Madness and Genius.

Paul71

Senior member
Messages
2,056
Likes
412
M. Jackson, J. Pollock, J. Nash, J. Livermore, H. Hughes. Why do some of the best in thier field have mental problems (is it anything to do with having 'J' as an initial)? Seemingly, they have what is deemed to be an enviable 'mind', an unexplained and overpowering insight into thier chosen field. Certain types of people seemed trapped within a world that could be so right, and yet they are tortured by thier own minds.

What's the old saying? There is a fine line between genius and madness. Is this true, if it is, why?:?:
 
By the way guys, i've not just repped you both for posting on a thread that was started by myself (very shallow), i honestly thought they were both good replies. I like it.
 
Answer: A genius doesn't need to ask ;)

With such a clever response you are obviously the genius and I am honoured to have received a reply. In all your intellectual wisdom please tell us all where cable is going to be at 7.00 am (I start trading then not being :rolleyes:too clever) :whistling
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSD
The flip side. Who can name a genius that isn't mad or eccentric? I can think of great visionaries and orators, say for instance, Martin Luther King. But this guy was not a genius.


Albert Einstien?

Edwin Hubble?

Did these two have what it takes to be proclaimed as genius? More to the point, were they mad?
 
Last edited:
The flip side. Who can name a genius that isn't mad or eccentric? I can think of great visionaries and orators, say for instance, Martin Luther King. But this guy was not a genius.


Albert Einstien?

Edwin Hubble?

Did these two have what it takes to be proclaimed as genius? More to the point, were they mad?

'A genius is someone who successfully applies a previously unknown technique in the production of a work of art, science, or calculation'

I go for da Vinci
 
'A genius is someone who successfully applies a previously unknown technique in the production of a work of art, science, or calculation'

I go for da Vinci



See what you're saying. Someone who comes up with a whole new concept of something previously not considered for whatever reason. Someone like Da Vinci, may not have been mad, but he would have also been supressed by the church in his time. So yes, maybe Da Vinci was a non-madman genius.
 
'A genius is someone who successfully applies a previously unknown technique in the production of a work of art, science, or calculation'

I go for da Vinci

Not necessarily because someone who has applied an unknown technique in for example art, science etc may not result in a outstanding result, might just end up flopping, therefore not considered a genius.
A more accurate answer would probably be that a genius is someone who has/can produce an outcome that most people in the world can't. How they go about doing it is not what matters
 
Not necessarily because someone who has applied an unknown technique in for example art, science etc may not result in a outstanding result, might just end up flopping, therefore not considered a genius.
A more accurate answer would probably be that a genius is someone who has/can produce an outcome that most people in the world can't. How they go about doing it is not what matters


True. Because there are 'inventors' in the world that are not necassarily deemed as 'genius'.
 
M. Jackson, J. Pollock, J. Nash, J. Livermore, H. Hughes. Why do some of the best in thier field have mental problems (is it anything to do with having 'J' as an initial)? Seemingly, they have what is deemed to be an enviable 'mind', an unexplained and overpowering insight into thier chosen field. Certain types of people seemed trapped within a world that could be so right, and yet they are tortured by thier own minds.

What's the old saying? There is a fine line between genius and madness. Is this true, if it is, why?:?:

FWIW, I personally don't think that attainment of "best in field" as you call it is necessarilly automatically qualifies someone as a genius. It's certainly a term that is used very frequently these days.

The kind of focus, single-mindedness and work-ethic displayed by those such as you mention is certainly a form of savantism and in all likelihood, could also be attributed to a form of aspergers or even autism. For extreme cases of this you need look no further than the likes of Derek Paravicini and Steven Wiltshire. These, together with those you already mention are undoubtedly incredible examples of how talent manifests in so many different ways, but genius?

It seems to me that the "label" genius was historically used to describe those that were truly exceptional across many, many areas of expertise. The old renaissance types if you like. I guess the world has changed so massively that those types are never likely to be encountered again. Interestingly (at least to me anyway) many of the renaissance types were (and still are) criticised for their "inability" to finish things but (as I understand it) this was down to their passion and desire to do and change as much as possible. This is almost the opposite of how most might typically characterise a savant. Still very tortured mind, but quite different in my mind from the torture and anxieties that a savant probably faces.

On that same topic, I don't believe Derek Paravicini is tortured by his own mind, far from it in fact, although interestingly there is the possibility that Steven Wiltshire might be, but only as a result of treatment designed to improve his "condition" which appears to be having the effect of reducing his savantism.

It's a massively interesting area though isn't it? Personally, given half a chance I'd sign up for Allan Snyder's transcranial magnetic stimulation research (if he ever subjects it to wider study) as I too would really like to understand so much more.
 
FWIW, I personally don't think that attainment of "best in field" as you call it is necessarilly automatically qualifies someone as a genius. It's certainly a term that is used very frequently these days.

The kind of focus, single-mindedness and work-ethic displayed by those such as you mention is certainly a form of savantism and in all likelihood, could also be attributed to a form of aspergers or even autism. For extreme cases of this you need look no further than the likes of Derek Paravicini and Steven Wiltshire. These, together with those you already mention are undoubtedly incredible examples of how talent manifests in so many different ways, but genius?

It seems to me that the "label" genius was historically used to describe those that were truly exceptional across many, many areas of expertise. The old renaissance types if you like. I guess the world has changed so massively that those types are never likely to be encountered again. Interestingly (at least to me anyway) many of the renaissance types were (and still are) criticised for their "inability" to finish things but (as I understand it) this was down to their passion and desire to do and change as much as possible. This is almost the opposite of how most might typically characterise a savant. Still very tortured mind, but quite different in my mind from the torture and anxieties that a savant probably faces.

On that same topic, I don't believe Derek Paravicini is tortured by his own mind, far from it in fact, although interestingly there is the possibility that Steven Wiltshire might be, but only as a result of treatment designed to improve his "condition" which appears to be having the effect of reducing his savantism.

It's a massively interesting area though isn't it? Personally, given half a chance I'd sign up for Allan Snyder's transcranial magnetic stimulation research (if he ever subjects it to wider study) as I too would really like to understand so much more.



Fantastic post, thankyou.
 
FWIW, I personally don't think that attainment of "best in field" as you call it is necessarilly automatically qualifies someone as a genius. It's certainly a term that is used very frequently these days.

The kind of focus, single-mindedness and work-ethic displayed by those such as you mention is certainly a form of savantism and in all likelihood, could also be attributed to a form of aspergers or even autism. For extreme cases of this you need look no further than the likes of Derek Paravicini and Steven Wiltshire. These, together with those you already mention are undoubtedly incredible examples of how talent manifests in so many different ways, but genius?

It seems to me that the "label" genius was historically used to describe those that were truly exceptional across many, many areas of expertise. The old renaissance types if you like. I guess the world has changed so massively that those types are never likely to be encountered again. Interestingly (at least to me anyway) many of the renaissance types were (and still are) criticised for their "inability" to finish things but (as I understand it) this was down to their passion and desire to do and change as much as possible. This is almost the opposite of how most might typically characterise a savant. Still very tortured mind, but quite different in my mind from the torture and anxieties that a savant probably faces.

On that same topic, I don't believe Derek Paravicini is tortured by his own mind, far from it in fact, although interestingly there is the possibility that Steven Wiltshire might be, but only as a result of treatment designed to improve his "condition" which appears to be having the effect of reducing his savantism.

It's a massively interesting area though isn't it? Personally, given half a chance I'd sign up for Allan Snyder's transcranial magnetic stimulation research (if he ever subjects it to wider study) as I too would really like to understand so much more.

Good thread, great comments, I wonder if in the curent climate we as (for example) a UK society have begun to tolerate differences and eccentricity less? Whilst we may congratulate ourselves on diversity, in particular multi culturalism, I wonder if the UK actually stifles creativity as close to birth as humanly possible by 'our' insistance that toddlers as young as 3 have to conform to the average accepted stereo typical box ticking obsession I constantly witness?

Are we breeding generations who are quite frankly too scared to break the mould having been told from such an early age that they must be good, must conform, must do the right thing...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Conform to the norm...no ta... thats for everybody else as instructed by others who are frankly clueless also.
 
Whilst we may congratulate ourselves on diversity, in particular multi culturalism....

Multi culturalism is a term adopted by politicians to explain away various problems that they themselves created. It has little meaning other than to brainwash the masses. It has very little if anything to do with diversity and the only people congratulating themselves are the politicians that pulled off another scam.
 
Top