No, honest, I'm not losing my mind!
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
So after that last wingnut post, I've gotten reactions from friends ranging from, "What were you on?!" to "Are you OK?", and I figured a bit further explanation might be in order … I started writing this in a private email, but I figured it might do well here. And no, I'm not going to get more personal, I'm going to get much less personal, because that seems to work best for me. ;-)
Everyone seemed to not quite know what to make of the whole "schizotypal" thing, and so I'd just like to make it clear that I wasn't trying to come out of the closet as a crazy person (I've already done that elsewhere in the past. And I'm much better now, thank you. ;-) … the article mentioned in my previous post about the cognitive similarities between "creative" people and schizotypal personality types just got me thinking…
My basic theory of psychology is this: Psychology is not a science, but enough people display consistently similar enough traits, and react significantly similarly to various ways of dealing with those traits, they can be effectively grouped together for the purpose of dealing with one or another specific troublesome issue. That said, there is enough variance in human personality, experience and tolerance to both, it would be almost impossible to find anyone who fits entirely and perfectly into any of the APA's offically approved groups (aka diagnoses).
I actually got the link to one of the articles I mentioned in my last post from a site written by a woman diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, who makes a very convincing argument that BPD is a coping mechanism for exactly the sort of "over sensitive" personality type discussed in the article about creative people having lowered latent inhibition. I find it quite plausible that all non-organic (and even some organic) mental "disorders" are nothing more than that: maladaptive coping mechanisms, and varying personality types tend towards different coping mechanisms.
The biggest failing of psychology is assuming there is a standard of "normal" to which everyone ought to aspire, and refusing to deal with the fact that in life's big multiple choice test of sanity, "none of the above" and "some or all of the above" are just as common (and therefore "normal") as picking the "right" answer.
It's easy to find people with tendencies reminiscent of various mental illnesses who simply never "crack," or who just aren't extreme enough to come across as fully "nuts" … hence my liberal use of the word "weirdo" in my last post. The difference between a crazy person and a weirdo is quite simple: The crazy person's coping mechanisms have gone beyond the level of helping them cope, and are instead severely interfering with their ability to live a productive life (note I did not say a "normal" life … one does NOT have to be "normal" to be productive, happy or emotionally healthy, IMNSHO).
So anyhow, my hunch is that the schizotypal personality "type" (as opposed to the full "disorder") mentioned in the article, is just that: There are different personality types, and everyone reacts differently to life stresses (not too many clinically diagnosed people grew up in what one would call idyllic families). While the article drew parallels between schizotypal "types" and "creative" types, they didn't say they were all one in the same. I'm sure a lot of "creative" people tend more towards mood disorders, or a borderline personality type, or some combination of more than one personality type/disorder, and they're probably all related to coping with a world that's just a bit too much to handle with an impaired ability to filter out the bullshit and irrelevant noise.
And besides all that, having an off-kilter personality "type" is far from the same as being clinically diagnosable. How fucking boring would the world be if we were all Brady Bunch normal, "well-adjusted" clones? I'd say I'd kill myself, but I supposed I'd be too normal to think there was a problem.
I did not think you were "coming out of the closet as mentally ill." I could totally relate to what you were saying. I have a hard time screening out background noise. I can't stand to have the dryer on and try to talk on the phone at the same time. Or have music on and talk to someone. Living in the city and having the constant sound of traffic drives me nuts. Plus, after working all day around people, all I want to do is come home and be by myself (with my dog). Sometimes I feel like going out with friends. But, I'm never lonely. I love being by myself and having silence.
23rd November 2008 at 2:31 pm | permalink |Whenever I come across a post like this — or a person speaking things like this — I prescribe three books.
The Outsider by Colin Wilson
Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament by Kay Redfield Jamison
The Price of Greatness: Resolving the Creativity and Madness Controversy by Arnold M. Ludwig
Read them, find yourself in them, and be at peace.
23rd November 2008 at 2:44 pm | permalink |As an artist who works in technology - I have a degree in fine arts and yet I work as a System Administrator/Consultant in the IT industry - and also a person who suffers from depression, I'm the first to agree that artists are different from the "norm". We experience life in a more intense manor than the normals do. I doubt it's an illness, we can just get stuck looking at shadows on a wall for minutes (which can become costly during a lunchhour) and get lost in the songs of birds and passing clouds. It's the nature of the artist. We are more involved in the mundane because we perceive nothing as mundane.
What most artists suffer from is discernment and mostly a bad case of introversion and that's not the problem, the problem is that most of the world is packed with extroverts. We introverts are a minority that are perceived as living with problems by the mainstream extroverts. Introversion is seen as a social disease by the attention whoring extroverts who would implode if they went more than 2 minutes without social validation. They meet us who don't give a flying fuck about their opinion or their attention and suddenly we are heretics. Because we live an inward live motivated by creative growth and intellectual pursuits rather than self-love and social-addiction.
So please tell me who's the mad insane nutjobs?
23rd November 2008 at 3:04 pm | permalink |Well there are types of mental illness that are purely biological in nature, they are definitely physical defects in the brain. They've mapped this. So I don't think you can say all mental illness is maladapted coping mechanisms. Some surely is, but I don't think all would be.
23rd November 2008 at 5:06 pm | permalink |"Introversion is seen as a social disease by the attention whoring extroverts who would implode if they went more than 2 minutes without social validation."
I absolutely loved that sentence!
23rd November 2008 at 5:10 pm | permalink |@Larry ALL mental illnesses are biological. Your thoughts are biological. Your coping mechanisms are biological. Just like a broken bone, a coping mechanism or thinking habits can be reset.
@akshelby thanks :)
23rd November 2008 at 5:21 pm | permalink |@akshelby: Well, I figured some people would totally "get it" … but whenever you bring up mental illness, or when I start sounding even mildly sentimental, a lot of people just take it wrong. ;-)
@Mike Cane: I personally have been quite "OK" with the whole "weirdo" deal for quite some time now. Doesn't mean it doesn't still get irritating some times, but that's life, no? :-)
@DAVE ID: To add to the reading list for the post, The Introvert Advantage is a great one on that subject. Apparently studies show that introverts actually have a different dominant neurotransmitter pathway than extroverts.
@Larry: I didn't say all mental illness was a maladaptive coping mechanism, but studies have also shown that biofeedback techniques can affect brain chemistry, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which is one of the most effective ways of dealing with a lot of emotional and personality disorders, is essentially "fake it 'till you make it," refined. What you practice reinforces the neurological pathways involved (emotional habits, physical skills, etc.), and so you force yourself to practice healthier behaviors and thought patterns to help develop new stronger neural pathways to "compete" with the unhealthy ones … which in turn affects brain chemistry, etc.
It's all far too complex to really ever say "A led to B which causes C," unless there's a brain lesion, tumor or head injury involved, but knowing that A can effect B, and help influence D which is causing one to end up at E instead of C … you see where I'm going. ;-)
23rd November 2008 at 7:13 pm | permalink |@Alphabitch. Definitely added to my must read list. And if I've never mentioned it before, Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto which is a brilliant look at loners. Loners not being insane kooks, but just the introvert described in the book you mentioned. Also a must read.
23rd November 2008 at 8:23 pm | permalink |I definitely need to read the books mentioned. One thing that people, including my current girlfriend when she first met me, have tried to label me with is "depressed because you spend so much time alone and don't go out." (Luckily, she's a workaholic) I guess being social and constantly being around others is how people judge others happiness. I constantly have to say that I'm quite happy despite preferring to read rather than "going out." It's odd how society judges happiness.
24th November 2008 at 12:02 am | permalink |I'm still in high school, and i'm seriously wondering what you guys studied in college or is this discussion a result of just reading literature on psychology?
Also, I guess i'm kinda the opposite of a lot of you (me assuming), because apparently I am the definition of normal says my friends…except i smile to much. And why the hell do less social people act self-righteous when the topic is on "normal"? How do they get away with using normal to describe others and yet denying that there is any such thing as normal?
I also have a question, why do you think people are satisfied with remaining ignorant? I mean people that have no intention of ever reading or educating themselves and are in fact proud of it. Basically the people that see themselves getting drunk every night and passing out.
24th November 2008 at 2:11 am | permalink |@alpha
"I find it quite plausible that all non-organic (and even some organic) mental "disorders" are nothing more than that: maladaptive coping mechanisms, and varying personality types tend towards different coping mechanisms."
This is an interesting area, however I think it is a little more complex than that - in many cases they may actually be exceptionally good coping mechanisms, developed due to different interpretations of incoming stimuli.
(more later - I've got to go out.)
Also loved this sentence:
Introversion is seen as a social disease by the attention whoring extroverts who would implode if they went more than 2 minutes without social validation.
@morgan - I studied maths, but ended up sharing a house with a couple of psychology students. My interest is more preactical though, I want understand myself and other people better.
In answer to your question, I think it is because they don't need to become more educated in order to survive, learning and self improvement are quite low in the order of needs.
24th November 2008 at 12:13 pm | permalink |@DAVE ID: ARGH!!! I swear, I'm going to be 90 before I finish my "to read" list! hahaha
@akshelby: Given that most people are extroverts, and most people aren't terribly intuitive about other people, it makes sense that most people would assume that what makes them happy must be what makes everyone else happy? That said, it is annoying as fuck. hehe … I remember in high school other kids would stick their faces in mine and say "SMIIIILE!" to me when we passed in the hall. It's not like I was frowning or crying, I'd just have a blank look on my face, and not be walking along with a giggling herd of other people.
@morgan: I started college as a psychology major, but decided I didn't want to spend my life dealing with other people's problems, so I ended up studying Political Science (because I wanted to be a political cartoonist). Only took two psych classes before I changed majors though, so I didn't learn much about it in school. ;-) Mostly just reading things out of personal interest.
As for "normal"? I put the word in quotes for a reason most of the time, because it can be used so many different ways: There's "normal" as in "most common" or "average". There's "normal" as in "following social convention at all times" (which is usually the one people are making fun of, I think). There's "normal" in the psychological sense, which simply means you're not crazy and there's nothing unusual about you otherwise. "Normal" in the medical sense is pretty much the same, except substitute "healthy" for "crazy" … and so on and so forth.
Now, why would introverts get snotty about "normal" people? Generally because we were/are picked on, marginalized and/or treated badly by "normal" people in school, at home, at work, or wherever else, and we get a little bitter about it after a while. ;-)
And as for willfully, proudly ignorant people? When you know things, you have the awareness and ability to do something about them … knowledge is power, as they say, and with power comes responsibility. People have differing levels of interest in/aptitude for responsibility, and I imagine that sort of person doesn't want to be responsible for anything.
24th November 2008 at 3:39 pm | permalink |@ian: in many cases they may actually be exceptionally good coping mechanisms, developed due to different interpretations of incoming stimuli.
24th November 2008 at 3:42 pm | permalink |Well, the only reason I would say "maladaptive" is because I'm going with the definition of "mentally ill" as a state of mind that interferes with your ability to survive. I can't see that there's anything "exceptionally good" about a coping mechanism that impairs your day to day ability to function.
@ ian and alpha
first off, thank you. I interpret their actions similarly, I however am less articulate and refer to them primarily as "racist, redneck-asshole, non-contributing wastes of space"…i like your way better. (by the way, the people i was previously discussing are the same people who rant and rave about the black president… muslim… terrorists… country going to shit…taxes…and ultimately lead to the conclusion that his death is imminent)
this is the reason i don't think i can go to a college in the south. correct me if am wrong please, and I am not saying that everyone in the south is a racist, but it does seem to be an overwhelming majority.
24th November 2008 at 4:25 pm | permalink |"I can't see that there's anything "exceptionally good" about a coping mechanism that impairs your day to day ability to function."
That all depends on the individual, no there is nothing exceptionally good about a coping mechanism that impairs day to day ability to function, but if that coping mechanism *is* what allows you to function day to day, even if in a way that others interpret as different then surely that has to be a good thing.
@morgan
I live in the south and it is considerably more liberal and tolerant than the north :)
(on the other hand I do live in the UK)
24th November 2008 at 4:38 pm | permalink |My two cents:
1) Psychology is a science, although it has a different epistemic standing than natural sciences. Unfortunately, like all social sciences, you have to sift through the bullshit.
2) Creativity (and brilliance) depend on one's ability to step outside cultural norms and common assumptions, i.e., to break group-think. It is easier to break group-think when your mind is a little different than most people's minds in the first place.
24th November 2008 at 6:03 pm | permalink |"I remember in high school other kids would stick their faces in mine and say "SMIIIILE!" to me when we passed in the hall."
Well, fuck did that sentence bring back memories. I'm sorry that I'm thinking and observing rather being than a lobotomized zombie with a smile plastered to my face. That got 150% worse when I went off to a fundy college. *shudder*
24th November 2008 at 11:38 pm | permalink |Sanity is overrated
24th November 2008 at 11:43 pm | permalink |@morgan: "Oxygen-thieving, braindead fuckwit rednecks" works pretty well too. ;-) And while I never have spent much time in the southern US, I understand there are a couple fairly liberal cities I've heard of. Austin, TX and New Orleans spring to mind … other than that, yeah, there's a high school in, I want to say Mississippi?, that just had it's first EVER interracial senior prom last spring. ;-)
@ian: Well, if your day to day functioning is good enough that you can take care of yourself and live a relatively happy life, great. Fuck different. If your coping mechanisms leave you miserable, or more isolated than you would like, or unable to take care of your basic financial needs, I'd say something needs to be dealt with.
@Kavan: 1) I have a problem calling something a "science" when someone like Sigmund Freud can inflict his personal obsessive sexual hangups on society and the psychological profession to the extent and duration that he did, with fuckall to back it up. Penis envy my fucking ass.
2) Agreed. :-)
@akshelby: *high five*
@grizzlybear: I forget what clothing company it was, but I saw a blue jeans ad once that read "sanity is the playground of the unimaginative". hehehe
25th November 2008 at 2:06 pm | permalink |@Kavan
2) totally agreed - love the term "break group-think" - I would say that there often has to be a reason to end up breaking the group think mentality, which is often because you have ended up marginalised in one way or another.
The counter to this is that in that situation you have to be very careful not to become involved in a 'group-think' of the marginalised community that you have associated yourself with. (a crime that you could associate with many of the 60's counter-culture icons)
1st December 2008 at 6:09 pm | permalink |"Well, if your day to day functioning is good enough that you can take care of yourself and live a relatively happy life, great. Fuck different. If your coping mechanisms leave you miserable, or more isolated than you would like, or unable to take care of your basic financial needs, I'd say something needs to be dealt with."
Agree - you need to enjoy your life whatever you make of it - if you feel miserable or isolated and are uncomfortable with it, then do something that will change your situation.
However if you are isolated and are comfortable being isolated you have noothing to worry about. — that wasn't quite what i wanted to get over to people, it is more a case of be what you are comfortable with, if you have the strength to carry it off (and not be brought back to their pack mentality) then others will respect you for it. (On the other hand if you do get swayed back into the pack mentality fold then you will invariably have a low status within that pack - as the pack is merciless in its imposition of the pecking order.)
–Hmm interesting that last thought!!
1st December 2008 at 6:23 pm | permalink |@alpha,
I agree that Freud was certainly not a scientist. However, many psychologists of today are scientists and reject Freud's theories as untestable. Freud died before the debate about testability as a criterion for meaning had time to take hold outside of philosophy. Modern psychological research, such as the studies debunking the theory of rationality, are no more flakey than other social scientific theories, IMO.
2nd December 2008 at 5:38 pm | permalink |