Right, but I was refering more likely to action of the scientist (as person) himself And shy, introverted child is most likely an output of the lack of the success in the confrontation. Tell me something new, I need a story!
I stated my opinion once, then gave her the argument--which she didn't take. Nor have you. And I noticed that you yourself didn't contribute to that research you are quoting, did you? ...just sayin'.
This is a complete non sequitur to this discussion. So a person has to contribute to research in order to cite it? I don't think that's how it works. So just to clarify, you said mental illness and writing were related based on your observing a non-random sample, is that right?
Sorry. I forgot to add the sugar. I'll try harder next time. [Leaves to go edit some other recent posts. :redface:]
"Oh this is simply awful," said the mousy little girl. "However did I get so confused? More importantly, will Nee ever forgive me?" She hoped so and vowed to be more careful in the future. But when the girl went back over the discussion to see where she went astray, she found herself lost in the twisted assertions. "Still, it was my fault," she said. But she would explain what was confusing in the hopes of preventing future discord on the Great Forum which she was becoming very fond of. Even when I try to parse this carefully the assertions are very confusing. You're saying, Nee, that the mentally ill people in the setting you worked in were less creative than you'd expect in the general population. The way it was said, though, was a different assertion that meant close to the same thing, but didn't actually: "The fact is that creative people have less propensity for mental illness than non-creative people." This asserts something about creative people who you were not working with, rather than something about mentally ill people you were working with. It sounds so much different when you turn it around: "The fact is, mentally ill people have less propensity for creativity than non-mentally ill people." That may have been true, especially in whatever treatment setting your experience was in. But what Shadowwalker is saying is extrapolating that observation to the general population, makes the assertion unsupported. In other words, there are three populations here: Creative people Mentally ill people (which encompasses a very broad range of disorders) Mentally healthy people I don't think it's possible to draw conclusions about any of these populations as a whole without a large carefully done at study. I have no problem, however, with you drawing a conclusion about the subsection of people you worked with. I did it myself in this discussion talking about my own experience with a small hospitalized subset of mentally ill people. When I go back and re-read the exchange, I don't think the three of us are actually very far apart.
No we are not: especially when I was stating my opinion of an select population "the Seriously personality disordered" which are not very creative at all. But then, how can someone with a "Dull Affect" be expected to produce a work of brilliance...? Sure they'll say they are. They'll go to extremes to make you breakdown say tell them that they are, but they just aren't.
Hello there folks; I noticed this thread a few days ago and wanted to share my two cents, but haven't had a chance to get around to it until now. Specifically, the commentary regarding writers (and various artists in general) and their apparent propensity to use drugs sparked the thought of a particularly fine essay written by Leo Tolstoy. I had the pleasure of reading this essay for the first time several years ago, and have found his points to be overwhelmingly astute. The essay is entitled Why Do Men Stupefy Themselves? and this is a very brief excerpt; I strongly recommend reading the entire essay, as it is quite thought-provoking and informative. Despite being written more than 100 years ago, it would seem that the core nature of man is little changed. ;p [...] [...] As I said, I think the whole essay is well worth reading. Despite being more famous as a novelist, especially in the West, Tolstoy was an adept essayist. His essays and short stories are well worth reading, especially for those who are interested in his work but don't have the time (or perhaps the inclination) to delve into his lengthier novels. At any rate, some food for thought. - Alexandria de Loraine
Thank you, Nee, I couldn't have put it better myself. In answer to your question though, GingerCoffee (although perhaps reading the essay might help reduce how esoteric it seems; as I mentioned, this is a very brief excerpt): Tolstoy's essay Why Do Men Stupefy Themselves? explored his observations about what the true, underlying motive was for humans to use intoxicating substances; be it alcohol, mushrooms, hash / marijuana, tobacco, opium, etc. Basically, he put forward that humans don't use these substances for any real enjoyment or pleasure, but rather because they have, for whatever reasons(s), begun living in a way that isn't in accordance with their conscience or for whatever reason they wish to engage in an act that is contrary to the indications of their conscience. Thus they turn to intoxicating substances in order to cloud or darken their mind (the organ of perception and of conscience) and allow them to relieve the pangs of their conscience without changing their behavior or lifestyle. He further speculated that particularly sensitive people, those who feel the pangs of their conscience the most, may be more prone to substance abuse than those who are not. There are several examples he uses, and he addressed not just addictive users of these drugs, but also the casual / moderate users who drink wine with their meals or smoke a cigarette. Now, on another note, if you want to look into the psychological side of things, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, based on Jungian principles and designs, is a rather interesting area of study. Based on MBTI classification, many of the greatest authors and writers of history have been identified as most likely having the 'INFP' personality type. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INFP) This personality type is known as an Idealist (sometimes being referred to as the Idealist of Idealists) and is commonly referred to as 'the Healer'. Individuals identified as INFP are considered to be Introverted-Intuitive-Feeling-Perceptive (thus INFP) and, if what Tolstoy observed about human propensity to use drugs is taken into consideration, it does make some sense that these writers and similarly-inclined artists may be more prone than average individuals to suffer mental illness or turn to intoxicants. Hopefully that answered your question without derailing too much. Some food for thought for those who may be interested. As you may be able to tell, I've put quite some thought and study into these subjects. - Alexandria de Loraine
I'm a biology based person, myself. That's why all that esoteric pondering means so little. If all those inner demons were the reason for drug use and addiction, why do pigs love alcohol and rats become cocaine addicts in research labs? Tolstoy's pondering was before advances in genetics and brain biology revealed humans' drug use was more inside the brain than out. For example in short, you don't drink because you got a divorce, you got a divorce because you drink.
And yet he was remarkably concise in describing what we now call "Self-Medication" --not to be too esoteric in my psychological ponderings or anything.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a common logical fallacy. It's important to understand the difference between correlation and causation.
GingerCoffee; The essay wasn't about the neurochemical underpinnings of addiction. Addiction forms after exposure to the substance, and usually it takes a degree of repeated exposure in order for a chemical addiction to set in. The essay is, as its title states, about why humans use intoxicating substances in the first place. You can hardly compare the deliberate use of intoxicating substances, as exhibited by so many human beings, to animals that are either deliberately intoxicated by humans or that accidentally consume some intoxicant. I'd also point out that animals tend to naturally avoid intoxicating plants and substances since they generally pose serious health risks. Moreover, Tolstoy wrote not only concerning the addicts' use of such intoxicants, but also (as I mentioned) their casual use by those who you wouldn't term addicted; ex. those who drink a glass of wine or beer with their dinner, or who smoke cigarettes, etc. Now, he went into great detail defining what he identified as the conscience, and I urge you again to read the entire essay. It's not nearly as esoteric as you might like to think; it's actually a very well-written, easy-to-understand essay. The translation I've posted an excerpt from is by Aylmer Maude for the Modern Library, printed by Random House in 1964. I hope you'll take the time to read some of Tolstoy's work someday, you might be surprised how much insight he had. - Alexandria de Loraine P.S. As to your example about the drinking and divorce: you might wind up divorced because you drink, but that doesn't explain why you're drinking. You need to look at what predates the drinking, at the motivation that initiated the cycle of substance use / abuse.
Don't know who you're pointing at but I have biological science on my side. I do understand, Alexandria, I don't however, agree that the initial exposure need be anything more than the usual social circumstances. I'm not trying to debate this. I was trying to keep the discussion a bit lighter than that. I grew up amidst drug use. Sure, if the parents were drug users, or the kid came from a dysfunctional home, drugs might have been more available and more sought out. But I also had friends from the best of circumstances. We all tried stuff, there were no initiating tragic circumstances, no seeking out anything more than fun. And for some of my friends, well, they tried too many things too many times. I'll always remember one of the guys warning everyone else, "heroin is sly stuff." No one listened, even him. I lucked out, narcotics make me vomit. I never enjoyed the high. Not all my friends were so lucky. Only a couple became junkies, and a few of them actually managed to quit. There were plenty of other drugs including alcohol. Some people had trouble, most of us grew up unscathed. It's a stereotype that tragic circumstances lead to drug use. (I include alcohol in that.) I think said circumstances come before, after and in between. I have no doubt some people self medicate because they suffer depression and other miseries. I'm not trying to say they don't. I just don't think the tragic-life-led-to-drug-use stereotype fits most people in drug overuse situations. Again, I didn't mean to start a nature vs nurture debate here. Tolstoy obviously writes and people relate. We should all be such accomplished writers. Since I come from a family where every member on my father's side going back 3 generations except one cousin and his offspring, were alcoholics, and none on my mother's side were, it's not hard to conclude there is at least a genetic predisposition there. People don't need a 'reason' to drink other than biology. Doesn't mean some don't have reasons to drink, but it does mean such reasons don't fully explain why people do.
GingerCoffee; This is my last post on this topic, since I really only wanted to share the excerpt from Tolstoy to begin with. Your post comes across as rather unnecessarily defensive; I was only answering a question you initially posed, and then further elucidating my answer based upon your response. I was not aiming for anything adversarial. If you actually want to try understanding what Tolstoy was writing about, I suggest again that you read his work. Perhaps you are put off by his mention of spirituality, and you may be aware that he was identified as a Christian man. If that is the case, I would quote this simple passage from another essay he wrote entitled What is Religion and Wherein Lies Its Essence? I'm only speculating about whether you're bothered by his mention of spirituality, so forgive me if I'm wrong. If I am at all correct, however, I hope you will set aside that bias and give Tolstoy's essays and/or short stories a try. Russian literature of the 19th century experienced something of a Renaissance, Tolstoy being only one of the great writers to produce work during that era. In short, he isn't writing about abstract mental demons or simply just about addicts. His work cuts to the root of the issue(s) at hand: in this instance the underlying motivation for the habitual use of intoxicants, whether in small or large quantities. Perhaps, since you haven't read the essay, I should have specified that part: he addressed the habitual use of intoxicants (i.e. the regular use, as opposed to the isolated experimental use of such substances). Anyway, I'll leave you to think over it yourself now. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I encourage you again to simply take the time to read some of Tolstoy's work. It is thought-provoking stuff, well-translated by Maude. Cheers; - Alexandria de Loraine P.S. In the hope of clearing this up a bit, I offer this final excerpt from the essay Why Do Men Stupefy Themselves? P.P.S. A genetic predisposition is another factor to consider altogether, essentially another subject entirely. There is also the propensity for fanatics to pass on a genetic predisposition toward fanaticism to their offspring. Genetics are a fascinating branch of study.
Not trying to be defensive, and I appreciated your answering my request for a summary. Just offering another point of view. I respect yours. I even respect Nee's.
The relief comes from successfully avoiding the issue. The Self Medication Theory of Addiction People Self Medicate Underlying Problems With Drugs and Addictive Behaviors By Elizabeth Hartney, What Is the Self-Medication Theory? The theory of self medication to explain addictive behavior is based on the idea that people use substances, such as alcohol and drugs, or the effects of other addictive behaviors, such as eating or gambling, to compensate for underlying problems that have not been adequately treated. The self medication theory usually refers to substance-based addictions, but it can also be applied to non-substance addictions. Background The self medication hypothesis began appearing in medical journals in the 1970s, as clinicians noticed that heroin addicts were using the drug to cope with problems such as stress and loneliness. This lead to the idea that drug use develops as a way of coping with stress in the absence of adequate solutions and meaningful social relationships. The theory gained momentum as it was recognized that many medications prescribed for legitimate ailments are similar to recreational drugs. It was further popularized by the increasing recognition in the medical community that marijuana, typically thought of as a purely recreational drug, has many medicinal properties. The theory goes that, for some conditions, such as chronic pain, prescribed medications may be insufficient or problematic, and so marijuana users who suffer from chronic pain are simply self-medicating. This has lead to medical marijuana now being available on prescription in some places for the treatment of certain conditions. Responses to the Self-Medication Theory The self medication theory is increasingly popular among people with addictions and professionals who treat them. While some who take a hard line on addictions believe the self-medication theory is an excuse for irresponsible behavior, many in the medical profession find it useful to transition people from substances and behaviors that they are addicted to and are causing them problems to more controllable prescription medications that address the underlying problem directly. Depression, for example, can often be successfully treated with antidepressant medication, freeing the individual from seeking emotional comfort in their addiction. The theory is compassionate to people with addictions, particularly illicit drug users. It presents them not as weak-willed, but as creative problem-solvers, who are attempting to fill the gap left by limited medical options. The self medication theory is also helpful to the therapeutic process, as it provides a clear path out of addiction that unites professionals with people struggling with addictions. They have a shared goal of correctly treating the underlying problem, and can work together to achieve this. However, some argue that the theory may absolve illicit drug users of some of the responsibility for their problems. Another stance taken against the self-medication theory is that by arguing that people with addictions are self-medicating, the theory legitimizes drug use, and medication generally, as a way of solving emotional problems. Many people who have been through the process of becoming abstinent feel that any drug use, including medications, allows people to avoid dealing with psychological issues and reinforces denial. In tandem with this, the self medication theory reinforces the disease model of addiction. It runs the risk of simplifying the complex issue of addiction, which involves many psychological and social factors, to pure physiology. The Future of the Self-Medication Theory More and more people are going public with their addictions. Addiction and its treatment are no longer swept under the carpet, and these issues have even become the subject of reality shows, such as "Intervention." Many celebrities, and even politicians, have admitted to past drug use. With greater social change and openness about drug use and addictions, society is becoming more compassionate towards those with addictions. The drug legalization movement and the medical marijuana movement, both of which have become increasingly mainstream, support the self-medication theory. The theory will likely play an important role in current and future concepts of addiction. Sources: Grinspoon M.D., L. and Bakalar, J. Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 1997. Kasten R.N., Ph.D., B.P. "Self-medication with alcohol and drugs by persons with severe mental illness." Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association 5:80-87. 1999.
Isn't that doing the same thing that I did--using one's own personal observations to conclude a causality? Yes it is.
Well, I know my doctors called it self-medicating. I drank because it was the only way I could drop into oblivion and not deal with the real world for a while. Before the depression hit, I drank because I liked drinking. And I started drinking in high school because the gang of kids I hung out with drank. So take your pick of reasons. I sure did.
It would be if my family history hadn't led me into nursing and medicine where I then went on to study alcoholism, drug addiction, and to work for a while in that field. But this is not an issue which seems related to writing so I'm fine with everyone's opinions. Not only that, but it will be a while before we really understand nature, nurture and the brain's impact on drug use. It's not a topic I care to do more research in and what I know is probably quite a bit rusty at the moment. Speaking of writing, I should add the drama. There were five deaths by gunshot in my father's immediate family, one suicide, (my grandfather), and two murder suicides, (my great grandfather and his wife and one of my great uncles and his common law wife). One of my brothers currently struggles with alcoholism which has almost killed him more than once. My great aunt, who I'm named after, drove her car off a bridge while drunk. And unrelated to my genetic background, my boyfriend died in a car accident at 18 when I was 16, the driver, his friend, was drunk. Damn, that almost sounds made up. But it isn't.
