My view on arts, music and aesthetics in general

[Galteeth]

I was thinking this was probably the case. It does not detract from the fact (or so I believe it to be fact until otherwise enlightened) that his comparison is rather poor. In any event there is quite a difference between the introduction of foreign chemicals to the body and natural neurochemical reactions to stimuli. Note that I am not making any ethical judgments, only pointing out the difference.


I think that you would be destroying brilliant young minds. Even accounting for the many great minds of history that were addicts and loons it was most often felt that they burned out or died before their time, that they could have done so much more.


For every clinically insane or drug addled scientist how many perfectly sane and non-drug using scientists were there? And for every brilliant druggie or fruitcake in history how many intelligent people were simply destroyed by drugs and mental illness?

Do you think that all of those intelligent yet unconventional individuals may get so much more attention in history books than their conventionally minded colleagues more for their having been so outlandish than for their allegedly singular brilliance?

I don't believe that the correlation is higher in science/mathematics then in the general population. I do think it is higher in the arts, particulary in literature. To be fair, I am basing this mostly on anecdotal evidence and remembrance of some things that I read. I will try to dig up a reliable source (although I think that it would be difficult, since any study of the matter would be extremely prone to selection bias.)

As far as the heroin thing, I think the OP is again making some sort of moral point, although I'm not quite sure what it is.

To the first point you mentioned, I think the comparison is actually a bit more complex then it appears on the surface. For example, the relative content of tryptamine, fish oil, or B-12 in one's diet could have subtle effects on one's mind state (this will be most noticeable if there is a severe dietary lack of these things). This is not on the same level as directy taking drugs for their effects, but it does point to thinking of these things in terms of an absolute dichotomy as being a fallacy.
I think perhaps part of where he is coming from is the increasing tendency to label any actvities that cause a large scale activation of the mesolimbic dopamenergic system as possible addictions (sex, gambling, shopping, video games, etc.) I disagree with this point of view, as I think the category of something pathological should be limited to extremes, not things that fall within the normal range of activation of reinforcement mechanisms (I think many people who make these arguments perhaps don't realize that activation of mesolimbic dopamine pathways is the natural way that the brain reinforces some behaviors, and that drugs are taking advantage of this mechanism by activating the pathways on a direct chemical basis active across the blood brain barrior, as oppossed to a stimulation input basis or an indirect chemical activation.)

 

[Galteeth]

On those correlations:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165032706004526
(abstract only, full article requires membership)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051109092005.htm

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/52456?pageNumber=3&verify=0
(an interestin and nuanced article on the subject)

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/151/11/1650

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=fulltext.journal&jcode=abn&vol=97&issue=3&format=html&page=281&expand=1
(interesting study that looks at creativity indexes in non-ill family members of bipolars)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T8T-4FKY90V-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133511315&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d18fb7ed740faa8e7e6265a2b9edfdd4

http://baywood.metapress.com/app/ho...l,32,109;linkingpublicationresults,1:300311,1

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WCV-4C3K700-16&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133515505&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c2172d009b5966c91ece7ea62c45b6d7


There is more, but I think it's fair to say there's good evidence for a link between mental illness (specifically mood disorders) and creativity

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There is more, but I think it's fair to say there's good evidence for a link between mental illness (specifically mood disorders) and creativity

As far as artistic creativity is concerned I would have already agreed, even in absence of the documentation you have provided, that psychological disorder (and possibly drug use) could enhance the talent. They are generally those that provide us with a fantastical view of the world, beyond our normal perceptions, that are considered the greatest artists. Who is better to accomplish this than those who perceive the world in a different fashion. I am not sure if the same could be said of science though I can imagine that unbound thought processes have likely played a major role in many brilliant concepts in science.

I'm a big fan of Robert Anton Wilson, a close friend of Timothy Leary's, who is a great advocate of perceiving reality in an unconventional manner (as you might guess). He was both believer and skeptic though, which only increased my respect for him and his ideas.

On a side note you may be interested in a book called Clans of the Alphane Moon by Philip K Dick, a brain addled genius himself, about a society of escaped mental patients that divided itself into 'clans' based on their mental illnesses. The 'Manics' were the inventors and artists. ;-)

 

[Galteeth]

As far as artistic creativity is concerned I would have already agreed, even in absence of the documentation you have provided, that psychological disorder (and possibly drug use) could enhance the talent. They are generally those that provide us with a fantastical view of the world, beyond our normal perceptions, that are considered the greatest artists. Who is better to accomplish this than those who perceive the world in a different fashion. I am not sure if the same could be said of science though I can imagine that unbound thought processes have likely played a major role in many brilliant concepts in science.

I'm a big fan of Robert Anton Wilson, a close friend of Timothy Leary's, who is a great advocate of perceiving reality in an unconventional manner (as you might guess). He was both believer and skeptic though, which only increased my respect for him and his ideas.

On a side note you may be interested in a book called Clans of the Alphane Moon by Philip K Dick, a brain addled genius himself, about a society of escaped mental patients that divided itself into 'clans' based on their mental illnesses. The 'Manics' were the inventors and artists. ;-)

That sounds like a very interesting book. Thanks.

 

[zoobyshoe]

How so? What about it is completely inaccurate?

Calling Feynman a "psycho" because he wandered around the streets alone in the middle of the night thinking, and gesturing while he thought, or secluded himself somewhere in the woods to play the bongos, is completely inaccurate.

Calling Caravagio a "psycho", on the other hand, I might buy as a "liberal use of the term" : he had a violent temper, was always getting into fights, and there is good evidence he actually killed someone.

Using words too loosely kills their meaning. If you call Einstein a "psycho" because he forgot to put socks on, then what word do you have left to call Charles Manson?

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's what I meant. Not so much crazy in the "dude's talking to himself and wearing tinfoil on his head" sense as "that's a crazy idea! That'll never work!"

Of course, this fact is often trotted out by actual wackos to justify their wackiness. Furthermore, most of the "crazy ideas" that will "never work" are, in fact, crazy ideas that will never work. People only talk about the successful ones!

All true, but I don't think you can migrate from "crazy", in the sense you describe, to saying "psycho" and have it still be true.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is more, but I think it's fair to say there's good evidence for a link between mental illness (specifically mood disorders) and creativity

Too many links for me. Which do you recommend most?

 

[Kronos5253]

Calling Feynman a "psycho" because he wandered around the streets alone in the middle of the night thinking, and gesturing while he thought, or secluded himself somewhere in the woods to play the bongos, is completely inaccurate.

Calling Caravagio a "psycho", on the other hand, I might buy as a "liberal use of the term" : he had a violent temper, was always getting into fights, and there is good evidence he actually killed someone.

Using words too loosely kills their meaning. If you call Einstein a "psycho" because he forgot to put socks on, then what word do you have left to call Charles Manson?

Well of course, but I'll explain what I meant when I said "psycho's" and why I said I use it liberally...

When I said that, I meant the physiological diagnosis of psychosis, like bi-polar, schitzophrenia, multiple personality disorder, etc etc.. Not just eccentric quirks that brillant minds have had.

 

[Loren Booda]

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/496

 

[Oddbio]

How can you say that when basically all of what historical society considers the most advanced civilizations that have ever lived (i.e. - the egyptians, mayans, greeks, etc..) were heavy drug users, with most of it being marijuana and cocaine.

Most of the greatest advancements mankind has made in just about every field has been made by "druggies" and "psychos" to use the terms liberally (which really makes me wonder sometimes lol).

I didn't say there can't be advancements otherwise... only a fool would say such a thing. I was simply remarking on the speed at which advancements would be made.
If all pleasurable things were done away with, is similar to basically creating a completely altruistic society where no one thinks about themselves but instead everything that gets done is for the betterment of the entire species.
So, yes I do believe that if this were at all possible we would become much more efficient machines (albeit emotionless).
Also, I never said anything specific about drugs. I don't know when the conversation took a turn towards focusing on the "drug" part of what the OP said. I don't think that's what he was really getting at, I was just focusing on his first few statements.

But don't misunderstand me, I was simply pointing this out, I would definitely not be for doing such a thing, as should be clear in my first post.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well of course, but I'll explain what I meant when I said "psycho's" and why I said I use it liberally...

When I said that, I meant the physiological diagnosis of psychosis, like bi-polar, schitzophrenia, multiple personality disorder, etc etc.. Not just eccentric quirks that brillant minds have had.

If you're using "psycho" as short for "psychotic" your original statement is still just plain bizarre. To be diagnosed "psychotic" a person has to be in the throes of hallucination and/or delusions. (Psychosis waxes and wanes, The diagnoses you mentioned are not assumed to be continuously having psychotic episodes.) It's a clinical term that doesn't seem to allow for a "liberal use". It's like saying, "Jane was pregnant, to use the term liberally," or "Joe has a virus, to use the term liberally." To say "Feynman was psychotic, to use the term liberally," is simply a weird and meaningless utterance.

Also there's history to the word "psycho": the Hitchcock movie, which is what popularized the term. It should pretty much be reserved, in the case of "liberal use" for someone who's done something unexpectedly volatile and potentially dangerous, or maybe alarmingly out of character for them. If your girlfriend gets ticked off at you and smashes a plate, then "She's a psycho, to use the term liberally" fits. Throwing the blanket of psychosis over all the great innovators in history is too awkward and infelicitous to be a funny or informative exaggeration.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/496

I read one of her books which makes it sound like bipolar is the greatest disease ever. I used to post on a bipolar forum (there's an alleged overlap between bipolar and seizures: the same meds work for both) and I mentioned her. All the bipolar people said she made them wonder what was the matter with them, why the disease didn't grant them all the superpowers she ascribes to mania in her books.

 

[Kronos5253]

If you're using "psycho" as short for "psychotic" your original statement is still just plain bizarre. To be diagnosed "psychotic" a person has to be in the throes of hallucination and/or delusions. (Psychosis waxes and wanes, The diagnoses you mentioned are not assumed to be continuously having psychotic episodes.) It's a clinical term that doesn't seem to allow for a "liberal use". It's like saying, "Jane was pregnant, to use the term liberally," or "Joe has a virus, to use the term liberally." To say "Feynman was psychotic, to use the term liberally," is simply a weird and meaningless utterance.

Also there's history to the word "psycho": the Hitchcock movie, which is what popularized the term. It should pretty much be reserved, in the case of "liberal use" for someone who's done something unexpectedly volatile and potentially dangerous, or maybe alarmingly out of character for them. If your girlfriend gets ticked off at you and smashes a plate, then "She's a psycho, to use the term liberally" fits. Throwing the blanket of psychosis over all the great innovators in history is too awkward and infelicitous to be a funny or informative exaggeration.

1) Okay, you're right. I guess I should have said

Most of the greatest advancements mankind has made in just about every field has been made by people with "psychotic" tendencies, who are prone to states of "psychosis" by different forms of mental illnesses. For example, schizophrenia, bi-polar, multiple personality disorder, etc..

I apologize for any physical and/or mental distress I may have caused you by using the incorrect terms, thereby making you unable to understand the point I was trying to illustrate with the only terms I could think of at that point in time.

2)

Throwing the blanket of psychosis over all the great innovators in history is too awkward and infelicitous to be a funny or informative exaggeration.

To start, I never said all of the great innovators. That would be more stupid than (apparently) using the word psycho incorrectly. Secondly it was never intended to be funny or an exaggeration, I just so happened to use the wrong terms from what I intended. So if you're going dissect my posts, please do so without putting words in my mouth. It would be much appreciated.

3)

Also there's history to the word "psycho": the Hitchcock movie, which is what popularized the term. It should pretty much be reserved, in the case of "liberal use" for someone who's done something unexpectedly volatile and potentially dangerous, or maybe alarmingly out of character for them.

That's an opinion, not a rule. So I'm glad you feel that way, but unfortunatly for you I do not, but thank you for informing me that's the way you feel about it. If I'm ever in conversation with you I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

Aside from that...

To the OP:

I see where you're coming from, but I think there needs to be a line more clearly drawn between the pleasure you get from doing/seeing things like art, music, or even having sex, and recreational drug use.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Okay, you're right. I guess I should have said

Most of the greatest advancements mankind has made in just about every field has been made by people with "psychotic" tendencies, who are prone to states of "psychosis" by different forms of mental illnesses. For example, schizophrenia, bi-polar, multiple personality disorder, etc..

No. This is untrue. There is a small percentage for whom you can find evidence of psychotic episodes, a lot you could easily call "eccentric", and a lot who were perfectly normal. A lot of the big names in science from Galileo on held teaching positions at various times and were perfectly functional and responsible.

So, the fact you weren't exaggerating or being funny has simply escalated my mental stress to the point where I'm probably going to run down the street naked shouting "That book: To Serve Man. It's a cookbook!" And it'll be your fault.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow, not sure how this one got by the censors! I think our Big Brother program must be malfunctioning...