# So, Apparently We're All Mental



## Guy Faukes (Oct 16, 2012)

Creativity, especially writing, is closely intertwined with mental illness and substance abuse, according to a BBC article:

BBC News - Creativity 'closely entwined with mental illness'


I really didn't know I was in the midst of druggies and lunatics.


----------



## Potty (Oct 16, 2012)

I'll drink to that.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 16, 2012)

It doesn't apply to me, I'm a unicorn...


----------



## Glass Pencil (Oct 16, 2012)

Mental health is basically how closely you cleave to the consensus. The farther away you get from normal, the more skewed your perspective, the more likely you are to create something unique. 

Also the more likely you are to overdose on heroin, I guess.

Makes sense to me.


----------



## Man From Mars (Oct 16, 2012)

Everyone is a robot and I'm the only human.


----------



## Winston (Oct 16, 2012)

This is posted in the "Debate" section?

Let's just wait and see how long it takes ONE person on this forum to claim that they're "normal".


----------



## Guy Faukes (Oct 17, 2012)

According to the DSM, I do not exhibit any major attributes of the following disorders... ah, who are we kidding? I've already asked our beloved moderator to wave his electronic wand and move it over to lounge.


----------



## Trilby (Oct 17, 2012)

To shut ones-self off from the outside world for hours on end in order to ruin perfectly good, clean sheets of paper by putting hundreds of little squiggles all over them - I ask you 'is that normal'?


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 17, 2012)

To shut ones-self off from the outside world in order to sit and stare at the wall for hours on end - I ask you 'is that normal'?​


----------



## Potty (Oct 17, 2012)

To shut ones-self off fom the outside world in order to sit and stare at the wall for hours on end,_ and feel like that is a day well spent _- I ask you...


----------



## Sam (Oct 17, 2012)

Because some of us don't adhere to social norms, we're all of a sudden 'mental'? 

The only thing that tells me is that people who ostracise others for being different are narrow-minded. It's like a teacher criticising a young kid for daydreaming. Instead of seeing the imagination and creativity within, and nurturing it, they scold the child and insinuate that s/he has a short attention span or some other such 'ailment'. 

Personally, I'd sooner alienate myself than become a sheep.


----------



## Potty (Oct 17, 2012)

When I day dream I think of nothing at all... actually... I think I day dream quite a lot.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 17, 2012)

Sorry to prick your balloon, Potty, but when you're daydreaming your mind is active.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 17, 2012)

> I really didn't know I was in the midst of druggies and lunatics.


I got away with it again then.


----------



## squidtender (Oct 17, 2012)

I'm offended by that article. The neighbors dog told me I'm perfectly normal!


----------



## HKayG (Oct 17, 2012)

I think everyone has a little quirk that makes them weird.

That means everyone is weird in some way.

And if everyone is weird then we all must be normal.


----------



## Baron (Oct 17, 2012)

The Backward OX said:


> Sorry to prick your balloon, Potty, but when you're daydreaming your mind is active.


You obviously don't know Potty very well.


----------



## cazann34 (Oct 17, 2012)

Guy Faukes said:


> Creativity, especially writing, is closely intertwined with mental illness and substance abuse, according to a BBC article:
> 
> BBC News - Creativity 'closely entwined with mental illness'
> 
> ...



 A thin line between genius and madness. That sounds about right! Yet some of us hop-scotch between the two.


----------



## beanlord56 (Oct 17, 2012)

I hate to break it to you all, but you're all mental. I'm the only sane one here...


----------



## tepelus (Oct 17, 2012)

Phh! Normal is so cliché!


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Oct 17, 2012)

The mad genius is a cliché and even if it's partially true, I think it can be a harmful one, a romanticization of mental illness. And self-fulfilling, to some extent. Like, Sylvia Plath and Anne Sexton and John Berryman were suicidal, so being suicidal means you're a good poet. Faulkner and Verlaine and Dorothy Parker were drunks, and they were great, so... 

And if you tend that way, you might be less likely to fight your depression or alcoholism, for example, or to seek medical help for it, if on some level, you think that your disease might be making you a better writer, or a sign that you're good.

It might also be that, as professions, the arts are stressful. There's public performance and judgment, money problems, rivalries, social functions and networking. In some cases, extended periods of travel and social isolation. Not an easy life.

I dunno. I've seen enough of the effects of real mental illness that it makes me cringe a little when I see people act like it's cool or a sign of brilliance. Not that people are necessarily doing that here in any serious way. But the truth is mental illness sucks, it's sad and it hurts people. In the arts and everywhere else.


----------



## Bachelorette (Oct 17, 2012)

lasm said:


> I dunno. I've seen enough of the effects of real mental illness that it makes me cringe a little when I see people act like it's cool or a sign of brilliance. Not that people are necessarily doing that here in any serious way. But the truth is mental illness sucks, it's sad and it hurts people. In the arts and everywhere else.



This.

There is an interesting theory among certain creativity experts (yep, there is such a thing, apparently) that the reason mental illness and creativity are often linked is not because one causes the other, but because they co-occur, in that the sort of nature/nurture that causes someone to be creative is very similar to the sort of nature/nurture that causes mental illness. Source: The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology): James C. Kaufman,Robert J. Sternberg PhD: 9780521730259: Amazon.com: Books

That said, not everyone who is mentally ill is an artist of some kind, just like not everyone who is an artist of some kind is mentally ill.

EDIT



> Mental health is basically how closely you cleave to the consensus.



Uh, no. Mental illness is a serious _medical _condition. At the risk of being inflammatory here, those of you equating mental illness with merely thinking outside the box or whatever are coming across as quite ignorant. Not trying to pick on anyone, but there is a huge difference between being "quirky" and suffering from a debilitating illness that far too many people want to dismiss as something frivolous, or something that the individual has control over (i.e., that they could "just be normal" whenever they want).


----------



## IanMGSmith (Oct 18, 2012)

let the children laugh and in so doing, lead them also in the ways of kindness and compassion
that their laughter may echo across the hills and valleys of our fear
that it may dance among seeds of depair 
and for a moment, at least, sow seeds of joy 
like precious drops of evening dew in the desert,
and forget not the unfortunate among us
the sick and forelorn
they too need to laugh 
for to withold laughter behind sideways glances and "understanding" looks
serves only to ostracise and condemn 
and which of the afflicted, I ask,  
would knowingly seek a world without laughter, sterile and without joy
and even where all hope seems lost
laughter, however directed, has the power to reach in 
and to make, perhaps, the only offer which makes any sense at all.
--ian m.g. smith (2012)


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 18, 2012)

Guy Faukes said:


> Creativity, especially writing, is closely intertwined with mental illness and substance abuse, according to a BBC article:
> 
> BBC News - Creativity 'closely entwined with mental illness'



This is "news?" 

I've always understood this to be a truism. There's a reason many turn to writing and there is certainly a reason why people are fascinated by what writers have written. Next headline - "_Water is wet, incompatible with fire.._"


----------



## garza (Oct 18, 2012)

No one in my family has ever been accused of mental health.


----------



## beanlord56 (Oct 18, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> Next headline - "_Water is wet, incompatible with fire.._"



And watch the political firestorm that ensues from such a headline, what with Congress being incapable of agreeing whether it is or not.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 18, 2012)

Is it that they share a common trait of being more often caught up in their own thoughts to the point where they can tune out the 'real'? Is it part of the 'overactive imagination'? How close are my made up conversations with those of the schizophrenic who actually 'hears' a seperate entity? How slight a 'bump in the head' would it take to push one completely over to the side of 'delusional dysfunction'?

Anyway, so what? Smart people are more likely to be crazy. Males are more likely than females.


----------



## Courtjester (Oct 18, 2012)

Guy Faukes said:


> I really didn't know I was in the midst of druggies and lunatics.



Neither did I. :smile:


----------



## Juganhuy (Oct 18, 2012)

It makes sense. I always thought the same too.

It is true for about anything. If you agree with anything but the norm, your an outsider.

For instance, it is widely accepted thar 16-18 is age of consent, but in some cultures and time periods, 12-13 was the age. "Normal" changes where you go and over time. You could be normal one place and crazy in another.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 18, 2012)

Juganhuy said:


> It makes sense. I always thought the same too.
> 
> It is true for about anything. If you agree with anything but the norm, your an outsider.
> 
> For instance, it is widely accepted thar 16-18 is age of consent, but in some cultures and time periods, 12-13 was the age. "Normal" changes where you go and over time. You could be normal one place and crazy in another.



Again, I think we really need to distinguish between being 'different' and having a mental illness. They are not the same.


----------



## garza (Oct 18, 2012)

Political and social conservatives would not agree. For them, a deviation from the norm can be a sign of mental illness.


----------



## Dave Watson (Oct 18, 2012)

I'm not mad. Just ask my camel Stephen.


----------



## Jamie (Oct 18, 2012)

This is nonsense. In fact, it's such rubbish that I'm going to write something about it on my new blog: Confessions of a Copydex Finger Peeler.


----------



## BluejayNebula (Oct 18, 2012)

Madness can be defined in so many different ways, and there's such a variety of conditions. At some point in our lives, we all can fit into that category.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 18, 2012)

There are also a variety of mental illnesses.

Okay, not to pick on any one person, but one day I would hope to see mental illness not described with such terms as 'crazy', 'nutso', 'madness', 'mental', etc etc etc. I wonder if people actually stop to consider how someone with a mental illness feels when they see/hear such terms and know it refers to them.


----------



## dale (Oct 18, 2012)

writers are probably a bit more "mental" than the average adult. part of us still thinks as a child does, with imaginary friends and characters we spend
a lot of time with. only now.....instead of talking to these imaginary characters out loud, we create lives for them on paper and live
vicariously alongside them. crazy? who cares?


----------



## Foxee (Oct 18, 2012)

A friend of mine just shared this with me and it seemed applicable here so enjoy:



> “Writers have to subconsciously believe the following facts:
> 1. The story I am now working on is the greatest work of genius ever written in English.
> 2. The story I am now working on is worthless drivel.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDub (Oct 18, 2012)

I would bet that they don't think the same about their biographers and ghostwriters... however we can all concede on that for their speech writers... ?


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Oct 18, 2012)

> *Orson Scott Card: *
> 1. The story I am now working on is the greatest work of genius ever written in English.
> 2. The story I am now working on is worthless drivel.


Huh. I don't believe either of these things about my current story. But I guess I haven't gotten to that "submitting to markets" point - maybe that's where the doublethink kicks in.


----------



## Jon M (Oct 19, 2012)

This discussion reminds me of when it seemed to be cool for kids to brag about the meds they were taking, like lithium, Xanax, Valium, etc. True mental illness isn't some fashionable outfit you can put on and take off. 

Probably true that everyone has some small neurosis, though, especially given the times.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 19, 2012)

> Probably true that everyone has some small neurosis, though, especially given the times.


This may be true Jon, but I remember reading that a boy of sixteen living in London in the sixteen hundreds would have witnessed some 200 odd executions, and that a son of the Medieval nobility started trainib in arms age seven, by the time he was in his teens he would be a practised killer (Remember Edward at Crecy? "Let the boy win his spurs"). A sixteen year old King led the army to subjugate Scotland, and no-one turned a hair. Not only in the army, sailors were flogged for trivial offences, nor only here either, Musashi, in Japan, killed his first man in a duel age 13. The hundred years war was a war of attrition waged on civilian populations without a Geneva convention.

Given the times we may have a few small neurosis, given theirs a few hundred years ago it is amazing they were not all raving pschopaths, then add to that the effects of igrorance on the death rate from disease and the numbers who lost husbands, wives and children, a commonplace experience even when there was no war going on. These times are probably the best there have ever been so far, 'the good old days' is romantic twaddle.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 19, 2012)

Olly Buckle said:


> I remember reading that a boy of sixteen living in London in the sixteen hundreds would have witnessed some 200 odd executions, and that a son of the Medieval nobility started trainib in arms age seven, by the time he was in his teens he would be a practised killer (Remember Edward at Crecy? "Let the boy win his spurs"). A sixteen year old King led the army to subjugate Scotland, and no-one turned a hair. Not only in the army, sailors were flogged for trivial offences, nor only here either, Musashi, in Japan, killed his first man in a duel age 13.


 I think this all needs to be kept in perspective: what was life expectancy in those days?



> Given the times we may have a few small neurosis, given theirs a few hundred years ago it is amazing they were not all raving pschopaths


They were not raving psychopaths for the simple reason they were used to it.


----------



## Fats Velvet (Oct 21, 2012)

Romantic nonsense.    The only disorder many artists seem to share in  common is a pathological compulsion to paint themselves as a species apart.


----------



## Fats Velvet (Oct 21, 2012)

Double post.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 21, 2012)

Fats Velvet said:


> The only disorder many artists seem to share in common is a pathological compulsion to paint themselves as a species apart.



And you think only artists do this? When was the last time you saw, for example, a brain surgeon down the pub sharing a few beers with some farm workers?


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 21, 2012)

Perhaps we are all crazy? If so, then none of us are.

Bear with me on this...

Some  of my interests include  ethology and  comparative  psychology. By necessity, these force comparisons with human  behavior.

The common view is that animals just go about the  business of eating, pooping and making baby animals. But, that's not  true. At least, not for many species. Animals develop and navigate  through complex social structures, engage in "play", experience what can  only be described as "laughter" or joy, pleasure, grief and a wide  range of emotions that might disturb some intelligent carnivores. (Not  me, I'm a devoted fan of the Food Chain and enjoy a good steak. But, I  am very aware of what it is I am eating.)

What animals don't  normally do is engage in fruitless behavior. We can trace the evolution  and reinforcement of many behaviors to definable causes and advantages.  Play has all sorts of advantageous benefits, both physiologically and  socially. Pleasure or grief can be attributed to similar physiological  responses as humans with similar evolutionary underpinnings and with  associated advantages. Though, any of us would be likely to announce  that their experiences are more than just a few shots of unusual  chemicals due to a response mechanism. There is increasing evidence that  animal interpersonal communication is much broader than many have  believed. Animals "talk" to one another, certainly in a limited fashion,  but communication exists. It doesn't have to be verbal and it's not, in  many cases. But, animals do communicate basic information that is, at  least, evolutionarily influenced. It may be that certain vocal animals  do more than just give warnings, greetings or mating calls. Mice laugh,  bats might sing, parrots are much more capable than we once realized and  whales have their own songs and augment those of others.

But,  for animals, it doesn't appear there are any activities can't be traced  to either known survival strategies or shared physiological systems with  man, thus fairly identifiable, if for no other reason than empathy. For  instance, are there any animals that are naturally artistic, for the  sake of art and self-expression alone? Sure, we can point to a number of  cases where animals have exhibited such behavior once taught or once  exposed to certain artificial conditions. But, in the wild, either  animals don't have the time, the personal resources to devote to or the  capacity to create and enjoy "Art."

Still with me? You there, in the back. Wake up!

OK, I'll define "Art" - _Art is the purposeful creation of a work by the artist in order to communicate something more than just the sum of its parts._  (My definition.) This makes identifying animal artists particular  difficult, since trying to get them involved in an interview is a  difficult business. But, as it stands, even the best guesses don't seem  to reveal any natural animal artists that I know of. Our interpretation  of a male bower-bird's nest is our own, not necessarily the  bower-bird's. Likewise, dolphins playing with bubbles may just be  standard play, not a treatise on cetacean existentialism. Apes or  elephants in captivity don't count - They're under unique influences.

What  about humans? We engage in a wide variety of intellectual activities,  many of them which are unnecessary for survival. We often go to huge  lengths, devoting many precious calories, towards the creation,  dissemination and interpretation of various forms of communication, some  of which can be purely interpreted as "Art." If the microscope was on  another paw, would animals judge us all to be insane? Sure, we have  railroads, nuclear power plants and reality television. But, we wast a  huge amount of effort on things that could only be, in the best  interpretation, marginally helpful to our survival, if at all. And, we  sometimes do so at great personal risk. How many people have been killed  while on their way to a movie, a concert or killed while rushing home  to catch the latest episode of _Dancing with the Stars_?

There's  a drive within humanity to do more than what is required of us for mere  survival. We have people who devote their entire lives to ferreting out  secrets of physical law that they may never be able to discover. Yet,  they do it anyway in a search for knowledge for the sake of knowing, if  not purposefully for the sake of bettering mankind as a group.  Certainly, such persons can eventually have a positive influence on our  survival as a species. But, if so, how did such behavior evolve in the  first place? Was it all due to our social makeup? Has man been so  dedicated to supporting groups, as a whole, that it has allowed for the  evolution of curious minds who can devote their energy to something else  aside from daily survival? That seems to be the case. But, what about  everyone else? What about artists and those who seek them out?

How  many people do you know that do not engage in behavior that involves  seeking out entertainment? Who do you know that doesn't like movies,  books, education for its own pleasure, paintings, pictures, jigsaw  puzzles...? Who? And, if you know such a person, are they a little  strange? Maybe a little "off?" Maybe they're so normal, so mundane in  their tastes that they are the insane ones, now. Maybe those who don't  seek art or don't attempt to communicate something more than the medium  that is the sum of its parts, maybe they're the crazy ones?

At  some point in our own development, we reached an intellectual  singularity that enabled us to leap ahead of our contemporary animal  peers. Due to evolutionary influences, we developed a robust social  structure that enabled collective efforts, the establishment of culture  and the creation of intellectual capital in the form of the elderly,  wise men and.. artists. Not only did we possess the capacity and social  support necessary to do such things as "Art", we took the opportunity to  devote enough energy to it in order to accomplish it and further its  cause. Somewhere, Oog scrawled out a cave painting or Brugo diddled in  the dirt with his own droppings and made a shape that was pleasing to  him. For whatever reason, while the rest of the world went on about the  sane business of steadfast and devoted survival, focusing their energies  exclusively towards that goal, we collectively went crazy.

Now, we dominate the World. Do we do so because we have the benefits of what other animals would call "insanity", if they could?

I wonder how many researchers would consider themselves outside the norm for human behavior...

(Note: I'm also aware of the instances within the spectrum of autism and that disorder's close association with certain instances of human intelligence, even elevated ones. I happen to agree with the researchers in the original article. But, I don't view concerns over intellectual dysfunction in quite the same way. I see it as an evolutionary benefit. It's a way our species has developed in order to think outside of our evolutionarily supported box of behaviors and has worked extremely well.)


----------



## Staff Deployment (Oct 21, 2012)

There was a gorilla that painted its pet dog, if I recall correctly.

A fruitless endeavor, considering the dog was dead and buried and couldn't appreciate the gesture. That's right, the gorilla did it from memory. This is what it looked like: Painting, and also the dog _oh my god it's so sad he just wanted to see his dog again_


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 21, 2012)

And maybe there's nothing connected between mental illness and writers except that writing is a solitary pursuit, which saves the mentally ill from dealing with those who know nothing about MI and either pretend it's something it isn't because the reality makes them uncomfortable, or make jokes about it because the seriousness makes them uncomfortable. And since it's tough enough having a mental illness without having to deal with either of these two groups, we go to writing.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 21, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> And maybe there's nothing connected between mental illness and writers except that writing is a solitary pursuit, which saves the mentally ill from dealing with those who know nothing about MI and either pretend it's something it isn't because the reality makes them uncomfortable, or make jokes about it because the seriousness makes them uncomfortable. And since it's tough enough having a mental illness without having to deal with either of these two groups, we go to writing.


The article said that there was no higher incidence of mental illness among creative types, but that their family members were more likely to have 'it' (there's another joke in that somehow).

 As far as the rest of it, it's difficult for me to understand clinical depression, bi-polar, and even addiction. Just being 'quirky' doesn't compare, does it? I think I _get_ (understand) schizophrenia with hallucinations and at least am able to comprehend how badly it and other forms of MI might affect someone's life, and no, it's not funny. Perhaps this is more just a confussion of our language, and a 'hold-out' from previous times, when people had no other words to describe real MI or seperate it from simply eccentric or odd, and when those things, along with all forms of ceativity, were considered undesirable. To be fair, calling someone looney, wacky, or crazy is not always a bad thing. It depends on the situation. I guess if the person is truly ill then it could be hurtful, so I'll apologize for my ignorance: I'm sorry.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 21, 2012)

I think, at least for me, the terms people use, through ignorance, stubbornness, or malice, is akin to using racial slurs. I don't think using some terms, such as crazy, are necessarily bad - when it's used to describe someone out of control, or acting out, for example. But when it's used to describe someone who has exhibited signs of a true mental illness, then it becomes loathsome. And of course, all these celebrities who 'suddenly' are depressed or bipolar or some other MI and use that as an excuse for their childish or self-indulgent behaviors haven't done us any favors either. 

I really don't mean to come across as angry - but after so many years of listening to those words, I do tend to have a short trigger. On the other hand, I just feel I have to say _something_, if only so that a handful more will understand how hurtful and demeaning those words can be.


----------



## Fats Velvet (Oct 21, 2012)

The Backward OX said:


> And you think only artists do this? When was the last time you saw, for example, a brain surgeon down the pub sharing a few beers with some farm workers?



The attitude is not exclusive to artists, but among them it seems common.      If anything an air of separateness is expected and, worse, encouraged among creative people.    It amounts to romantic nonsense, probably a holdover from the modernist archetype of the solitary, misunderstood artistic savant who suffered ostracism for the sake of his craft.  If that model ever contained a kernel of truth (and modern artists, however avante-garde, have always taken solace in the company of other artists, if not the general public), the widespread permissiveness today's artists enjoy belies the posture of suffering for being "different" that they self-consciously, and brazenly, cultivate.


----------



## Cairney (Oct 21, 2012)

Sorry, but what is "mental" nowadays anyway? To be honest I'd rather be completely mad (AKA myself), than whatever is deemed normal now!


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 21, 2012)

Cairney said:


> Sorry, but what is "mental" nowadays anyway? To be honest I'd rather be completely mad (AKA myself), than whatever is deemed normal now!



le sigh...


----------



## Staff Deployment (Oct 21, 2012)

Cairney said:


> Sorry, but what is "mental" nowadays anyway? To be honest I'd rather be completely mad (AKA myself), than whatever is deemed normal now!



That's...... not how mental illness works.


----------



## Fin (Oct 21, 2012)

Blah blah blah. Anything more than boring is categorized into some form of illness these days. Might as well start adapting Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World _​concept now.


----------



## Bachelorette (Oct 21, 2012)

"Yay! Let's all go out and have terrifying auditory hallucinations, paranoid delusions that render us incapable of relating to or interacting with our loved ones, disorganized thinking that effectively isolates us from the rest of humanity and our own sense of self, and have it all be accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction! What fun! Better than being _normal_!"


*reads post over*

I think I'd better just stay out of this thread...


----------



## Staff Deployment (Oct 21, 2012)

Bachelorette said:


> "Yay! Let's all go out and have terrifying auditory hallucinations, paranoid delusions that render us incapable of relating to or interacting with our loved ones, disorganized thinking that effectively isolates us from the rest of humanity and our own sense of self, and have it all be accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction! What fun! Better than being _normal_!"



That... is slightly more accurate? Probably a bit of a melodramatic exaggeration but those are relevant problems that people seem to confuse with just being "weird."


----------



## Baron (Oct 21, 2012)

Bachelorette said:


> "Yay! Let's all go out and have terrifying auditory hallucinations, paranoid delusions that render us incapable of relating to or interacting with our loved ones, disorganized thinking that effectively isolates us from the rest of humanity and our own sense of self, and have it all be accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction! What fun! Better than being _normal_!"
> 
> 
> *reads post over*
> ...


Well a few of us did survive the sixties...


----------



## Winston (Oct 22, 2012)

First off:  Guy F, I was only joking about this being posted in the Debate thread!  I suppose that it makes sense that it was moved.  No one seems to want to counter the fact that most writers have some form of mental mal-adjustment.

Here's the ongoing argument I see:  What level of non-conformity rises to "mental illness"?

I hope that answer is found in large aggregate numbers.  In my 'local group', I find myself as a non-conformist "mentally healthy".
Many, many close to me have been diagnosed with some form of clinical depression (manic, bipolar, etc.).  I was prescribed Exffexor years ago.  I gave it up for Christ and his Promise.  That makes me nuts right there.

I really don't want to list all my family that is on some type of anti-depressant / seratonin inhibitors.  It's a lot.  My best friend, too.
I am the only writer in the bunch.  My current manuscript involves an incarcerated youth that has MH issues.  It's not really cathargic.  Just something I've been exposed quite a bit to.

I just wish my Uncle wrote more.  Maybe he'd be alive today.  The last thing he wrote was a suicide note to his estranged wife.  My mother missed her brother to the day she died.  I never met him.  Yet, somehow, I feel like I know him.  They say it runs in the family.

Writing is not crazy.  Everything else around me is.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 22, 2012)

Non-conformity has nothing to do with mental illness, at least not as a symptom or a consistent behavior of MIs. Non-conformity is a way of looking at life and living, not a chemical imbalance that causes problems with day-to-day living. It has not more to do with MI than being a Republican or Democrat, Catholic or Baptist, yada yada yada.


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Oct 22, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Non-conformity has nothing to do with mental illness, at least not as a symptom or a consistent behavior of MIs. Non-conformity is a way of looking at life and living, not a chemical imbalance that causes problems with day-to-day living. It has not more to do with MI than being a Republican or Democrat, Catholic or Baptist, yada yada yada.


Sort of depends on what you mean by non-conformity. One of the ways of defining abnormality is through deviance from social norms.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 22, 2012)

InsanityStrickenWriter said:


> Sort of depends on what you mean by non-conformity. One of the ways of defining abnormality is through deviance from social norms.



That's defining abnormality as a social term. Mental illness is a physical problem within the brain, sometimes exacerbated by social circumstances. Being a nonconformist has nothing to do with having a mental illness; a great many people who appear 'perfectly normal' commit suicide because of clinical depression, just as an example.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 22, 2012)

Just an added note:

There's a pretty fine line between certain forms of abnormal functioning and brilliance. In fact, anyone who knows people that are exceptionally intelligent will easily be able to agree with that idea. Science, itself, tends to agree that unusually intelligent people walk a fine line between reason and insanity. Most of our most intelligent souls have been deeply troubled ones. Many brilliant writers didn't have all their rocks in the same deck or were two fries short of a straight.. something like that. 

This is not, in my opinion, something confined to the arts, self-expression or creative pursuits. A large number of such things, as shadowwalker stated, are solitary and necessarily isolated. A few pursue avenues of expression that are luckily social. Music is one of those as is acting. Yet, look at the history of brilliance in those pursuits and we see an all too familiar self-destructive outcome.

It doesn't mean anyone is fated to succumb to their own gaggle of demons. It only means that such pursuits may be more likely to attract those with a need to pursue them that may already be suffering from a particular problem. Similarly, I don't doubt that those on the borders of autism related disorders aren't attracted to similar, if more regimented, pursuits. How many brilliant mathematicians are borderline autistics? Newton was a brilliant man and one of my personal heroes. Yet, Newton was crazier than a football bat, half the time. Poe, Hemingway.. Kurt Cobain? Joplin, Hendrix... It's a wonder that one of the most brilliant minds in music, Bod Dylan, has made it this far. I suppose we could ask him, but he's too busy running around, disguising himself and blending in with the crowd, for us to find him. One day, he'll probably disappear and then turn up a decade later in some Buddhist monastery.

Yes, we should be aware that certain pursuits may be more likely to attract, appeal to or otherwise end up with a larger number of potential problems than others. But, we also must understand that it's not causative. Lastly, we're lucky that our society has an endless hunger for new perspectives and will welcome knowledge, no matter the source.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 22, 2012)

Were your terms for mental illness supposed to be funny?

Never mind...


----------



## Staff Deployment (Oct 23, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> Lastly, we're lucky that our society has an endless hunger for new perspectives and will welcome knowledge, no matter the source.



You are not correct in this assertion.


----------



## InSickHealth (Oct 23, 2012)

I'm not an alcoholic... I'm creative. I like the sound of that. Also, I very clearly remember my closest friend saying, " if you don't write, you're just an alcoholic". Hahaha.. fun with labels!


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 23, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> You are not correct in this assertion.



How so?


----------



## Juganhuy (Oct 24, 2012)

My head hurts from reading this thread. Am I mental or dumb?

This seems very opinionated.

I commented on how being other than the norm, some consider mental. That is one part, but like others bring up, there is also a physical side of being mental. I believe summing it up one way or another is difficult to do.

I think the word is just used too loosely now.

ADHD is considered to be a mental disorder, but people with adhd can live just as normal lives as anyone, and you may never know (By the way, I do not believe in adhd is a disorder in most cases, everyone is just different and parents now don’t want to handle it).

My two younger brothers are “adhd”. I remember the psychologist wanted me to go in and talk with her. I laughed at her and said they were not adhd they just needed to be punished when they did something wrong and to control themselves.

A year of pills and they were emotional wrecks but not as hyper. I asked my mom to stop giving the pills and let me handle it. I put my foot down and their grades went up and started to behave. Psychologist tried to say the pills were working until my youngest brother said they had not taken the pills in months. I said some choice rude words to the psychologist (I really hate 90% of them, sorry).

Some people are fast to dish out the pills when they are not the answer, teaching people to control themselves is.


Anyways, point is, even though it can be explained by some sort of chemical imbalance, why is it labeled as mental or a disorder? If 9.5% are diagnosed as adhd and its climbing…maybe it is just normal human nature that people are starting to realize and think they need to fix it.

Do not get me wrong, there are some that are truly adhd, but I do not think at the percentage they are displaying. There are some extreme cases, but psychologists are just fast to diagnose and have that repeat income coming in.

My ramble that probably has no relevance!


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 24, 2012)

Juganhuy said:


> ...My ramble that probably has no relevance!



It's absolutely relevant!

Your story is mirrored in the story of thousands of kids who have likely been misdiagnosed. It's not out of any incompetence by psychologists, most of the time. It's simply a lack of proper diagnostic tools and treatment options. So, little Johnny comes in with a problem with grades, behavior and a clear inability in some areas of comprehension. All this fits nicely with what is termed "ADHD" so that's the treatment he gets. Yet, years later it's learned that he's suffering from a form of autism and not what is then known as ADHD, due to new knowledge and new diagnostic tools.

Just in the past decade we have discovered more about how the brain works than we have ever known before! In the next decade, that knowledge is going to be built upon. Soon, very soon in my opinion, kids won't be taking tests for ADHD. They'll read a book, draw some pictures, interact with a clinician, all while their brain is being monitored for how it processes and handles information. Pathways will be mapped, events catalogued and the clinician will be able to look at quantifiable evidence for indications of an existing known disorder.

Until then, it's really a case of "best guess" in diagnostics. This even happens in general medicine and they've had the benefits of being intimately familiar with organs and their functions for generations. The brain is only now becoming an organ that we can understand and one that we can predict the functioning of to any degree of certainty. 

Twenty years ago, it was "Hyperactivity." Ten years ago, the fad was "ADHD." Now, it's all part of an Autism Spectrum disorder, lumped together. (IIRC If not, it should probably be.) But, in the next few decades, we're not going to have to be so ambiguous, in my opinion, all thanks to better diagnostic tools.

Your "ramble" is probably the same sort of ramble that others gave as they discontinued unnecessary Ritalin medication and started treating their children as growing human beings capable of reaching past their limitations. I think that's a very relevant opinion!


----------



## D.H.A.O.H. (Nov 21, 2012)

I have a fairly jumbled thought process. I have always suspected that i have adhd to some extent, but i don't necessarily consider this to be an obstacle or even a disorder in my case. Its just the way i am used to functioning, and taking medication for it has never been an avenue for me, because i feel like it is my normal. I can often multitask better than my classmates, and i am faster to come to come to topics. I also cartoon, and i like to think that i am better at it because i am OKAY with disorder in my life. I have created my life as a sort of organized chaos around the fact that i am all over the place. I do however, notice that many of things i do come up unfinished quite often, and i lose interest half way through.


----------

