An article linking genius to autism...

[conuly]

I'd like it a lot more if it didn't start off with the word madness Madness? Wha?

Comments

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

The person who wrote that is an idiot.

[strega42.livejournal.com]

Doesn't bother me a bit. I, for example, am quite mad. What I'm not is crazy. I think this article is trying to take the stigma out of certain classifications of non-dangerous mental illness. Obviously, when the local homeless guy is trying to kill the soup kitchen server because "He's working with the CIA and he's here to kill Ronald Reagan" (and he did this four or five times a year) there's a problem that's not really linked to creativity. However, forms of mental illness (and I'm only using the medical classification here for technicality's sake) are not dangerous, and should not be lumped in with psychosis. Autism is an example of this in that it doesn't need to stigmatized like the "homeless guy" in the example above (and yes, I actually knew this guy, I didn't just pull that out of my ass). Autism, Asperger's, and a bunch of other stuff I'm too brain dead to name right now are linked with higher intelligence as well as creativity - to present to the public that these forms of "madness" are not dangerous and actually special and should be accepted at least and treasured at best really isn't a bad thing.

Most of our best and brightest throughout history - leaders, poets, scientists, musicians, painters, etc. - have been considered anywhere from a bit mad to flaming batshit insane (Poe comes to mind with that last, as does Picasso).

I actually take pride in my particular form of madness. I don't necessarily advertise it to the idiot crowd, but then they are substandard anyway, and generally don't have the literacy to read most of the articles you link, let alone understand them. Not because they're too stupid, but because they insist on remaining ignorant out of sheer pigheadedness.

It occurs to me I probably shouldn't post this before my morning nicotine and caffeine dosage, but fuck it. :) I think the article here should be read as much for intent as for vocabulary - and I also think we should remember that it's quite likely the editor of the paper changed the original, or gave the author specific directives about what word choices to use. For newspapers to be successful, reporters are taught to cater to the lowest common denominator - which is about a 3rd grade reading level.

That's scary.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I try to keep in mind the formal definition of a psychological problem: Causing harm to self or others.

This means that the same issue can be a problem for one person and not for another, if one of those people views it as a problem and is distressed by it. It means if you're cutting yourself, it's a problem whether you admit it or not, and if you're trying to kill other people it's a problem. But if you're quite happily counting every dandelion on your block and don't mind doing this at all, you're a bit weird, but it's not a problem.

However, I remember in psych class they discussed the tendency of people to try to diagnose historical dead people. They said it's a game some people play - put diagnoses on dead people, and no one can say you're wrong, because they're dead and you can't test the hypothesis. But it's done too easily and you should always be cautious before believing people who are doing that. And it's not just done with psych issues, people love to say famous people had physical ailments too. And sometimes, they probably had whatever someone is claiming, but you can't ever be sure.

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

The person who wrote that is an idiot.

[strega42.livejournal.com]

Doesn't bother me a bit. I, for example, am quite mad. What I'm not is crazy. I think this article is trying to take the stigma out of certain classifications of non-dangerous mental illness. Obviously, when the local homeless guy is trying to kill the soup kitchen server because "He's working with the CIA and he's here to kill Ronald Reagan" (and he did this four or five times a year) there's a problem that's not really linked to creativity. However, forms of mental illness (and I'm only using the medical classification here for technicality's sake) are not dangerous, and should not be lumped in with psychosis. Autism is an example of this in that it doesn't need to stigmatized like the "homeless guy" in the example above (and yes, I actually knew this guy, I didn't just pull that out of my ass). Autism, Asperger's, and a bunch of other stuff I'm too brain dead to name right now are linked with higher intelligence as well as creativity - to present to the public that these forms of "madness" are not dangerous and actually special and should be accepted at least and treasured at best really isn't a bad thing.

Most of our best and brightest throughout history - leaders, poets, scientists, musicians, painters, etc. - have been considered anywhere from a bit mad to flaming batshit insane (Poe comes to mind with that last, as does Picasso).

I actually take pride in my particular form of madness. I don't necessarily advertise it to the idiot crowd, but then they are substandard anyway, and generally don't have the literacy to read most of the articles you link, let alone understand them. Not because they're too stupid, but because they insist on remaining ignorant out of sheer pigheadedness.

It occurs to me I probably shouldn't post this before my morning nicotine and caffeine dosage, but fuck it. :) I think the article here should be read as much for intent as for vocabulary - and I also think we should remember that it's quite likely the editor of the paper changed the original, or gave the author specific directives about what word choices to use. For newspapers to be successful, reporters are taught to cater to the lowest common denominator - which is about a 3rd grade reading level.

That's scary.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I try to keep in mind the formal definition of a psychological problem: Causing harm to self or others.

This means that the same issue can be a problem for one person and not for another, if one of those people views it as a problem and is distressed by it. It means if you're cutting yourself, it's a problem whether you admit it or not, and if you're trying to kill other people it's a problem. But if you're quite happily counting every dandelion on your block and don't mind doing this at all, you're a bit weird, but it's not a problem.

However, I remember in psych class they discussed the tendency of people to try to diagnose historical dead people. They said it's a game some people play - put diagnoses on dead people, and no one can say you're wrong, because they're dead and you can't test the hypothesis. But it's done too easily and you should always be cautious before believing people who are doing that. And it's not just done with psych issues, people love to say famous people had physical ailments too. And sometimes, they probably had whatever someone is claiming, but you can't ever be sure.