far more prosecuted lives in their cultures as they would have today. One could even argue that it was that exactly which drove them to their accomplishments. Furthermore, psychological diagnosis are not entirely original. Eccentrics have been shot by societal norms since time immemorial. There are countless examples in Western history of prophets, witches, and thinkers, et al, being condemned for their differences. What can I say? It's a dog eat dog world out there. We couldn't praise the great if what they have done had been easy. "With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura |
|
Lorsban
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 02, 2006 Location: Somewhere in the tropics... Total Topics: 5 Total Posts: 8 |
#9
Thoughtless wrote: What do you mean by "outside the curve"? Bell curves are representations of the degree to which a person has some property or trait, so people who totally lack that property or trait would be arbitrarily far to one side or the other, but they would still be under the curve since it is asymptotic. Oh, sorry let me clarify. The people within the mean are "within" the curve, those outside the mean are outside the curve. They're still part of the whole population but they're not among the average or norm. |
|
Thoughtless
The Mad Scientist Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 12, 2005 Total Topics: 26 Total Posts: 729 |
#10
A "mean" is a single number. You can't be "within the mean". Do you mean to say within one standard deviation of the mean? "Have you ever felt that the self is an illusion? That you're not really 'you', but just a sequence of neurological events?" "It's thought that, yes." |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.