While the link between the two is arguable, it's well-known that many famous artists suffered from some sort of mental illness. Would they have produced the masterworks they did if they'd have been "normal"? Is madness more conducive to creativity?

I go back and forth on this, and I ask because I'm currently on two mood stabilizers for the treatment of bipolar 2. While they do the trick- I'm able to hold down a job, maintain personal relationships, not make impulsive and dangerous decisions that negatively affect my life in long-term ways, etc., I've found that it does affect the way I think and work in a negative way. I'm not able to concentrate, don't have the same "flight of ideas" or urgency and dedication that I did when I was unmedicated. Also I can't read more than a few pages at a time. Which kills me. So I'm thinking about going off the medicine completely (not without consulting a doctor, mind you) because I don't want to spend the rest of my life like this.

I know a lot of artists, musicians, and creative folk that won't go on meds for their "conditions" because they're afraid it will affect their creative process. And a lot who go on and off 'em. Has anyone had experience with this? What do you guys think?

I don't know. I think it's probably possible to reach a creative state whatever your current mental condition, I think there's probably just a trick to it and it's really, really hard to find the key.
When you can't get there it's probably more convenient to think that this or that is preventing you, but I think that creativity is too complicated and nebulous to be blocked by just one thing.

It's a very prickly one because I myself have a problem of not being able to be consistently creatively productive anymore. Not like I used to be. I don't know how to combat it. I don't have the answer.
-I can think creatively, but carrying through the ideas to the last stage isn't easy.

As to creative people and their mental states; I went to see some performances at a gallery last night. There was quite a mix of people- Intelligent types who were interesting to talk to, extremely self absorbed people, and lumps of wood. Out of all those I only enjoyed talking to the intelligent ones and that's how I'd like to stay myself, regardless of whether I can create or not.

I was chatting to one of the aforesaid lumps of wood for a while about trying to enter a creative state and maintain it. He didn't have much to offer on the subject... -_-

--------------
I don't know what connection madness has to creativity, if any. I know of a lot of extremely sane artists who were extremely productive, producing a profusion of excellent work. I think the "madness" is more a social thing- it makes an impression, we remember it an associate it with art, whether it plays a role or not.

When I did some research into the subject of productive creativity there was a broad equation:
creative thinking + experience and ability = creative product.
To elaborate:
When you're young, you tend to have a greater profusion of creative ideas, but lack the experience and ability to carry them out. As you get older you gain in experience and ability, but creative thoughts decline. So key productive ages are from the late 20's to the early 40's for most people, on average... but it varies GREATLY and there are a lot of extremes. It also depends on the field (i.e writers tend to have a longer creative period).

Perhaps the "madness" aspect is simply a tendency to contravene social norms...? Someone who doesn't see things the way other people do, so that when they do create, what they create seems more different and interesting to people who do see things in the usual way?
-in that case it doesn't help them create, it just makes what they create more interesting than it would be otherwise.

it seems to me that having a mental illness would hurt creativity, rather than help.

Hyena H_ll
I know a lot of artists, musicians, and creative folk that won't go on meds for their "conditions" because they're afraid it will affect their creative process.

Don't know if anyone's seen/heard of this yet, but I figured this applies:
link

Here's another by Amy Tan:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/amy_tan_on_creativity.html

I looooove TED.

jaex
Don't know if anyone's seen/heard of this yet, but I figured this applies:
link [dailymail.co.uk]

It's an insight into the nonsense and fatuity of the commercial art world, and not much more. The woman's a coward and she's fooling herself, she should get the operation. Those paying the big money are evil leaches- they expect to make a lot more off of those works when she dies which they hope will be soon. Very sad.

Your own story is far, FAR more interesting. :)
I liked reading about it, you should post more often.

I started taking meds for depression about two months ago because a lot in my life was spiraling out of control (graduating from college, not finding a job, etc). Before I took the meds, I barely felt like creating anything, especially comics.

That was a bad sign for me because usually it is things that get my goat that help me come up with comics and art. After starting the meds, I started coming up with ideas and comics and such left and right, even posting here more often.

So, all I can say is, for me anyway, mental illness did not really help me creatively.

I understand the depression aspect- when I am (or was, rather) in a depressive state, I couldn't do anything. So that certainly hurt me creatively, and I'm glad the medicine knocks that out.

However, I miss the mania- being able to work for 18 hours straight, constantly having ideas and being able to focus obsessively on them and actually carry them all out. Now that I'm "balanced" I don't get any of that. Which is why I think it's almost a fair trade- 6 months or so of severe depression countered by 6 months of crazy productivity and boundless confidence and drive.

A good perception of detail implies both depression and creative talent. Or as people some times say "'Cynicism' is the term for a good observation of facts used by those that lack it."

Also, the mental illnesses associated with artistic talent, autism, schizophrenia and depression are associated with 'talent' in general, or at least brain power in one way or another. There's room to say that these people are actually 'better' in some capacity but are branded ill because others don't share their view. After all, if the stereotype person with autism says 'I don't want to follow this social rule for it is useless.', he is technically right, others simply brand him as ill because they like doing stupid stuff without a reason because they were brought up with it. A lot of people have also argued 'depressive realism', the position that depressed or 'pessimist' people actually have a realistic view of themselves and the world and normal people are actually extremely optimist and experience the world in unrealistically positive terms.

But, it's safe to note that all though research has for instance demonstrated that schizophrenics have a significantly greater aptness at separating correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning and a higher sense of detail and a general greater awareness of their surroundings, it could also be argued that this is natural selection, because they need it to maintain themselves and would otherwise simply die. The case with autistic people often seen as brilliant is too that those that aren't cannot maintain themselves in society and end up in mental institutions. Same with that depressed people of course need a higher intelligence and capability to maintain themselves. I have suffered from a chronic depression for as long as I can remember and I could have never completed my education were it not for my intelligence because I was only able to work for about 1/5 of the time most were, so I had to do all work in those moments my teachers called 'bursts'.

qqq
schizophrenics etc.

This seems like a lot of rationalisation to me. The schizophrenics I've known could barely hold their own with support, let alone make it on their own. As for those other conditions... These aren't evolutionary states, they're disorders that're known by that term because the people who have them have a much harder time coping than others, and most usually don't.

The reality of life, humanity and civilisation isn't the grass, the trees, the sky, the sun and the moon, and all the physical scientific laws and reason. The reality is human society because that's what we are: a group species. And if for some reason something prevents a person participating in that (not political or cultural), it isn't a fault of unfair society being mean and callous, it's due to a problem with the person.

I don't mean to be cruel, but I find that's a bit more accurate. Personally I've always been inclined to help those having trouble to the best of my ability. We all have trouble fitting in and functioning at times. It just helps to realise that society is never going to stop still, wake up and realise that it's been doing things wrong and stop to let us catch up- we have to adjust to it. Always.

ozoneocean

qqq
schizophrenics etc.

This seems like a lot of rationalisation to me. The schizophrenics I've known could barely hold their own with support, let alone make it on their own. As for those other conditions... These aren't evolutionary states, they're disorders that're known by that term because the people who have them have a much harder time coping than others, and most usually don't.

As I said, the distorted image arises because if you have such a condition and are not very intelligent you don't manage and end up in an institute and no one meets you on the street to find you to be quite intelligent slash artistic and told that you're a schizophrenic.

The reality of life, humanity and civilisation isn't the grass, the trees, the sky, the sun and the moon, and all the physical scientific laws and reason. The reality is human society because that's what we are: a group species. And if for some reason something prevents a person participating in that (not political or cultural), it isn't a fault of unfair society being mean and callous, it's due to a problem with the person.

If you're going to argue whose 'fault' it is you're going the way, there exists no such thing as 'fault' or 'blame' or the inverse of those. Concepts people created to blame their enemies and praise themselves. In reality things just happen via cause and effect and every particle in the universe has in some way aided to how things are currently now and to say which carry 'blame' is a nonsensical concept.

I don't mean to be cruel, but I find that's a bit more accurate. Personally I've always been inclined to help those having trouble to the best of my ability. We all have trouble fitting in and functioning at times. It just helps to realise that society is never going to stop still, wake up and realise that it's been doing things wrong and stop to let us catch up- we have to adjust to it. Always.

'We' have to do nothing, we only have an optimal strategic means to achieve our end, usually this involves staying within the de facto laws, some times breaking them is a more viable solution.

I hate this type of quoting T_T

qqq
]As I said, the distorted image arises because if you have such a condition and are not very intelligent you don't manage and end up in an institute and no one meets you on the street to find you to be quite intelligent slash artistic and told that you're a schizophrenic.

You're not expressing yourself well there, but I think I can intuit your intent...
-The schizophrenics I've known I knew very well and personally. None of them started out that way and they all have their own personal histories and their own roads that led them to be how they were. They were good friends.
Everyone is intelligent in their own ways and everyone is artistic too. Those fellows weren't exceptionally creative though, not more so than anyone else I've known. They were just themselves. :)
And nice people they were too.

qqq
'blame' is a nonsensical concept.

Indeed it is in a universal context, but I wasn't really talking about that sort of thing. We'll let it pass though, it's not that important anyway. ^_^

qqq
'We' have to do nothing, we only have an optimal strategic means to achieve our end, usually this involves staying within the de facto laws, some times breaking them is a more viable solution.

But approaching life that way won't really help you get very far with other people. Human society is a network of connections, friendships, accepted modes of behaviour, courtesies, ritual, expectation, reciprocation. The way you're talking about it sounds as if you'd prefer to stay external. -_-

qqq
There's room to say that these people are actually 'better' in some capacity but are branded ill because others don't share their view.

If you're talking about someone who is dismissed as "crazy" because they have different ideas or a different set of values, world view, etc., then that's one argument.

But someone with a diagnosed mental illness like schizophrenia is not some idealist under a bohemian umbrella of radical thought and rebellion. It's not a decision one makes- "Ooh, I think I'm-a toss off the chains of socially accepted thought and action and be schizophrenic! That'll show them squares!"

ozoneocean
You're not expressing yourself well there, but I think I can intuit your intent...
-The schizophrenics I've known I knew very well and personally. None of them started out that way and they all have their own personal histories and their own roads that led them to be how they were. They were good friends.
Everyone is intelligent in their own ways and everyone is artistic too. Those fellows weren't exceptionally creative though, not more so than anyone else I've known. They were just themselves. :)
And nice people they were too.

To be honest, I don't believe there is a clear line between schizophrenia and 'sane', I don't think it's some thing as red hair and black hair, a simple genetic state being able to identify it. It's a combination of nature and nurture. All people see things that 'aren't there', and that's assuming that 'being there' is even an objective quality. The mind of any person is greatly able to bend and twist reality into a variety of things, often to suit the view of that person. But if you believe in horoscopes you're a random sane person and if you believe that people are following you and want you dead you're a paranoid schizophrenic, regardless of the former being a lot easier to scientifically disprove than the latter.

There is no objective reality in the end, it's a personal experience and I don't really think there is a clear line between people with and without mental disorders. Silicon Valley is an clear indication, apparently a significantly higher amount of children there is aspie, from non aspie parents too. Indicating that parents with technical interests have a statistically higher chance of breeding aspie children, thus showing that it's just a type of personality at best. Most mental disorders aren't as clear as physical disorders as in a clear genetic disability that disables insulin production.

ozoneocean
But approaching life that way won't really help you get very far with other people.

Approaching life in what way?

And getting far with people in what way?

And which people?

Human society is a network of connections, friendships, accepted modes of behaviour, courtesies, ritual, expectation, reciprocation. The way you're talking about it sounds as if you'd prefer to stay external. -_-

I don't 'praefer' any thing. I'm just describing human behaviour here, not telling what any person should or should not do.

Hyena H_ll

qqq
There's room to say that these people are actually 'better' in some capacity but are branded ill because others don't share their view.

If you're talking about someone who is dismissed as "crazy" because they have different ideas or a different set of values, world view, etc., then that's one argument.

Does that include people that believe that indescriminate killing is okay from a nature's hand or survival of the fittest point of view? Where does it end? Where do you arbitrarily draw the line, who draws it? It's not that simple.

Any way, I was quite clear in that post, take Seven of Nine from Star Trek Voyager for instance, she at first disagrees with various rules of conduct aboard Voyager because she finds them irrelevant or insufficient, and she's completely right at that. They are, and they detract from strategical advantages. And the only reason the rest of the crew insists they be done is simply because they were raised with it, raising a child and educating it in 'proper manners' is psychologically brainwashing at work. You simply punish a human every time it doesn't do some thing, and after enough times that human will believe that that 'has to be done that way'. Whether you do this with 'polite address' or 'bang your head in the wall if you enter the bathroom', bring a child up with it and the result is the same.

Ultimately Seven's arguments to why those rules of conduct should not be observed were far more substantial than that of the rest of the crew, who had no real argument except dogma at all to it. But still the crew sees themselves as the guiding force trying to teach Seven proper behaviour, and this is how society treats the aspies in the end who fail to observe 'proper behaviour', regardless of how rationally correct they are if they claim it's 'unnecessisary'.

But someone with a diagnosed mental illness like schizophrenia is not some idealist under a bohemian umbrella of radical thought and rebellion. It's not a decision one makes- "Ooh, I think I'm-a toss off the chains of socially accepted thought and action and be schizophrenic! That'll show them squares!"

I don't see how aspies and schizophrenics then again have that much to do with each other here.

- Asperger's syndrome is a syndrome that limits once ability and desire to observe proper social rules.
- Schizophrenia is is a psychotic disorder that makes it hard for people to see the boundary between their fears and reality. (Sane people tend to have a problem seeing the boundary between their dreams and reality)

qqq

Hyena H_ll

qqq
There's room to say that these people are actually 'better' in some capacity but are branded ill because others don't share their view.

If you're talking about someone who is dismissed as "crazy" because they have different ideas or a different set of values, world view, etc., then that's one argument.

Where does it end? Where do you arbitrarily draw the line, who draws it? It's not that simple.

I meant that was a completely different argument. I don't think anyone here would agree that "thinking outside the norm" = "crazy".

qqq

Hyena H_ll]But someone with a diagnosed mental illness like schizophrenia is not some idealist under a bohemian umbrella of radical thought and rebellion. It's not a decision one makes- "Ooh, I think I'm-a toss off the chains of socially accepted thought and action and be schizophrenic! That'll show them squares!"[/quot
I don't see how aspies and schizophrenics then again have that much to do with each other here.

Neither do I. I was using schizophrenia as an example of a serious mental illness; I could have as easily said bipolar, PTSD or OCD.

Without the sarcasm, what I meant is that people suffering from these conditions don't have a choice in the matter. They don't have a choice in what they think. For example, you can know you're thinking something that's wrong, and that your reasoning is completely illogical and irrational, and just watch yourself doing things that you don't want to do like someone else is controlling you. It's like being trapped inside yourself.

It's not as simple as "Oh, this is the way that I am, this is my identity, I'm going to gladly accept myself and my madness and to hell with people who disagree".

qqq
To be honest, I don't believe there is a clear line between schizophrenia and 'sane'

In most of your posts you're a bit all over the place. :/

I think your general line is "what is sane anyway? It's just a arbitrary distinction".

Well being able to function in society is pretty important. People with various disorders find this more difficlt and that can lead to reduced quality of life for them and even personal harm. That's a reality.

It doesn't matter if there's a "clear line" anywhere. If someone has difficulty functioning, a diagnoses of what condition they have will inform people on the best way to treat them and/or help them. Whether they have Asperger's Syndrome , Autism, schizophrenia, Manic Depression or something else, what those have in common are impacts on quality of life and difficulties in greater society- because these persona troubles become social disorders.

ozoneocean

qqq
To be honest, I don't believe there is a clear line between schizophrenia and 'sane'

In most of your posts you're a bit all over the place. :/

I think your general line is "what is sane anyway? It's just a arbitrary distinction".

Well being able to function in society is pretty important. People with various disorders find this more difficlt and that can lead to reduced quality of life for them and even personal harm. That's a reality.

Yap, and how much must one dysfunction in order for it to be over the line? In what society most one function? and so on.

Again, it's too simply thought.

My general line by the way is probably that people like to put continua too much in neat little boxes and types, I praefer to think of people as individuals and not as things that conform to certain types of behaviour or conditions that can be grouped together as if it were mathematics, human beings are so much more complex that each one is its own 'type'.

It doesn't matter if there's a "clear line" anywhere. If someone has difficulty functioning, a diagnoses of what condition they have will inform people on the best way to treat them and/or help them. Whether they have Asperger's Syndrome , Autism, schizophrenia, Manic Depression or something else, what those have in common are impacts on quality of life and difficulties in greater society- because these persona troubles become social disorders.

And there you are wrong, that's assuming that human psychological and medical science is currently at the point of advancement of treating these people. In reality it is not and psychiatry is pretty much in its infancy and is comparable to medical practices of the dark ages, it's working with leaches and generally the theory behind it is incomplete and the human mind is an enigma and no one really knows what they do. To give you an example of the current state of it:

"The World Health Organization conducted two long-term follow-up studies involving more than 2,000 people suffering from schizophrenia in different countries. These studies found patients have much better long-term outcomes in developing countries (India, Colombia and Nigeria) than in developed countries (USA, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Japan, and Russia), despite the fact antipsychotic drugs are typically not widely available in poorer countries, raising questions about the effectiveness of such drug-based treatments."

source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11087016 [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

If schizophrenia could be cured that would be great, but it's a 'war on terror' situation, you can't win, because medical science isn't advanced enough, and what people then do is try the best thing they have, regardless of the best thing being counter-effective. People find it hard to sit still and do nothing about a problem, while in a lot of cases doing nothing is a lesser evil. Evidence suggests that community care opposed to institutionalization and pharmaceutics is for most patients the best option.

qqq
Again, it's too simply thought.

No it's not. If someone is chronically depressed, not even able to get out of their own bed or leave the house, I think that's a pretty good indication that if they don't get help then things will start to get rapidly worse for them and those that know and love them. -_-

qqq
And there you are wrong, that's assuming that human psychological and medical science is currently at the point of advancement of treating these people.

No I'm not, I never said anything of the sort.
Helping and or treating people isn't "magically curing them and making it all better".
There were no magical drugs for my schizophrenic friends. For one certain medication was able to help for a while, but the dosages needed to be continually changed and then different medication tried. He had counselling, a lot of help from friends and family, government medical assistance and the opportunity to have some independence away from his family in special accommodation.

Diagnoses of the condition is why his friends and family were able to help him. Had that not happened he would have suffered his condition alone. When it first manifested he became destructive, delusional, physically hurting family and friends. You're saying there's nothing wrong with that? That he should just have been left to cope? That his family should've just accepted his fate? Let him die in prison or on the street?
I'd hope not.

Another friend wasn't so lucky. Because his problems weren't recognised early he'd had a very, very hard life. But eventually he did get the help he needed. Understanding what was wrong helped him and those around him deal with those issues.
-----------------
-----------------

I don't want to get too adversarial here and turn this into a big argument though -_-

Let's just say that people benefit from help. :)

ozoneocean
No it's not. If someone is chronically depressed, not even able to get out of their own bed or leave the house, I think that's a pretty good indication that if they don't get help then things will start to get rapidly worse for them and those that know and love them. -_-

Nice straw man there.

The point is that between that extreme and a perfectly healthy person is a long and continuous line and at some point you have to jump from 'healthy' to 'disorder' and some one has to decide where that point lines on that continuous line, at some point, feeling only a tiny bit worse, the difference between being an extra ray of sunshine falling through your window is going to lift you from 'healthy' to 'disordered', like I said, it's too simply thought because you only take the extremes into account, extremes are easy, try to find a solution that also takes the grey areae with it. Thinking in black and white is thinking too simply, the world has all shades of grey, or in this case, the whole spectrum of colours really as people can feel bad and good in different ways.

ozoneocean
No I'm not, I never said anything of the sort.
Helping and or treating people isn't "magically curing them and making it all better

There were no magical drugs for my schizophrenic friends. For one certain medication was able to help for a while, but the dosages needed to be continually changed and then different medication tried. He had counselling, a lot of help from friends and family, government medical assistance and the opportunity to have some independence away from his family in special accommodation.

And in fact, as my source indicates, most approaches only worsen.

ozoneocean
Diagnoses of the condition is why his friends and family were able to help him. Had that not happened he would have suffered his condition alone. When it first manifested he became destructive, delusional, physically hurting family and friends. You're saying there's nothing wrong with that? That he should just have been left to cope? That his family should've just accepted his fate? Let him die in prison or on the street?
I'd hope not.

Again, nice straw man there. Any way, on the grounds of diagnoses, I recommend you read on the Rosenhan experiment and hopefully realize that for every one of your friends that is helped. Two people with schizophrenia are maltreated and their conditioned worsened. And then there's the abundance of people that are misdiagnosed and simply cannot get out of institutes. The Rosenhan experiment in a nutshell demonstrated this:

- If you say the wrong things in the first conversation with a psychiatrist you can get a diagnosis of schizophrenia without having it.
- If another psychiatrist, or your parents have told the psychiatrist you have schizophrenia regardless of having it you will also get the illness diagnosed based on the power of suggestion even if you are a completely sane person with no complications.
- The most important part, once a healthy person is institutionalized with a diagnosis of it, it becomes impossible for that person to convince the psychiatrists of being healthy, the only way to get out is to first fake that you believe them, and then fake symptoms and then slowly fake things are going better.

It works nice in theory, especially if you paint it all black and white and think the world is composed of either completely sane people or completely insane and deluded freaks you see in films, in reality, the world is grey and not black and white and there are all kinds of varieties in between, and for those people in the grey area there's ultimately no solution and the system of diagnoses today only worsens. The solution is there but it's more costly, it's called symptom-based treatment.

Let's just say that people benefit from help. :)

That's a nice thing you keep repeating, but you have no sources to back it up. I've posted a variety of references to experiments which show that in general, people don't benefit from the help that can be offered today and it worsens in most cases.

People would benefit from help if it was black and white and you had two kinds of people, the completely sane and the completely insane. But that's not the case, there are all kinds of in-betweens.

Those weren't "straw men", those were real world examples, I'm not speaking in silly theory or philosophy here, I'm talking about real living people in real situations- I find that's a better way to discuss things because it makes what I'm discussing easier to understand in real terms. ;)

I didn't want an argument about this because I don't like to discourage new posters at the forum by being all rude and confrontational (like I tend to be often), but that seems to be the approach you're taking...

Well if you'd prefer to be all Tom Cruisy Mr Scientologist in your ideas then that's your thing and I'm glad to know where you're coming from now. :)
Good day to you triple Q.

ozoneocean
Those weren't "straw men", those were real world examples, I'm not speaking in silly theory or philosophy here, I'm talking about real living people in real situations- I find that's a better way to discuss things because it makes what I'm discussing easier to understand in real terms. ;)

Yes they were. It's a classical straw man, x says some thing like 'I think a lesser punishment to crimes works.' and y says 'What? You're saying that all criminals should just be set free, is that it?', you attack a magnified version of my point, exaggerate what I said and attack that, that's a straw man.

And you only discuss one part of reality, and that's why you think so simply, as I said before, the truth of the matter is that reality isn't that simple that you have two polar extremes of perfectly sane and perfectly insane people. There are shades of grey and you ignore those in your 'real world approach', what's your idea on some one who's 'half depressed'? Where do you draw the line? All sorts of practical complications to your idea.

I didn't want an argument about this because I don't like to discourage new posters at the forum by being all rude and confrontational (like I tend to be often), but that seems to be the approach you're taking...

Oh, I'm sorry if I gave of that impression, but people tend to accuse me of that when I'm hardly emotional, so it's probably a think I carry around me. (People accuse me of looking angry and annoyed if I just walk outside)

Well if you'd prefer to be all Tom Cruisy Mr Scientologist in your ideas then that's your thing and I'm glad to know where you're coming from now. :)

Surely you realize that this is a straw man? I can't remember even having named the concept of Scientology. I'm a hard scientist, I work on the bases of falsifiability and praedicting values. I am part of the antipsychiatry movement because research has never demonstrated that psychiatry is effective and lately more and more researches have been showing that it's in fact counter effective. I'm also part of the antipsychiatry movement because they ruined my life and wouldn't listen to reason.

And again, you have for a couple of post now ignored the simple arguments that I cited reaches which clearly indicate that how psychiatry currently is organised does not work, and that's about all the arguments that are needed.

qqq
Yes they were

I said Good DAY to you sir! >:|
No they were not "straw men" as I said. I'm NOT applying those and magnifying them, QUITE the contrary.
Because:
1. I wasn't having a debate.
2. This whole topic makes more sense if we talk about people, situations, ourselves, and those we know, rather than grand sweeping principles. Though you are perfectly free to do that if you wish, just please don't criticise me in such a silly way if I don't. -_-
Please? :)

---------
If your attitudes are similar to those of Tom Cruise that's hardly my fault. I'm just here to point it out. ^__^

---------
Perhaps you have an aversion to over-medication? People diagnosing and treating everything under the sun? Creating degrees of sanity and normalcy as if they were marks on a compass?
Well I can't disagree with you in that regard. But in terms of people that I've known who have suffered in various ways- loosing jobs, prison time, hospitalisation,- I'm just very glad there was a way to help those people live a life where they didn't have to suffer like that any longer. That's all.

ozoneocean

qqq
Yes they were

I said Good DAY to you sir! >:|
No they were not "straw men" as I said. I'm NOT applying those and magnifying them, QUITE the contrary.
Because:
1. I wasn't having a debate.
2. This whole topic makes more sense if we talk about people, situations, ourselves, and those we know, rather than grand sweeping principles. Though you are perfectly free to do that if you wish, just please don't criticise me in such a silly way if I don't. -_-
Please? :)

Well, my experience with psychiatry have been bad, very bad, I came in 'unmotivated', I got out 'crippled', random trial-and-error trying of medication has resulted into several basic functions of my nervous system being disabled or reduced such as sleep rhythm regulation, sense of passage of time, sense of appetite, that's all gone. On the other inverse the medication has drastically increased my reflexes to the point that they become hard to control and a week doesn't go by for me to work some one in a headlock that approaches too fast before I realize what I'm doing. As you can understand, having no sleep rhythm any more and no real sense of day/night meant I had to stop my studies because I would simply fall asleep at random moments during the day or the night, often in lectures. It also voids any chance I had at a normal job, I've gone from having achieved the highest marks for advanced physics on my exam my school ever had awarded, completed in one year instead of three to some one having to quit his physics studies and working some small jobs in graphics at home in a couple of years after psychiatry came into my life because the university offered a special course for people with mental problems that could get counselling, some thing I should have never opted for as they then wouldn't even be aware of my existence and I would still be going strong.

And in that institute all the patients just took the medication to get the psychiatrists off their back and faked that they worked to secure a release, it was only known under the patients, not the psychiatrists or their relatives. I was a bit hard to not know. And every one there felt completely misunderstood when their relatives said they were doing better, because they weren't, by far not. But people see what they want to see so I'd urge you to be cautious in that. None of those really told their relatives they weren't doing better as they then got sent back to the institutes again.

I also have some friends from those programmes, mental illness boards and just random people in my vicinity who have experiences with psychiatry and clinical psychology and they all say the same, it only worsens but every one around them seems to think they improve for some reason while they don't. It's really like: Psychiatrist says patient should go out more. Patient does so and psychiatrist and family conclude that the patient is doing better regardless of that the patient doesn't like this new change of going out more forced and doesn't like 'going out more', it mostly happens similar to this, at least in my neighbourhood.

If your attitudes are similar to those of Tom Cruise that's hardly my fault. I'm just here to point it out. ^__^

A cat is a dog because both aren't elephants? That both I and Tom Cruise are against psychiatry has no implication for a similar mindset of any sort, we criticize it on completely different bases namely. He criticizes it on.. no idea really, he never has any argument. I criticize it because it's an unproven form of quackery that's on the level of faith healing scientifically speaking. It's just not proven to be be effective and offers no scientifically solid theory on exactly how it approaches the situation.

Perhaps you have an aversion to over-medication? People diagnosing and treating everything under the sun? Creating degrees of sanity and normalcy as if they were marks on a compass?
Well I can't disagree with you in that regard. But in terms of people that I've known who have suffered in various ways- loosing jobs, prison time, hospitalisation,- I'm just very glad there was a way to help those people live a life where they didn't have to suffer like that any longer. That's all.

Now you're speaking my language. I indeed have an aversion to over medication, especially because the side effects are quite severe and in a lot of cases permanent. I'm personally either for symptom-based psychiatry (psychiatry that does not make diagnoses but rather helps you with individual things you find troubling in your life) or community care. Because those have been shown to be more effective.

Psychiatry is currently in its infancy as a science, just 40 years back they thought that autism was caused by too successful parents. I'm not saying that psychiatry is a fundamentally flawed concept, I'm just saying it's currently in its infancy and doing more harm than good ultimately. It's the equivalent of working with leeches at this point.

It depends on what you call "mental illness".

To me, creativity is a product of a spiritual connection to that which cannot be accessed by any of our 5 senses.

Its hard to explain. I don't have all the answers.

But all I say is this.

When I write the script of my comics, my mind shifts into a state of hypnosis.

Creativity can be trained actually. One does not need to have mental illness to obtain creativity.

Inspirations and imaginations are usually the best source for creativity.

Eunice P
Creativity can be trained actually. One does not need to have mental illness to obtain creativity.

Inspirations and imaginations are usually the best source for creativity.

Though, it's often said that the line between artistry and craftsmanship is that the latter can be trained.

Having a feeling for composing is an artistic skill, playing the piano is craftsmanship and indeed, a lot of parts of composition are craftsmanship as well, like memorizing notes, tones and learning about chords and structure.

Well, if you consider things like low self-esteem insomnia and chronic depression mental illnesses then I'm mentally ill too. These actually are things that I've been diagnosed with and have sought treatment for.
One thing that I've noticed about living like that unmedicated is that you're always feeling bad and embarrassed about everything you do or say. That might sound awful but one thing I have noticed is that if you're always feeling embarrassed you're not as afraid of it as most people so you end up taking more creative risks that sometimes pay off. Low self esteem, and the whole "I'm not good enough" mindset has made me want to improve so I keep trying harder and trying to improve. It's kind of a self-destructive approach I'll admit.
Not being able to sleep has lead me to try to find things to occupy my mind with, reading, drawing and such. There was one phase in my life that I was into baking because I couldn't sleep. I'm not sure if that's made me more "creative" per-se but it's made me take up creative pursuits and driven me to practice more.

Well, I'm quite sane, sleep like a log, and haven't had one of those memoir-worthy exciting/depressing lives... but nonetheless I have always had a sickening need to create. Always! And it's never going away! And I don't need any medicine for it (although some things help keep me energetic)! I'm like a bipolar person who's always on manic!! (I sometimes get a little depressed, but even that is nice and cathartic and lasts from a few hours to a day or two.) Whenever I don't feel like working on my comic, it's generally because I'm doing something else that's creative. My only problem is that I am horrifyingly lazy, but hey, I can do art in bed!

I'm crazy-- about art!! gah hahaha.

And about the brain-tumor lady: at first it seemed desperate and pathetic, like a way to cling to fame by vocally and publically choosing to keep a brain tumor, but on further contemplation, I think it's daring and beautiful. If she's happier with her tumor, let her keep it!!! Although her art's not THAT great that it's worth dying for.

Most of the time I'm in a good or neutral mood. I draw/write/play piano because it entertains me and I just like the feeling. I might not be a great artist and I might just draw generic animoo but that doesn't bother me. I can't imagine getting depressed and staying that way for a long period of time and I don't ever want to do drugs or take medication. Somehow I really enjoy this fake depression I get when I watch sad movies, characters I love get killed off in books or I listen to really emo music. That I do not understand and think it's a bit weird 0.0

Although, I seem to draw at my best in a state of mental exhaustion. When I can't think and I really need to sleep things just come out better and it's a pretty inspirational state to be in.


Oh, I think the tumour lady is being a bit stupid >_>

Considering that I started out with a violent anti-social behavior when I was in Junior and Senior High, I've gotten over a large part of the issues I used to have. I do know that no matter how hard you try, you can never get rid of them entirely, but that for me, having a diagnosis and some forms of therapy helped me work my way towards a baseline instead of being angry and aggressive all the time. In my case, therapy with a doctor was unhelpful because I never felt comfortable enough to tell them anything, but being able to talk to friends and family about what was going on with helped a lot. Art was also a major factor for me since feeling like I had something I was good at gave me confidence. All of that were things the therapists told me to try because they thought meds would probably make my problems worse ( ie; weight gain and other stuff like that damaging self-image. ). So, I would hardly be one to dismiss psychiatry as all BS. But, what I'm really attempting to get at here, is that it depends on the individual as to whether not you need to be on the meds and whether or not you think it's a good idea. In the end, it's really in your own hands when it comes to mental health.