6 ms·

I've always thought about mental illness in this context - we define it as illness because of negative consequences, but it's really just the deviation from a n

I've always thought about mental illness in this context - we define it as illness because of negative consequences, but it's really just the deviation from a norm. I think Elon Musk is the best example of this - even ignoring some of his childish Twitter behavior, the guy's brain is waaaaaaaaay far off from the normal human brain. He thought he could start an electric car company from scratch and be successful. That's... crazy. And yet, because he's been successful at it, we don't label him as mentally ill. The really interesting cases are people like artists - David Foster Wallace committed suicide because of his depression, but only after creating one of the great works of American literature. We label him as mentally ill for his depression, but we don't really have a label for the positive side of the fact that his brain was far from an average brain.

blueprint 6y ago
I would suggest a meaningful interpretation of the word normal is kind of like 'a reliably orthogonal measurement of the thing being reacted to'.
TylerE 6y ago
> He thought he could start an electric car company from scratch Except he didn't. He invested in one that was already started with several employees, and had himself given founder status by fiat as part of the deal.
- markdown 6y ago
  At what point do you consider a company founded? At the moment the business is registered by the local government?
  - TylerE 6y ago
    Well, when 3 guys start it and work on it for a long time, incorporate for a year, have an office and employees, and then a VC comes in, the VC definitely did not "found it", no matter when you define the actual date. https://web.archive.org/web/20150228163500/http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-the-origin-story-2014-10 https://web.archive.org/web/20150228163500/http://www.busine...
  - Talanes 6y ago
    Regardless of how elastic you can get with the term "founded," the actual assertion of "founded from scratch" is much more specific.
dontcarethrow2 6y ago
From what I have heard, Musk bought the electric car company and not built it with his bare hands in his garage in college. But to your point, everyone is on the spectrum sure.
coldtea 6y ago
>I think Elon Musk is the best example of this - even ignoring some of his childish Twitter behavior, the guy's brain is waaaaaaaaay far off from the normal human brain. He thought he could start an electric car company from scratch and be successful. That's... crazy. Tons of people have started successful mega-companies from scratch. What's crazy, as opposed to ambitious and with slim chances of success due to practical reasons, about it?
mercer 6y ago
> David Foster Wallace committed suicide because of his depression, but only after creating one of the great works of American literature. We label him as mentally ill for his depression, but we don't really have a label for the positive side of the fact that his brain was far from an average brain. I'm a huge DFW fan, but I'd hesitate to use him as an example, for various reasons. First off, from what I understand he stabilized on particular meds but then quit them because he felt he'd be more creative without. Instead of being more creative, he slid back into depression and the medication didn't work anymore (apparently that's a thing? I'm not too familiar with anti-depressants). While I won't make any judgment as an outsider, it's not unreasonable to argue that he made a really bad gamble. It's quite possible that the it wasn't the medication that kept him from producing his next great work, but rather just the difficulty of what he was trying to do after Infinite Jest. Reading about it, it reminded me of various artists who 'jumped off the wagon' to return to previous glory, only to rediscover what being off the wagon really meant. Furthermore, his struggles with depression and suicidal ideation, as well as drawing his self-worth from his work seemed to be a running thread in his life. That said, his brain clearly wasn't average and I'm sure it played a positive role in his work. I'm just arguing against the common 'trope' that to do his work he had to be 'mentally ill'. I don't know either way, I just hold hope that these two don't need to be mutually exclusive.

blueprint 6y ago

I would suggest a meaningful interpretation of the word normal is kind of like 'a reliably orthogonal measurement of the thing being reacted to'.

TylerE 6y ago

> He thought he could start an electric car company from scratch Except he didn't. He invested in one that was already started with several employees, and had himself given founder status by fiat as part of the deal.

markdown 6y ago
At what point do you consider a company founded? At the moment the business is registered by the local government?
- TylerE 6y ago
  Well, when 3 guys start it and work on it for a long time, incorporate for a year, have an office and employees, and then a VC comes in, the VC definitely did not "found it", no matter when you define the actual date. https://web.archive.org/web/20150228163500/http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-the-origin-story-2014-10 https://web.archive.org/web/20150228163500/http://www.busine...
- Talanes 6y ago
  Regardless of how elastic you can get with the term "founded," the actual assertion of "founded from scratch" is much more specific.

dontcarethrow2 6y ago

From what I have heard, Musk bought the electric car company and not built it with his bare hands in his garage in college. But to your point, everyone is on the spectrum sure.

coldtea 6y ago

>I think Elon Musk is the best example of this - even ignoring some of his childish Twitter behavior, the guy's brain is waaaaaaaaay far off from the normal human brain. He thought he could start an electric car company from scratch and be successful. That's... crazy. Tons of people have started successful mega-companies from scratch. What's crazy, as opposed to ambitious and with slim chances of success due to practical reasons, about it?

mercer 6y ago

> David Foster Wallace committed suicide because of his depression, but only after creating one of the great works of American literature. We label him as mentally ill for his depression, but we don't really have a label for the positive side of the fact that his brain was far from an average brain. I'm a huge DFW fan, but I'd hesitate to use him as an example, for various reasons. First off, from what I understand he stabilized on particular meds but then quit them because he felt he'd be more creative without. Instead of being more creative, he slid back into depression and the medication didn't work anymore (apparently that's a thing? I'm not too familiar with anti-depressants). While I won't make any judgment as an outsider, it's not unreasonable to argue that he made a really bad gamble. It's quite possible that the it wasn't the medication that kept him from producing his next great work, but rather just the difficulty of what he was trying to do after Infinite Jest. Reading about it, it reminded me of various artists who 'jumped off the wagon' to return to previous glory, only to rediscover what being off the wagon really meant. Furthermore, his struggles with depression and suicidal ideation, as well as drawing his self-worth from his work seemed to be a running thread in his life. That said, his brain clearly wasn't average and I'm sure it played a positive role in his work. I'm just arguing against the common 'trope' that to do his work he had to be 'mentally ill'. I don't know either way, I just hold hope that these two don't need to be mutually exclusive.