Live data from Hacker News

The myth of ‘mad’ genius

aeon.co

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#71
post #55
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artists can also often work in isolation, especially someone already regarded as a genius. I suspect plenty of people have a tendency towards eccentric behavior, but suppress it because they need to participate in society in order to survive. A genius engineer for example is less able to be wildly eccentric, because an engineer is inherently dependent on others and depends on others to implement their designs. Anothe…

Euler is the famous example: one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, who by accounts had an otherwise ordinary life and was a respectable family man.

You make it sound as if he is the exception that proves the rule.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#72

Yes, why should a shizophreniac who wildly connects everyday experiences to form strange conspiracy theories would have a natural advantage when it comes to wildly recombining seemingly unconnected ideas, to leap over boundaries every 100 recombination? Of course, if there is a birth advantage there- all the meritocratic idealism and work wont get you or your kids there. So its very very anti-equalizism. Its okay, th…

Have you ever experienced or met someone with schizophrenia? It is hell. Not only for them but often for those who care about them. It's not about a rosy, whacky persons that the society whimsically outcasts. It's often legitimately tortured people that almost always need serious treatment and constant care, otherwise they risk falling into a very dark abyss. They often wind up hobos or sometimes in prisons/asylums b…

> there are no examples of seriously ill paranoid schizophrenics that put out meaningful work.

Utter hogwash. There are countless artists who struggled with schizophrenia and bipolar and produced beautiful, amazing work -- Syd Barrett, Brian Wilson, and Daniel Johnston spring to mind.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#73
post #55
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artists can also often work in isolation, especially someone already regarded as a genius. I suspect plenty of people have a tendency towards eccentric behavior, but suppress it because they need to participate in society in order to survive. A genius engineer for example is less able to be wildly eccentric, because an engineer is inherently dependent on others and depends on others to implement their designs. Anothe…

Euler is the famous example: one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, who by accounts had an otherwise ordinary life and was a respectable family man.

Von Neumann was also fairly normal. I can think of a few, but I can think of far more who were crazy (many, quite literally).

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#74

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 f…

I believe if you're _really_ brilliant - then you are as aware of the beliefs of other people around as much as you're aware of the inherent truths you have discovered for yourself.

These two sometimes works together, against each other or are absolutely ambivalent to each other.

So the question of eccentricity becomes a question of how do you need to project yourself upon others.

"All the world's a stage" as they say.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

I honestly do not think that is the case. Using a sample size of one(me) I can tell you that while I'm very agreeable and sometimes too nice to people around me, when it comes to my opinion about things or digging for the truth, I will push and dig and (sometimes recklessly) support unpopular opinions, even if in the minority. I surely can't be that unusual.

This is interesting. Voicing an unpopular opinion is not "agreeable", but if you can't ever act on your truth, you may as well not have ever had it.

My comment, in the context of yours, comes across as childishly excusing/justifying antisocial behaviour. I'm not sure what to thinkn= of that. But I just meant that tendencies tend to transfer.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

I honestly do not think that is the case. Using a sample size of one(me) I can tell you that while I'm very agreeable and sometimes too nice to people around me, when it comes to my opinion about things or digging for the truth, I will push and dig and (sometimes recklessly) support unpopular opinions, even if in the minority. I surely can't be that unusual.

Here's the Psych 101 background to my view: people don't just pretend to conform, their perceptions conform https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

By its nature, it's hard to notice this in yourself. I like to think of myself as capable of independent thought. But when I've been solo camping for a few days, some of my perspective evaporates on contact with others, like a dream on waking. It's hard to even notice it leaving. I imagine they leave imperceptibly in daily life.

Re: The myth of ‘mad’ genius

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly do not think that is the case. Using a sample size of one(me) I can tell you that while I'm very agreeable and sometimes too nice to people around me, when it comes to my opinion about things or digging for the truth, I will push and dig and (sometimes recklessly) support unpopular opinions, even if in the minority. I surely can't be that unusual.

Here's the Psych 101 background to my view: people don't just pretend to conform, their perceptions conform https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments By its nature, it's hard to notice this in yourself. I like to think of myself as capable of independent thought. But when I've been solo camping for a few days, some of my perspective evaporates on contact with others, like a dream on waking. It's hard to…

That is an interesting experiment you highlighted. I was not aware of it. I will point out though that the group that did not want to seem out of step were seemed to be the lest numerous. So while agreeableness seems to have a certain correlation to independent thought I do no think that for the majority of people that is the main blocking point.

I think I know myself pretty well, better than most, and this allows me to make a pretty good guess about the way I would react. I think that if I were to answer wrongly to the Ash experiments, I would do so because of what is described in the Wikipedia entry as "distortion of judgment". This stems mostly from my view of the world and my belief that human observation, without aiding tools and methods of quantification, can be very unreliable. That applies for me as well, leading to poor confidence in my direct observation.

Thankfully, creating new ideas or solutions has several steps, observation being just one of them, another being the processing of the stimuli into the final idea. This, I consider, is where I am far better than the observation stage. Given a set of observations I arrive at a pretty complex solution and/or idea, and this is where most of my deviation from the norm usually stems. But I am aware of the possibility of mistaken input data of vicing this process, and forming the wrong conclusion because of it.

Anyways, sorry if I came of a bit arrogant, this was more of an introspection exercise and me musing and a little bit over-generalizing about the way people think.

Post reply on HN