Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The myth of ‘mad’ genius

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#31

Post by toomanybeersies »

As much as I like to joke that the greatest artists were all deeply flawed people, so I'm trying to become an alcoholic arsehole in order to become a better author, as the article states, there are a lot of good and great artists/creatives who are not substance abusing wife beaters.

I think there are a couple of factors at play here. The first is that you never hear about how normal an artist was. Nobody talks about how Ansel Adams didn't beat his wife and wasn't an alcoholic, because that's just normal. We only talk about Hemingway's alcoholism, or Van Gogh's mental condition. So we're conditioned to believe that artists are flawed people.

The second factor is that people want to justify why they're not a great artist. "I'm not a great writer, but at least I don't emotionally abuse everyone I know and I'm not a raging alcoholic".

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#32

Post by perfmode »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #31

As much as I like to joke that the greatest artists were all deeply flawed people, so I'm trying to become an alcoholic arsehole in order to become a better author, as the article states, there are a lot of good and great artists/creatives who are not substance abusing wife beaters. I think there are a couple of factors at play here. The first is that you never hear about how normal an artist was. Nobody talks about…

That was a cutting analysis; a pleasure to read and important to consider.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#33

Post by darawk »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #31

As much as I like to joke that the greatest artists were all deeply flawed people, so I'm trying to become an alcoholic arsehole in order to become a better author, as the article states, there are a lot of good and great artists/creatives who are not substance abusing wife beaters. I think there are a couple of factors at play here. The first is that you never hear about how normal an artist was. Nobody talks about…

That's a reasonable theory, but it doesn't explain why this phenomenon is (somewhat) unique to art. The explanation you gave applies equally well to say, Basketball players and business tycoons. And for the most part, there's no social wisdom i'm aware of that says you have to be a drug addicted asshole to be one of those things.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#34

Post by minikites »

darawk wrote: post #33
toomanybeersies wrote: post #31

As much as I like to joke that the greatest artists were all deeply flawed people, so I'm trying to become an alcoholic arsehole in order to become a better author, as the article states, there are a lot of good and great artists/creatives who are not substance abusing wife beaters. I think there are a couple of factors at play here. The first is that you never hear about how normal an artist was. Nobody talks about…

That's a reasonable theory, but it doesn't explain why this phenomenon is (somewhat) unique to art. The explanation you gave applies equally well to say, Basketball players and business tycoons. And for the most part, there's no social wisdom i'm aware of that says you have to be a drug addicted asshole to be one of those things.

The article has a good response to this, artists generally have a more flexible work environment:

>The creative occupations considered in these studies are overwhelmingly in the arts, which frequently provide greater autonomy and less rigid structure than the average nine-to-five job. This makes these jobs more conducive to the success of individuals who struggle with performance consistency as the result of a mood disorder.

People with emotional problems or substance dependence wash out of more structured jobs pretty quickly.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#35

Post by majormajor »

darawk wrote: post #33
toomanybeersies wrote: post #31

As much as I like to joke that the greatest artists were all deeply flawed people, so I'm trying to become an alcoholic arsehole in order to become a better author, as the article states, there are a lot of good and great artists/creatives who are not substance abusing wife beaters. I think there are a couple of factors at play here. The first is that you never hear about how normal an artist was. Nobody talks about…

That's a reasonable theory, but it doesn't explain why this phenomenon is (somewhat) unique to art. The explanation you gave applies equally well to say, Basketball players and business tycoons. And for the most part, there's no social wisdom i'm aware of that says you have to be a drug addicted asshole to be one of those things.

Less on the drugs (minus, say, steroids for athletes and cocaine for business folks in the 80s), but there is a lot of social wisdom that says you have to be an asshole to be best at those things. Nice guys finish last. Backstabbing corporate politics. "Killer instinct" for athletes. Steve Jobs, Michael Jordan, Kobe...

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#36

Post by hyperpallium »

commandlinefan wrote: post #3

I've always wondered if a lot of "eccentric" people aren't just behaving the way everybody would naturally behave if they could get away with it. I say and do a lot of things because I have to if I want to have food to eat and a place to sleep, but I'll never know how different my behavior _might_ have been if I were rich enough or brilliant enough that people would just put up with whatever I happened to feel like d…

power corrupts, or... powerlessness conceals?

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#37

Post by hyperpallium »

commandlinefan wrote: post #3

I've always wondered if a lot of "eccentric" people aren't just behaving the way everybody would naturally behave if they could get away with it. I say and do a lot of things because I have to if I want to have food to eat and a place to sleep, but I'll never know how different my behavior _might_ have been if I were rich enough or brilliant enough that people would just put up with whatever I happened to feel like d…

It's related to conformity. If you automatically, naturally and agreeably fit in with what everybody else does, you won't tend to think outside the orthodoxy.

But if you question everything, try to work things out from first principles, and wonder what happens if things are done differently... well, you're "eccentric", at best.

It seems logically possible for a person to be a perfect conformist socially, and a wild free-thinker intellectually, but it wouldn't usually happen that way.

https://xkcd.com/242/

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#38

Post by a1369209993 »

Semirhage wrote: post #2

The article focuses exclusively on mood disorders, which frankly isn’t what most people think of or mean by “mad” in any case. Nikola Tesla for example was mad as a hatter, but it appears to have been a delusional disorder. While depression for example can be psychotic, it tends not to be, and I think psychosis or at least delusional beliefs are the hallmark of what is commonly meant when the public talks about “madn…

It's also not what most people mean by "genius"; I was hoping for something about Tesla, Nash, maybe Einstein and Feynman.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#39

Post by tluyben2 »

sullyj3 wrote: post #28
baxtr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I catch myself often wanting to behave more eccentric, but then somehow societal laws keep pulling me back. I wish I had the guts (like Steve had) to be blunt to anyone

It doesn't take guts to be blunt to people you have power over.

People that (potentially will) have power over you, often respect you being blunt to them. That does not make it easier as there is a significant group of egomaniacs that cannot stand it so you need to know who you have in front of you.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#40

Post by toomanybeersies »

darawk wrote: post #33
toomanybeersies wrote: post #31

As much as I like to joke that the greatest artists were all deeply flawed people, so I'm trying to become an alcoholic arsehole in order to become a better author, as the article states, there are a lot of good and great artists/creatives who are not substance abusing wife beaters. I think there are a couple of factors at play here. The first is that you never hear about how normal an artist was. Nobody talks about…

That's a reasonable theory, but it doesn't explain why this phenomenon is (somewhat) unique to art. The explanation you gave applies equally well to say, Basketball players and business tycoons. And for the most part, there's no social wisdom i'm aware of that says you have to be a drug addicted asshole to be one of those things.

I think that it does apply to sports, it's a common trope that athletes (especially in contact sports) are domestic abusers. Business tycoons are often stereotyped as sociopaths.

Plus there's doping in athletics. People love to criticise Lance Armstrong for doping (among his other flaws), but there's no way, even with doping, that the average person would be able to compete in pro cycling, all the steroids, clenbuterol, EPO, and other PEDs in the world couldn't dope you up enough to be competitive at that level.

People love to justify their mediocre existence (not that there's anything at all wrong with mediocrity). They could be a businessman if they were more sociopathic, they could be an athlete if they used steroids, they could be an artist if they took drugs or were more eccentric.

Post reply on HN