Fine line between genius and madness

[xtremegeek]

I'm currently working on a project for a behavioral health clinic. As I sat in some meetings with these psych doctors last week, my mind wandered (yes even we ISTJs day dream.) I began to think about all the great artists and scientist throughout history who had some form of mental illness. Then I thought, "Do we really want to totally irradicate mental illness :thinking:" What would happen to the Einsteins, the Mozarts, the Picassos, the John Nashes, if we had found away to 'cure' their mental illnesses? Would they have become the great contributors to their fields anyway? Or did the mental illness allow them to focus with such an intensity that no sane person could have done it?

So, as these psych doctors discussed their plans, I daydreamed about the possibility that curing everyone from their mental illnesses could quite possibly hurt our future.

Thoughts anyone?

[postman]

I agree. With chaos comes the opportunity for change. Minorities present the opportunity, and the majorities determine the response.

[xtremegeek]

I asked this question of an ENFP friend of mine. He thinks that science and medicine should continue to pursue curing mental illnesses, if for no other reason, to prevent the Hitlers and Jefferey Dahmers of the world. He makes a good point.

It's a toss up though. If we cure all mental illness, we will have safety from murderers, but we might not find the cure for cancer. If we don't cure all the mental illness, we might find the cure for cancer, but still have murderers to deal with.

[GOD]

I asked this question of an ENFP friend of mine. *He thinks that science and medicine should continue to pursue curing mental illnesses, if for no other reason, to prevent the Hitlers and Jefferey Dahmers of the world. *He makes a good point.


One thing to realise though, is that nothing is "right" in the grand scheme of things.

What is right and wrong is your perception and perhaps a perception of a group. Maybe that group is even a majority. Its only RIGHT for that group.

Think about it.

[xtremegeek]

I asked this question of an ENFP friend of mine. *He thinks that science and medicine should continue to pursue curing mental illnesses, if for no other reason, to prevent the Hitlers and Jefferey Dahmers of the world. *He makes a good point.


One thing to realise though, is that nothing is "right" in the grand scheme of things.

What is right and wrong is your perception and perhaps a perception of a group. Maybe that group is even a majority. Its only RIGHT for that group.

Think about it.


So, Jefferey Dahmer hacking people to pieces and storing them in his freezers, could be perceived as 'right'? Yep, I do have a hard time with that concept.

[GOD]

I asked this question of an ENFP friend of mine. *He thinks that science and medicine should continue to pursue curing mental illnesses, if for no other reason, to prevent the Hitlers and Jefferey Dahmers of the world. *He makes a good point.


One thing to realise though, is that nothing is "right" in the grand scheme of things.

What is right and wrong is your perception and perhaps a perception of a group. Maybe that group is even a majority. Its only RIGHT for that group.

Think about it.


So, Jefferey Dahmer hacking people to pieces and storing them in his freezers, could be perceived as 'right'? *Yep, I do have a hard time with that concept.


I was refering more to Hitler rather than Jefferey Dahmer (whom I've never heard of). Sometimes madness is normal, its a group thing, most INTJ's aren't part of it I'd say, as were not "group creatures".

[xtremegeek]

I asked this question of an ENFP friend of mine. *He thinks that science and medicine should continue to pursue curing mental illnesses, if for no other reason, to prevent the Hitlers and Jefferey Dahmers of the world. *He makes a good point.


One thing to realise though, is that nothing is "right" in the grand scheme of things.

What is right and wrong is your perception and perhaps a perception of a group. Maybe that group is even a majority. Its only RIGHT for that group.

Think about it.


So, Jefferey Dahmer hacking people to pieces and storing them in his freezers, could be perceived as 'right'? *Yep, I do have a hard time with that concept.


I was refering more to Hitler rather than Jefferey Dahmer (whom I've never heard of). *Sometimes madness is normal, its a group thing, most INTJ's aren't part of it I'd say, as were not "group creatures".


But Hitler has been typed as an INTJ. INTJs aren't 'part' of groups per se, but they will take charge of a group to lead them in a direction they see fit. The emotional and intellectuall 'distance' is there for the INTJ. He or she is merely using humans for a means to an end. Hitler's use of people to attain his goal, was the goal of a madman.

As for Jefferey Dahmer, he was a serial killer from the midwest (born in Ohio, killed most of his victims in Illinoise.) It's believed that he too, was an INTJ of the schizoid type.

But, back to the original question - would it be to the detriment of the human race if we cured all mental illness?

[thegnat]

It depends what you define mental illness and madness as. On the one hand, you can help the mentally ill lead a more normal life and not be rejected by society. Which would probably be helpful. On the other, perhaps diversity genetically?

Well I guess the true question is how it would affect the people that are cured. And it depends on what diseases you consider mentally ill. Any neurological disease? Oh AND HOW you want to cure it.

[xtremegeek]

It depends what you define mental illness and madness as. *On the one hand, you can help the mentally ill lead a more normal life and not be rejected by society. *Which would probably be helpful. *On the other, perhaps diversity genetically?

Well I guess the true question is how it would affect the people that are cured. *And it depends on what diseases you consider mentally ill. *Any neurological disease? Oh AND HOW you want to cure it. *

All good questions. I listen to these doctors and I get the impression that even within their profession, they don't have a concrete definition for the boundaries of mental illness. I'm just there trying to get feedback so I can design their clinical reports, but they can't even agree on what clinical information they want to track...so I'm sure we are a looooooong way off from curing most mental illnesses.

[Henry]

I'm currently working on a project for a behavioral health clinic. *As I sat in some meetings with these psych doctors last week, my mind wandered (yes even we ISTJs day dream.) *I began to think about all the great artists and scientist throughout history who had some form of mental illness. *Then I thought, "Do we really want to totally irradicate mental illness :thinking:" *What would happen to the Einsteins, the Mozarts, the Picassos, the John Nashes, if we had found away to 'cure' their mental illnesses? *Would they have become the great contributors to their fields anyway? *Or did the mental illness allow them to focus with such an intensity that no sane person could have done it?

So, as these psych doctors discussed their plans, I daydreamed about the possibility that curing everyone from their mental illnesses could quite possibly hurt our future.

Thoughts anyone?

Genius is related to madness because both involve divergent thinking. *I don't think madness is a causal factor in genius, simply something that's there because they think in a divergent manner. *Add in some traumatic events and you have a recipe for emotional disaster and possibly the drive necessary to attain genius status.

And yes, as someone who has suffered from occassionaly severe bouts of mental illness (and is also a creative with a high IQ) I can definitevely state that I'd gladly trade a bit of intellectual creativity for a bit more mental stability. No doubt many people far more eminent than myself would make the same exchange.

[xtremegeek]

I'm currently working on a project for a behavioral health clinic. *As I sat in some meetings with these psych doctors last week, my mind wandered (yes even we ISTJs day dream.) *I began to think about all the great artists and scientist throughout history who had some form of mental illness. *Then I thought, "Do we really want to totally irradicate mental illness :thinking:" *What would happen to the Einsteins, the Mozarts, the Picassos, the John Nashes, if we had found away to 'cure' their mental illnesses? *Would they have become the great contributors to their fields anyway? *Or did the mental illness allow them to focus with such an intensity that no sane person could have done it?

So, as these psych doctors discussed their plans, I daydreamed about the possibility that curing everyone from their mental illnesses could quite possibly hurt our future.

Thoughts anyone?

Genius is related to madness because both involve divergent thinking. *I don't think madness is a causal factor in genius, simply something that's there because they think in a divergent manner. *Add in some traumatic events and you have a recipe for emotional disaster and possibly the drive necessary to attain genius status.

And yes, as someone who has suffered from occassionaly severe bouts of mental illness (and is also a creative with a high IQ) I can definitevely state that I'd gladly trade a bit of intellectual creativity for a bit more mental stability. *No doubt many people far more eminent than myself would make the same exchange.

Curious - are you at a higher state of creativity when (or while) you are at a lower state of mental stability - or do the two not seem related for you?

I'm just trying to figure out if the contributions made by these people in history, would still have been made even if their mental illnesses were cured. Are the two inter-twined?

[Henry]

Curious - are you at a higher state of creativity when (or while) you are at a lower state of mental stability - or do the two not seem related for you?

I'm just trying to figure out if the contributions made by these people in history, would still have been made even if their mental illnesses were cured. *Are the two inter-twined?


Lower, much lower. Can't say I've ever had any intellectual productivity while not doing well psychologically. I start to question sanity and whether I'm in touch with socially-defined reality, and that's about as high as the functioning gets. Pills and the right kind of therapy (eg Rogerian, Freudian, or Gestalt, NOT CBT) actually assist in functioning and in creativity.

Creativity is, in my view, very dependent on ego and superego strength, because otherwise your own critical faculty and fear of criticism from others will put an end to any divergent (risky) thinking. Creativity just comes to you, and if you squash it "Well I couldn't write about that" or "How the hell am I going to support this empirically" or "This will upset some very important people" when you've got a creative idea, you're done for weeks.

Creativity's dependence on ego and superego strength is why you see almost no intellectual creativity whatsoever in cultures where ego development is discouraged. In the west, when its broken, shit happens and creativity goes out the door.

A lot of eminents have had mental breakdowns. And then look at the periods of achievement or breakthrough.

Dean Simonton has a series in one of his courses about the nature of genius and madness. He's an exceptional writer and lecturer, and his webpage has a lot of content.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[xtremegeek]

Thanks for the input. I now have a lot more to think about.

[postman]

Any thought that strays outside of the mainstream can be considered madness, depending on the intellectual tolerance of the surrounding society.

[Rohsiph]

One thing to realise though, is that nothing is "right" in the grand scheme of things.

What is right and wrong is your perception and perhaps a perception of a group. Maybe that group is even a majority. Its only RIGHT for that group.

Think about it.


Following your concept of the "grand scheme of things" from what you offer here: it is undeniably "right" to make ritual sacrifice of virgins when among groups that perceive such practice to be a tolerant action.

Relativism is an extraordinarily dangerous perspective when actually put into practice. I've thought about it.

Re: genius / madness -- certainly, suffering can impassion personal responses in an individual. Great suffering can bring about great art--as well as great madness. Genetically grounded mental disorder probably produces less great art than it produces great suffering.

That said, following certain definitions of sanity, I would also say that it is dangerous to implement policy/procedure in order to extinguish "insanity" altogether. A society will descend into an ugly complacency without at least some form of challenge--and a small, occasional threat like a dangerously insane person (I note that I don't know statistics herein) is at least better than, for example, a made-up war.

[thegnat]

If a huge discovery is made and it doesn't sound crazy to the masses, is it just not a re-statement of common sense? Therefore not "genius"?

The person still may not *be* mad. But the huge discovery of Galilean, Coppernicus-ian type will always sound mad to the masses. Now we take their discoveries pretty much for granted and the sun being at the center of our solar system is relatively "common sensical" So perhaps they weren't mad. They were just able to take a different view of reality.

If that makes any sense. haha.

[xtremegeek]

If a huge discovery is made and it doesn't sound crazy to the masses, is it just not a re-statement of common sense? Therefore not "genius"?

The person still may not *be* mad. But the huge discovery of Galilean, Coppernicus-ian type will always sound mad to the masses. *Now we take their discoveries pretty much for granted and the sun being at the center of our solar system is relatively "common sensical" So perhaps they weren't mad. *They were just able to take a different view of reality.

If that makes any sense. haha.

Good point. I guess I'm thinking more about someone like John Nash. He made huge contributions to math, but he was also plagued by schizophrenia. He would write formulas everywhere, on walls, windows, desks, his body, bed linens, etc. He would have mathematical conversations with imaginary people. If his schizophrenia was caught in the early stages, and "cured" would he have been able to make those same contributions? Were his imaginary friends needed because there were no real people around him who were intelligent enough to keep up with his mathematical logic?

[postman]

The concept of sanity only exists within the context of an agreed normal. What scientists might agree to eliminate in one society will inevitably be perceived as insanity in the scientists themselves in another. A cannibal would not be put on trial in a cannibalistic society. So then, the question is how to decide whether interfering with something is making it "better", because by adjusting we are culling. Hitler did it by eye and hair colour, Pol Pot by intellectual capacity, etc. In the end, the intention was conformity; ultimately the end of the line of evolution. And this is done ultimately to obtain control, and the clincher is that it is done by an abnormal, non-conformist.

The fact that an abnormal person exists, means that there is still enough genetic variation to continue evolution (improvements or digressions). Whole populations have been wiped out due to disease because of genetic similarities. It was the variants that survived because they were unique in some way.

The reason that scientists believe that things have to be "cured" is that they are responding to symptoms of their own society; prejudice and fear. Ultimately, one seeks a cure because an expectation has not been fulfilled. In effect, we are imposing our will on another. In alot of cases of "insanity" what we might consider as the first (and heavily weighted) step is analyzing is our own projections and expectations. Then going to the abnormal person and helping them help you to understand why they are so much more important to mankind than you are.

[bucolic_]

I read an article about this very issue a while back, here you go

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[xtremegeek]

I read an article about this very issue a while back, here you go

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thanks for the article reference. It does help explain some things to me and correct my logic a bit.

[imoutofhere]

I'm genuis, though probably not as up there as I could be. Up there enough, however, that it causes a lot of trouble with communication and then the social life since people find me hard to understand (no matter how good I get in explaining!).

While it's true that those of high intellect often have disorders, the same is equally true for those of lesser intellect. The more intelligent folks are usually going to have higher awareness that they're "a little off" and be better at fighting it. It's actually the dumber crazies out there doing most messed up things, *they make up most criminals. (Crminals are usually none too bright, and not just by a limited education kind of background.) But, yes, a genius who loses control will be more likely to be able to do things like serial killing (since they'll be harder to catch). Greater minds can pull off greater things, they'll just be better at fighting the temptation to do so, resulting in seriuos crimes of the serial killer and Hitler varieties being significantly less common.

Though, of course, ALL serious genuises are going to be aware that killing is both perfectly natural, even playing a role in natural selection, and often for the right reasons, meaning murder shouldn't be viewed so negatively. It is a very naive/ignorant person who views all murder cases as bad and worthy of not only punishment but serious punishment. The real reason we don't usually kill people is because we know what the consequinces would be, are aware they might some day change (even if it's not likely, it's still slimly possible), and most people simply don't have it in them to kill someone. Genuises usually won't share the common full-on anti-murder view, they will only mind murder cases that were more depraved. Often they even joke that they would go Hitler and kill all the stupid people if given the opportunity, or they might seriously say that they would re-educate them to be more intelligent (or I.O.W. reform the education system so it actually works).

Often those of high intellect have such disorders as Paranoia, and Borderline. And, it makes perfect sense. When you're paranoid, you're actually investing in learning more about your surroundings, politics, and the human mind since the more you know the better you are at spotting something that will harm you. Borderliners tend to be paranoid for that very reason. Also, a genuis will be more prone to more outragious and sudden of moods because they read into things enough to see how insulting some things truly are (often the one who said it doesn't even realize it was that bad because they didn't know what kind of sub-conscious thinking made them say it), and they care less about how others percieve them since we're already viewed negatively and as "off" over our intelligence. In actuality, people with these kinds of disorders are often not really insane at all, and are just at a higher level of understanding than the norm.

As I just pointed out, our disorders are in fact at least partially to blame for our intelligence, or are a natural result thereof. So, yes, to cure these disorders would result in no genuises for the nation that was dumb enough to force such extreme mental conformity. Also, those disorders are more personality based, making it illegal to cure, because they have full right to be themselves in the United States of America (and other "freer" nations, too). For a psychiatrist to tell me to take meds for my Borderline Personality Disorder, I could not only file a lawsuit but get him canned as I have the full potential to win in both cases.

I don't like "psychology" because exactly like you expressed, most of them don't know what they're talking about. Most people in psychology only got into it for the pay, the respect, and the image it will create for them among the rest of society. Most of them are going to be the sorts who memorize class materials to ace tests, but have little to no proper understanding of what they memorized (which is one of the big flaws in the American education system). But, while they are not real experts, they will think they are over all those terms and definitions they blindly soaked up. People who truly are keen in psychology often are not even in psychology and have their own terms and definitions to use when discussing it. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all psychiatrists are frauds, I'm just saying it's guaranteed that most would be.)

Borderline Personality Disorder is a fine example. Most psychiatrists know jack diddly **** about it. I've even read an article before that said that even worse then most of them being clueless about it, a lot of them abuse the term using it to mean that a female patient is difficult, even though the chick pobably isn't really Borderline. Yes, female patients are more likely to get the term like that, because guy Borderliners don't get spotted as easily making the term wrongfully associated with women due to their having higher statistics of being correctly diagnosed.

In the same few years I was trying to determine for certian if I had it, the information on it kept changing all over the Internet, even from "highly qualified" individuals. So, yes, they are clueless about Borderline. Though, in recent times they've finally stabilized the available information a little by just quoting the DSM-IV-TR. Of course, they still often get things wrong when trying to put it into their own words. They give horrible advice to "cure" it (you don't cure a person's personality!) now, which is probibly worst than not defining it correctly. (They used to recommend shock therapy and make them take drugs that can kill them if they eat common foods like pizza that don't mix right with the obviously dangerous drug! WTF!?) And, many who started to admit it's an actual disorder, still try to limit people being diagnosed by only accepting extreme cases to be diagnosed.

(While the awareness of the term borderline is growing, people are continuing to abuse it. Now, non-pros are abusing it similiar to how the pros used to, while the pros start to force themselves to stop it. Only, the non-pros have enough sense to regognize that it'd be more common among men, though they probably don't know the science behind that. Men have greater difficulty keeping rational while emotional. It is 100% proven that way concerning anger. The part of the brain that keeps us rational while angry is significantly smaller in men, and this is why most serious criminals are men.)

Also, I have no interest in seeing a "pro" "shrink" specifically because their job is literally to push mental conformity. They push the standard they're told to push, usually without stopping to think about why it's being pushed and whether it's correct. The views and demands of the majority of society (who don't even know anything about their own heads) is what they're trying to meet.

i.e. People want to consider depression a disorder needing fixing, even though the depression's there for a reason and can't be fixed just by a drug that tries to force the chemicals out of whack from where they should be. (Wouldn't they just increase the chemical production to overpower the drug? Just like insects grow immune to poison, and viri to treatment? Wouldn't anti-depressants encourage us to genetically evolve to be more depressed to be able to overpower the drugs so we still feel that important emotion intended to let us know we need to fix something?) Trying to force a person out of depression is ridiculously heartless and tries to deny the validity in their emotion. It tries to make them forget something's upsetting them to make them more productive instead of facing whatever's wrong. This is being done to avoid facing the fact that our country is so screwed up it's making most everyone depressed. We are in a depression, and drugs and denial is what our government (and those banking in off the drug sells) are trying to push to solve it. The real solution would be reformation in literally every system in our country. Goverment. Education. Marriage. Psychology itself. Everything. The current systems weren't even good when they were developed, they just seemed good compared to older ones of the time, and no one bothered to update them over the years. (i.e. There's still too much Christianity in politics, even though this is not a Christian-specific nation.)

[thegnat]

Haminette:

You speak in such absolute, nearly absolute terms without questioning your opinion at all which is completely fine, however, the things at which you speak of in such a manner *are NOT* absolute. They are gray.

Now this one gets me:
"ALL serious geniuses are going to be aware that killing is both perfectly natural, even playing a role in natural selection, and often for the right reasons, meaning murder shouldn't be viewed so negatively."

This is part of the absolutist speak I was mentioning. You say ALL serious geniuses. I am not a genius, however, I do consider myself considerably more intelligent than the average joe.

That is not what gets me however.
Killing is natural:
Yes. We kill animals for food. It's an animalistic instinct. Killing other people though? Humans are primarily social animals. We like our own kind. We like to have them around. I'm not so sure it's such a natural instinct. Think about the conditions under which people kill. They are *certainly* *not* in their natural state, whether it's self defense or murder. Self-defense is instinctual, fine. The person is still not in their natural state. Same with murderers though. They have built up rage, they are not thinking clearly, rationally at all, they're depressed, etc. They are not in a natural state. Humans kill animals in a natural state. They are not enraged at the animal, depressed, irrational: it is instinctual, comfortable, natural. Do you think anyone feels comfortable killing another human? If not, then how can it be natural?

Role in natural selection: I *guess* but in the overall scheme of things, probably not a drastic role. There are plenty of the people who are of the same type as the person who was murdered. If the person who was murdered had kids, his or her genetic material survived, therefore there is *no* effect on natural selection.

Often for the right reasons: Was it right for Hitler to kill all those Jewish people? Do all people who get murdered - have they all done bad things? Is it better to have murderers in society than thieves?

murder shouldn't be viewed so negatively: Do you want to live in fear all your life that you'll get murdered by one of millions of psychos out there? or just one of a rare few in your area?

Another issue I have with your statements:
Do we know that disorders *really* cause intelligence? Can people be "normal" mentally and still be intelligent/a genius? What is the average IQ of people who do have disorders? I know quite a few people without disorders who are geniuses. More so than I know people with disorders who are geniuses. I know people with disorders, but they certainly aren't geniuses. This doesn't mean that people without disorders are smarter than people with disorders. These are my observations. And then if we were to measure IQ of people with and without in some quantifiable manner, what are these disorders? neurological and personality? All of them? some of them? If they're taking meds for their disorder how does that factor? Does it change the person?

I think in order to fully understand psych majors you have to be one yourself. I can guarantee you there are some in it for more than the money and respect and are truly passionate about their subject. It doesn't mean that because they have a different view they are wrong.

I think your example with Borderline is mainly due to the fact that these disorders *have* to be *very* difficult to diagnose and take subjectivity.

Of course information is going to change on things. Progress happens. And different views take mainstream because of the subjectivity of psychology.

100% proven? Nothing is ever 100% proven. Especially with regards to psych and human personalities. If it really is taken as fact, it's probably 99.9% proven. Heck Newton's 3 laws are considered "laws" by my physics prof because they might in the future be disproven by a scientist.

They have to have a basis somewhere. Mainstream society is somewhere.

I completely agree with your last paragraph. But in absolutely everything? Science? want the scientific method to be reformed? This is again another example of your absolutist speak.

Alright I am done. Now I gotta nap so I can get back to work, sigh....the only reason my post is so long is because I'm pretending I have time.

[Henry]

I'm genuis, though probably not as up there as I could be. Up there enough, however, that it causes a lot of trouble with communication and then the social life since people find me hard to understand (no matter how good I get in explaining!

Genius requires some sort of productivity or influence. Just clearing 140 or 160 on an IQ test does not qualify you as a "genius" in a carefully considered sense of the term. Unless you've published influential research, created a wonderful piece of art, or achieved something in the world, you aren't a genius.

Additionally, if brevity really is the soul of wit, genius is hardly an appropriate label.

[athenian200]

Personally, I think people should only be cured of illnesses that are actually harmful. Everyone should be able to seek treatment if they feel they have problems. The question is, where do we draw the line between eccentricity and harm? Someone who wants to harm others or themselves is an obvious situation, but people who hallucinate or believe things most people wouldn't are another.

Overall, I don't see anything wrong with trying to cure mental illnesses, although I think we should be careful about what we define as an illness. I don't think people with things like Asperger's or ADD should be treated as often as they are, for instance.

BTW, I've always thought that Hitler was an ENFJ. Definitely a weird one, but I still see that basic pattern.

[xtremegeek]

Additionally, if brevity really is the soul of wit, genius is hardly an appropriate label.

Abraham Lincoln, " Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." *I think Abe believed in the merits of brevity also.

[thegnat]

Personally, I think people should only be cured of illnesses that are actually harmful. Everyone should be able to seek treatment if they feel they have problems. The question is, where do we draw the line between eccentricity and harm? Someone who wants to harm others or themselves is an obvious situation, but people who hallucinate or believe things most people wouldn't are another.

Overall, I don't see anything wrong with trying to cure mental illnesses, although I think we should be careful about what we define as an illness. I don't think people with things like Asperger's or ADD should be treated as often as they are, for instance.

BTW, I've always thought that Hitler was an ENFJ. Definitely a weird one, but I still see that basic pattern.

I agree with you there. I'd add depression to that list too. People think they can pop a pill and be happy. Sure chronic depression is a serious illness and should be treated.

I think in the general populus there is still a lot of myths and mis-information with mental illnesses. Perhaps knowing more information would help us define what mental illnesses are. And I'm not sure "illness" is the right word. I think a lot of them are neurological disorders. And the people with them, treated, really can be sane. Of course it depends on the particular illness.

Actually I think it would be great to cure all mental diseases if we are defining them as neurological disorders at least. The others are perhaps grayer situations.

These people with mental illnesses would *love* not to have to take medications, would *love* to live a life free of cautions normal people don't have to worry about (ie dying in your sleep, check out SUDEP, possibly higher mortality rate if you don't take precautions, drug interactions, ie weaning off meds because they *might* have grown out of it, etc). And this is for the people lucky enough to live a normal life due to their medication.

[GOD]

I'm currently working on a project for a behavioral health clinic. *As I sat in some meetings with these psych doctors last week, my mind wandered (yes even we ISTJs day dream.) *I began to think about all the great artists and scientist throughout history who had some form of mental illness. *Then I thought, "Do we really want to totally irradicate mental illness :thinking:" *What would happen to the Einsteins, the Mozarts, the Picassos, the John Nashes, if we had found away to 'cure' their mental illnesses? *Would they have become the great contributors to their fields anyway? *Or did the mental illness allow them to focus with such an intensity that no sane person could have done it?

So, as these psych doctors discussed their plans, I daydreamed about the possibility that curing everyone from their mental illnesses could quite possibly hurt our future.

Thoughts anyone?

In every attribute there is a bell shaped distribution...

At one end we have the "disabled" and others that we call "challenged"... however at the other extreme we have those that are "enabled" ... and the challenges they face are the barriers to knowledge that currently exist.

"Enabled" types are just as rare as the "disabled"... just that the variance to the norm is a better environmental fit (often).... funnily enough, I believe that the enabled types have just as many problems as the disabled...

Nb: mental depression is a positive attribute for song writers... bet if they tested musicians they'd find that they were skewed towards these types of tendencies...

[thegnat]

though again how do we define disabled? and challenged?

For example if we consider people with mental illnesses disabled - some of them can live a completely normal life with medication. Are they truly disabled? Do they consider themselves disabled? Probably the answer is no. But then where do they lie? They certainly don't lie in the average. More towards the disabled end? Just due to other factors they have to take into consideration?

[GOD]

We don't give enabled people medication and we don't need to give "disabled" people medication.

Generally, nothing is prescribed unless the patient wishes it (which can work against the more vulnerable) or there's sufficient medical evidence to support it. Without getting into a whole brave new world situation it generally works well.

Also, I'm taking in a very generalist sense; we can always look for small nit picking scenarios. *

I remember having an argument with my medical flatmate (who's now a psychiatrist.. yeah, it’s me that drove him into that profession) about whether depression was a chemical imbalance or just a lifestyle thing. In hindsight in the worst situations is likely a chemical overbalance and in the less pronounced situations a lifestyle thing...

[thegnat]

We don't give enabled people medication and we don't need to give "disabled" people medication.

Generally, nothing is prescribed unless the patient wishes it (which can work against the more vulnerable) or there's sufficient medical evidence to support it. Without getting into a whole brave new world situation it generally works well.

Also, I'm taking in a very generalist sense; we can always look for small nit picking scenarios.

I remember having an argument with my medical flatmate (who's now a psychiatrist.. yeah, it’s me that drove him into that profession) about whether depression was a chemical imbalance or just a lifestyle thing. In hindsight in the worst situations is likely a chemical overbalance and in the less pronounced situations a lifestyle thing...


Ah. Sorry it was a mis-understanding on my part on what you meant by disabled.

Of course things wouldn't be prescribed unless the patient wishes it...unless they're diagnosed at like 2...

I agree with you on depression.

I dunno. To me it's hard to generalize with this issue. Only because there is such a range of "illnesses". And from my perspective.