Michael K Gray wrote:You made the very, very clear claim, in clear and unambiguous terms, that scientist are pathological nutjobs.
Some are; I gave examples which I will repeat below; I don't think anyone would really contest them. Most aren't, at least not the extent that you think people are trying to assassinate you, but see below for clarification. Scientific creativity, as well as other forms of creativity, are in any case associated with a certain measure of psychopathological traits. I stand by that; I'm not backing down from that claim; I'm not changing it; and I have no reason to do so, because there's quite a lot of research to that effect—not all of it is any good, but quite a bit is:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psy ... creativity
Michael K Gray wrote:Don't try and squirm out of it now that you have been sprung.
No "trap"; you just can't read.
Michael K Gray wrote:gooby wrote:Psychometric tests for schizotypy for example don't give you a yes or no response, they put you on a statistical distribution. Some people have a lot of these traits, some people have virtually none. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Some people have just enough that they are actually useful (see below).
What a load of gobbledegook Deepak Chopra garbage!
A spectrum of pure bullshit.
An "out" for all seasons.
You cannot lose with such a loose definition.
I'm not going to stand for such chicanery.
http://www.nelft.nhs.uk/_documentbank/o ... scales.pdf
The Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences (O-LIFE) is an instrument based on analysis of what is probably the largest single dataset of schizotypal measures (Claridge et al., 1996). It contains four sub-scales called 'Unusual Experiences', 'Cognitive Disorganisation', 'Introvertive Anhedonia' and 'Impulsive Nonconformity'. Since its introduction, the O-LIFE has enjoyed wide currency. Early work established its high internal consistency (Mason et al., 1995) and test–retest reliability (Burch et al., 1998). It has also been used in a variety of studies across many research domains, firmly establishing its construct validity as a genuine measure of schizotypal traits. Laboratory investigations have demonstrated predictable effects in relation to neuropsychological function (e.g. Avons et al., 2003); on several perceptual and attentional paradigms (e.g. Steel et al., 2002); in psychophysiological responding (e.g. Mason et al., 1997a); on reasoning tasks (e.g. Sellen et al., 2005) and in learning, notably on measures of 'latent inhibition' (e.g. Moran et al., 2003). Differences have also been found in hemispheric function: for language task performance (Nunn and Peters, 2001), face processing (Mason and Claridge, 1999), and handedness (Shaw et al., 2001). With clinical relevance, the O-LIFE has been used successfully to investigate schizotypy in relation to such topics as dissociative experience and childhood abuse (Startup, 1999) and paranormal beliefs and experiences as a function of mental health (Goulding, 2004).
and:
http://i.imgur.com/Qv95M.png
Soooo ... submitting a psychometric to rigorous empirical testing and quantifying what it means is "psychobabble" and a (presumably Gaussian) distribution of the traits measured is in Deepak Chopra territory.
Can you expand upon this a bit?
Michael K Gray wrote:
gooby wrote:N.b. there are some advantages to having these traits.
Which "traits"?
Psychopathology, schizotypy, mentally ill (but not "full blown"), or some other philosophico-psychobabble word?
I have the divergent thinking that attends schizotypy in mind, whose potential is borne about by a good many things, like say, the study I mentioned a few posts ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10154775
Some of the world's leading artists, writers and theorists have also had mental illnesses - the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh and American mathematician John Nash (portrayed by Russell Crowe in the film A Beautiful Mind) to name just two.
Creativity is known to be associated with an increased risk of depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Similarly, people who have mental illness in their family have a higher chance of being creative.
Associate Professor Fredrik Ullen believes his findings could help explain why.
He looked at the brain's dopamine (D2) receptor genes which experts believe govern divergent thought.
He found highly creative people who did well on tests of divergent thought had a lower than expected density of D2 receptors in the thalamus - as do people with schizophrenia.
The thalamus serves as a relay centre, filtering information before it reaches areas of the cortex, which is responsible, amongst other things, for cognition and reasoning.
"Fewer D2 receptors in the thalamus probably means a lower degree of signal filtering, and thus a higher flow of information from the thalamus," said Professor Ullen.
He believes it is this barrage of uncensored information that ignites the creative spark.
This would explain how highly creative people manage to see unusual connections in problem-solving situations that other people miss.
Even measured and interpreted at the biological level, I'm guessing this is still gonna be new age voodoo for you.
Michael K Gray wrote:
Define "normal", please. Do you mean neurotypical, or the average female citizen in rural China?
If you mean Aperger's Syndrome, then I am forced to agree, but you might have clearly outlined that from the outset, rather than shotgunned the entire spectrum from completely sane to the utterly Mabus by which to make your point.
So you believe the pop-psychology about how "every scientist ever had Asperger's because they were weird" but you don't take stock in more rigorous psychological work, upheld with responsible application of statistical methodology, chucking it in the same drawer as chakras and crystal healing.
Wonder of wonders...
Michael K Gray wrote:Well, YES: it IS IN QUESTION, as I was asking that exact fucking question!!
Then why are you asking that question? A number of scientists and mathematicians were pretty clear-cut certifiable. Nash, who I just mentioned (several times actually), believed at one point that he was the "emperor of Antarctica" and that he was depicted as Pope John XXIII on the cover of LIFE Magazine. Is that not crazy?
Michael K Gray wrote:Are you Oolon in disguise?
Do you have an extra chromosome?
Michael K Gray wrote:I strongly question the "fare share of" adjectival projunct¹ to your bold assertion.
Rates of psychopatholological traits above those seen in the general population.
This from
The Dark Side of Creativity for instance:
Take the positive association between high-level creativity and psychoticism (Eysenck, 1995): People who score high on psychoticism are not just more creative than the norm but also more aggressive, cold, unempathetic, antisocial, impulsive, impersonal, egocentric, and tough-minded; even worse, they often engage in more “overinclusive†or “allusive†thinking that at times can border on the weird. Even scientists, who are supposedly the least pathologic of creators, are far from representing exemplars of goodness. On the contrary, highly eminent scientists tend to be (a) withdrawn, skeptical, internally preoccupied, precise, and critical as well as (b) introspective, restrained, brooding, and solemn of manner (Cattell, 1963).
Michael K Gray wrote:More fucking passive tense.
"Passive voice" and there's nothing wrong with using it.
Michael K Gray wrote:But your passive assertion is without the foundation of evidence, nor examples.
I already gave you FOUR in the field of mathematics: Cantor, Gödel, Nash and Russell (OK he was kind of borderline, but there are quite a few others—Norbert Wiener for example displayed pretty clearly defined manic-depressive characteristics).
Michael K Gray wrote:It stands as a mere assertion. Resting on the very shaky pedestal of your unproven personal authority.
It stands because I just gave you a bunch of examples which you have somehow managed to overlook and will in all likelihood overlook again.
Michael K Gray wrote:Which, given that you choose to remain entirely anonymous amongst the bazzillion humans on this planet, and that I am a singularly identifiable individual ape, renders your erstwhile claim to authority as (as a first approximation) nil.
Oh great,
ad hominem.
I'm wrong because I choose to preserve my anonymity.
Michael K Gray wrote:Whilst I, with my Aspergery-sense, can see that remark as sarcasm, it has the ring of truth to it.
Yes, using abductive inference to assist medical personnel is wank. Utter wank. Check and mate. You win.
Michael K Gray wrote:The day that I take advice from an entirely anonymous internet poster
See above.
Honestly for the purposes of this discussion I could be a high school dropout and you'd still have your head deep, deep up your ass.
If you're gonna portray yourself as a "true skeptic" then you need to stop pretending that who a person is has any relevance to the truth value of their claims.