Influence of Mental Illness on Modern Physics

JRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Disclaimers:
I honestly don't have anyone on this board in mind in posting this.
I am not claiming all highly creative people are mentally ill.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


ANS: Wheeew. Glad you think of me as a dummy.[]

PS: Did you know that Einstein is considered to have been "Autistic"?





"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />I know I'm going to get a lot of grief for this as it is a rather taboo subject.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It happens I've looked into this from the vantange point of the field of biochemistry. As with so many things in so many areas, what you point to is valid data, but a dubious, mainstream-theory-driven interpretation of that data.

This will, however, take us far from the field of astronomy. But if we focus on the link that led you to mention it -- how to communicate ideas between minds that function differently from our own -- I think we might keep this interesting and relevant.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There have been many studies that show a very strong positive correlation between high level of creativity and predisposition to certain types of severe mental illness characterized by impairment in the ability to distiguish reality from fantasy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I can confirm this correlation exists. Some data also exists about why this is true. Without referring to any particular model of the human mind, I will refer loosely to the "visual screen" (what comes in through our eyes) and the "thought screen" (what we think and dream) and hope that these concepts need no further explanation. Then one of the dozens of ways that different minds differ fundamentally is in the intensity of imagery on these two screens.

Most of us have a noticeable difference in the intensity of our two screens, which is one way we tell them apart. One of many ways that a mind can become more creative, especially in the arts (as for color and form) and in skills where memory is a factor, is to have a very intense thought/memory mind screen. The closer thought images get to the intensity of visual imagery, the more memorable they become, and the richer and more detailed is the resulting storehouse of continually refreshed mental imagery.

But when there is cross-over, when thoughts and memories and dreams become as intense as reality (which is one of the specific effects of LSD and certain hallucinogens), our behavior can become bizarre and even injurious to ourselves or others. For example, we may see an approaching car and flash the thought, which many of us do and quickly dismiss, that the car might possibly swerve and come over the curb headed right at us. If we then see that actually happening in mental imagery with the intensity of the light from our own eyes, we have no choice but to react, even though it is not really happening. We lose the ability to tell what is real and what is thought. Many categories of schizophrenics have this situation at times. It can come and go.

As this applies to people who are creative in this way but not schizophrenic, they have both an advantage over all the rest of us and a handicap at the same time. Some of us can only look on with envy at the near-total recall that artists may have of scene and event details. But such people are so stimulated by their thought imagery that they have a need to tone down stimulation from reality. Such people will generally hate or avoid scary movies, amusement parks, pornography, spectator sports, or anything providing strong stimulation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The generally accepted explanation is that the brains of highly creative people do not differentiate at the lower levels of processing external stimuli and internal thoughts between the possible (as internally defined) and the impossible (which are suppressed).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think that characterization is too harsh. I think any os us, given erroneous sensory input (say, from a dose of LSD), and seeing a ferocious pink elephant charging us in our own living quarters, would react with fear and flight. The "that's impossible" judgment would only take effect after we had assured our immediate safety.

Of course, if the impossible was a chronic occurrence, one would soon become jaded, and also start to question how others could possibly make such distinctions with confidence.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Regardless of the reason, there is a strong implication that the highly creative should not be expected (trusted?) to both develop new ideas and judge the rationality of same.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Among the many, many individual mental skills are these: reasoning, memorization, abstraction, induction, intuition, creativity, analysis, visualization, organization, synthesis, empathy, collation, computation, judgment, ability to unlearn or correct error, problem-solving ability, motivation, normal association, creative free-association (“thinking outside the box”), communication, awareness, and nurturing. (Feel free to mention your own favorites.) All of us seem to excel in one or more of these skills; and all of us seem to be seriously deficient in one or more of these skills. We tend to be within the broad "average" band in all the rest. That is what gives us our individuality and incredible diversity, and at the same time makes communicating with other unlike minds so challenging (as any teacher knows).

[Aside: It also makes the notion of "genius" somewhat unjustified. Someday we will be better able to evaluate the full set of skills each individual may possess, without the biased weighting placed on certain skills by people who possess those particular skills and then design IQ tests that give extra weight to their own skill sets.]

The relevant skills for the task at hand in this discussion are reasoning and judgment. I know of no data indicating that "creative" people (in the sense used here -- having vivid mental screens) are any more or less likely to excel or be deficient in those two mental skills.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To the degree that highly creative people have provided a disproportionate contribution to physics and enjoy greater influence, what are the implications for the advancement of rational theories? How might the bias toward irrationality, if it exists, be mitigated? Would this bias be swamped by other factors?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The questions presume the previous conclusion, which I find dubious. I think vested interests is a more economical explanation for reluctance to change. But most people can be taught to reason without logical fallacies and to improve their criteria for making good judgments, even when those things do not come naturally to them. -|Tom|-

Tom,

The extent of your knowledge of this subject surprises me. I agree that the validity of some of the questions I raised depends on the particular explanation for the coorelation that I used.

I suppose a less harsh question would be: Why does rationality appear to be so subjective in physics where one would think an objective view would be enforced? Is it, as you believe, the result of common human imperfections for which we are all subject to some degree? Or could there be real differences, related to mental qualities that increase aptitude for physics, in the degree to which individuals are able to make judgements of rationality regardless of their training? In other words, is it nature or nurture, or both, and to what degree? Has the ever increasing degree of complexity and intellectual demands resulted in a field of study that is self-selecting for participants whose sense of rationality is underdeveloped or defective, but not necessarily so much as to be ill?

JR

Mac,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">ANS: Wheeew. Glad you think of me as a dummy.[]

PS: Did you know that Einstein is considered to have been "Autistic"?

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Never thought you were a dummy. Don't know you well enough to ascertain your mental health []

As for Einstein, autism is rather broadly defined, but fortunately for him is quite different from the psychotic conditions that I was referring to. His lectures and writings later in life clearly demonstrate that his bulls**t detector was functioning reasonably well. However, I think that its possible to take the view, as epitomized in the quote that you use as a signature, too far.


JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />The extent of your knowledge of this subject surprises me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Lucky are those who have never had to cope with mental illness along some branch of the extended family tree. I was not that lucky.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why does rationality appear to be so subjective in physics where one would think an objective view would be enforced?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I suppose that Bohr and Einstein make a great case study to help answer that question. They were two quite opposite minds. (My descriptions here will surely display my own biases.) Einstein was the "realist", holding out for "hidden variables" that would ultimately help QM make sense. Bohr was the father of the Copenhagen school and its "no deep reality" philosophy, who always felt that Einstein just didn't "get it". The result is that Einstein-thinking dominates today's GR and Bohr-thinking dominates today's QM, with the two remaining as incompatible as ever.

But isn't it natural for the leading school of thought in each area, whatever it might be, to spread itself far and wide and produce a sort of "natural selection" so that those attracted to those ideas would be more likely to enter the field and stick with it? By the time one is far enough along to see the problems, the need to curry favor with colleagues, get grants and promotions, and to feel self-important and accepted by peers all outweigh the need for truth or understanding. Soon one is fully invested in the form of mastery of the incumbent theory, papers and books written, students taught, colleagues conferred with, instrumentation built, experiments performed, grants solicited, and the highly effective positive and negative peer pressure applied by others.

It's not a pretty picture I paint. But do I exaggerate?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Has the ever increasing degree of complexity and intellectual demands resulted in a field of study that is self-selecting for participants whose sense of rationality is underdeveloped or defective, but not necessarily so much as to be ill?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I am an optimist that almost anyone with a sincere desire to understand something can be taught it, although not just anyone can teach it. Ultimately, it's about biases.

Generically, one of the biggest biases humans have is to favor the way they first learned something. Once learned and thought factual, knowledge becomes rooted into many mental structures. We build other knowledge on knowledge already acquired, then build many relationships and connections. Along the way, we make decisions and gain experience based on this knowledge. The longer we have it, the more different memories and mental pathways that depend on it, and the more uprooting that would be needed to unlearn some basic fact learned long ago and underlying so much.

You will notice my own pattern in these discussions. As long as a participant is still teaching or learning, I stick with the matter to the extent that my professional and personal lives permit. But as soon as the participant starts making declarations, I hear the sound of a mind loudly slamming shut, and I drop the discussion. It is neither my job nor my avocation to proselytize others to any particular viewpoint or to make them understand my viewpoint. I've been through the process of having to unlearn my very deepest and most embedded knowledge (my religious beliefs, instilled in early childhood). I am fully aware that it is no picnic, and that it takes considerable time, energy, and pain to rework all the associations of a lifetime, and to accept all the waste. The word "trauma" has left my lips more than once when describing this uprooting. So I do not wish this on others.

The bottom line is simple. Anyone who places knowing the truth above all else will have to go through that process, probably several times, because the world is filled with people having absolutely certain convictions that they would gladly die for, yet are contradictory to the similar convictions of others. We cannot avoid coming under the influence of such absolutists, and being influenced by their conviction and powers of persuasion. But because there are people with the opposite conviction no less confident, some significant fraction of these beliefs must be erroneous. The only way to find out the truth when an existing belief is at stake is to make oneself vulnerable to being wrong and having to admit error. Then devise a test the outcome of which cannot be influenced by biases, and decide to live with that outcome, whatever it might be.

Many people simply choose not to go there. The personal cost is too high. I do not fault them for their choice. They are part of the inertia of human knowledge that leads to the necessity for the holders of a deep-but-erroneous belief to die off before real change is possible in science or society. But that is how many people find their happiness -- dying with the conviction that they were right all along. What is there to object to in that choice?

It is simply not the choice for me. -|Tom|-

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>It's not a pretty picture I paint. But do I exaggerate?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: As the old saying goes "You hit the nail on the head".


If I were a bit more skilled I could have written your post. My first inclination was to say that we are much alike in our desire to understand what is reality. Then I was going to give you a slight edge by saying but your view is butressed by greater formal education in this field but then I realized that is the very thing that we have had to cast aside in our search of our truth.

One devoted to discovery and understanding must accept the isolation of not agreeing with everything scholars tell us and when you reject their answers they reject you.

That is just the way the world turns. But every so often it becomes very worth while when ultimately one day, perhaps even posthumously, it is discovered that "Hey, that lunatic was right".[]



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien