posted
Today I was thinking over my son's interactions with his friends and cousins, and marveling at the way society is formed among children. I then began to think about some of my own childhood friend, adolescent friends, and adult friends, and that just led on and on... until a through struck me.
So often when someone does something terrible as an adult, it is found that the person suffers from some type of mental illness or emotional disturbance. It is also typical that they will have had some sort of disturbed childhood. In fact, in many cases of adult emotional instability, even those that don't result in some horrid crime, childhood trauma is identified as a contributing factor.
Yet, when brilliant adults, geniuses, suffer from mental illness it seems that their genius is always to blame. People say things like, "Well, of course they're going to be screwed up and weird, it's all because their brain doesn't work normally". Some even seem to take the, "it serves them right" attitude. It's as if the intelligence of the person is some type of crime they've committed for which their mental illness is the punishment. In a few instances people even go so far as to claim that the ONLY reason a person has such extreme intelligence is BECAUSE they are mentally ill, and thus not required to live in reality. While I've occasionally been a little annoyed at the malice behind some of these viewpoints, I've never really considered it seriously before. My own experience had shown me that high levels of intelligence did seem to correspond with an increased likelihood of emotional instability. I took it for granted that the two went hand in hand because of the way the brain is wired... and maybe they do.
But today, I thought about it a different way. If, in people of average to low intelligence, childhood events and trauma can cause or exacerbate a mental illness, then can't that be the same for people of higher intelligence? I was specifically thinking about the "special ed" label in the school system, and the stigma it used to carry - and apparently still does for some people. I was thinking about the fact it is silly, since special ed is really a bonus for kids and parents, allowing them to demand more individualized service from the schools - and thus more resources from society in general. I then thought about how silly it was that to qualify for such services typically requires a student to be "below average" in some area or another. "Gifted" students receive no where near the types of individualized plans that "special ed" allows students to receive. Since technically "special ed" states that it is there to allow students to reach their full potential when the typical system is not achieving that - shouldn't it apply to gifted students? Of course, that is a train of thought I've had before, and so have many others. Yet, the school system seems determined to waste potential in some of our brightest students, so what can we do about it?
Instead of going around in circles on that train of though, which I often do for hours, another thought struck me. What types of potential, exactly, is being wasted in those students because they are NOT being given enough individualized attention. While I do not claim to be a genius, I thought back to own school days and the hardships I encountered even by my own mere "giftedness". I absolutely felt isolated and weird almost from day 1. While at first pleasing adults by being bright was fun, soon it was not their admiration I craved. Yet, I could not really understand the world of my classmates. The things I thought about and cared about were often quite different than the things they thought about and cared about. Oh, I'm not saying I didn't care about ANY of the normal kid stuff. I loved learning new cheers and pretending to be a cheerleader with the rest of the girls, I cared about playing t-ball, and who would win this or that playground competition. However, because I was reading more than they were, the concerns of my world were also broader. I was thinking about things like the holocaust when few of my classmates even understood that there were different continents, and that history was about more than dinosaurs, log cabins, and the Alamo. Yet, with whom could I discuss it? Adults treated me like a sort of trained pet, and my friends simply didn't care. As time went on, I became more and more isolated and experienced at least two extreme situations caused by this mental isolation as being decidedly traumatic.
Now, if that was MY experience, as limited as my own giftedness was - what must it have been like for those people far more intelligent than myself? While I've never met a child prodigy who's managed to get on dateline, I do have experience with quite a few people I would term geniuses (and you know who you are). Now, I don't think ANY of them is necessarily crazy (hee hee), but there are more than a few that are probably not fulfilling their potential in society. Heck, I'm probably not fulfilling MY potential either - but... oh well. However, more than a few of my friends has suffered from "mental illness". In some cases it has even been extreme enough to cause problems with legal authorities! I can only infer, therefore, that this is probably typical of any population of people with "giftedness".
So then I have to consider, how were our childhoods and early educations handled. While I can't say my childhood and education were mangled, my social life was certainly difficult, and my education less than optimal while in the regular public school system - advancing at normal grade level. Other parents of gifted children chose different routes - some using Montessori schools or other private academies, others letting their children be advanced beyond normal grade level in the public schools. While some of these systems worked better than others, they all seemed to have major pitfalls and only worked adequately well with some children. Until recently, almost no real studies have been conducted on the most efficient and emotionally healthy methods of raising and educating gifted children. Some of the early theories on the subject are so laughably inaccurate that it's hard to understand how any intelligent person could have believed them.
The problem essentially comes down to this. How can an adult of normal intelligence ever hope to understand the world of a prodigy, and not understanding it, how can they create a rearing plan that is devoid of childhood emotional damage? In fact, even adult prodigies would have a hard time doing this because they are no longer children - and as stated before, half of them are crazy as loons! Surely we can make progress in this area, but until we do, it is almost certain that any child prodigy, child genius, will have a rocky childhood.
Since the time of Freud psychology has accepted that childhood molds the adult psyche. While there are obviously many problems with Freudian theory, the importance of childhood emotional health on adult emotional health should not be surprising. After all, medical science has proven time and time again that childhood nutrition and health will have a longstanding impact on the health of the adult. Why is it, then, that when a genius has a mental illness it is always assumed that the two are somehow inherently related in the brain? Why does society, if it meets a non-brilliant person who is mentally disturbed, look first to their childhood to try to decipher what went wrong, but if the person IS brilliant they just assume the brilliance is the cause?
Perhaps if society would stop equating brilliance and mental illness as inherent companions, they would begin to place more importance on raising their most intelligent children in the healthiest way possible. I wonder what we might be able to accomplish if, instead of being damaged social outcasts, or geniuses were able to reach their full potential as fully accepted members of the community.
Ok - this rant is probably a little over the top, but it's what I was thinking about this morning...
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Are Brilliance and Insanity Truly Bosom Buddies?"
I don't know the answer, but Brilliance and Insanity make reasonably good drag queen names, so it seems possible.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was recently told that there was a study in which one group of people was praised and the other harshly criticized. Both groups were then given paper and paint and asked to make pictures.
The paintings were given, blind, to a third group for assessment; the paintings done by the group that had been criticized were generally better received.
Or as U2 put it, "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief/ All kill their inspiration, then sing about their grief..."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem essentially comes down to this. How can an adult of normal intelligence ever hope to understand the world of a prodigy, and not understanding it, how can they create a rearing plan that is devoid of childhood emotional damage? In fact, even adult prodigies would have a hard time doing this because they are no longer children - and as stated before, half of them are crazy as loons! Surely we can make progress in this area, but until we do, it is almost certain that any child prodigy, child genius, will have a rocky childhood.
You are treating intelligence as if it were the only way that a given child can be unique, which I think it mistaken. Yes, very intelligent kids probably have difficulty dealing with a class not geared towards very intelligent kids, just as less intelligent kids would have difficulty dealing with a class geared towards very intelligent kids. But in the same way, very extraverted kids would have trouble with a class geared towards introverts. Very athletic kids would have trouble in a school that doesn't provide an outlet for athleticism. Very creative kids would have issues with an environment where they can't be creative. And so on....
In those ways, every child is going to have unique circumstances and characteristics that define the sorts of school environmnets that would work well for that particular child. It is by no means an issue solely felt by those who are particularly book-smart or intelligent in the traditional sense.
The solution is to individualize education when possible - but that's inherently going to make education more costly and more difficult to standardize.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can Mental Disorders and level of Brilliance be connected? It's possible, I think there are many factors. Before I can explain what I think on this I have to explain that I think the "normal" level of Intelligence is much higher then most people think.
When I was in school if you walked in the classroom and asked who the smartest kid in the class was the teacher and the kids would've all pointed at me (apperently you can be the worst speller and a bad writer and still be considered the smartest in the class, I'll get back to this later).
I was the kid in the class that read all the text books the first week of school, never looked at them again, and still aced tests at the end of the year based on the material. I was often done with the homework before the teacher finished explaining it. The teachers when doing their quiz games sometimes put me on one team and the rest of the class on the other to try to make the teams "even". I still won.
During the end of Middle School if you had walked in and asked who was the least brilliant kid there every one would have pointed to one of my best friends, who only ever seemed to make the bare requirements to avoid having to repeat the grade level.
One day we were doing a project, that is to say I was doing it and he was sitting at the table playing with the strings coming from the hood on his jacket. Since I never needed to study to get A's I didn't have any good study habits and for one of the first times I was having trouble with the material. As I was freaking out about not being able to do this and getting a low grade my friend finnally gave a sigh and with out looking up explained the material so I could understand it and told me what to do on the project. After I picked my jaw off the ground I did as he said and got an A. The teacher told me good work and I said I didn't really do much that it had been my friend that had done most of it. She laughed and told me he was lucky to have a friend like me. I really wanted to smack the teacher right there. No one would even consider the fact that the "dumbest" kid in class was in fact much smarter then the "Smartest" kid in class. No one except my mother.
I told my mother about this and she said it sounded like what almost happened to me my first year of school. After the first couple months the school called her saying they though it would be a good idea to have me tested for learning disablites because I just wasn't learning and was failing all the test. My mother told them that it was nonsense and she came and with the teacher there gave me all the tests which I aced. She then told me that when ever the teachers gave me the tests I need to give them the answers. I agreed and never had a problem again.
I have a ton more examples but this post is already getting long. We tend to label kids while they are young and most often the kids live up to the expectations put of them. I've seen teachers who claim to "expect" the best from all their students but as I observe them I find the mostly they only "want" the best, but they actully expect the student to perform as their school records says they do.
As I work with kids I try to first find out what part of the kids personality and abilities are the kid's and which is kid simply playing the role he's been given by others.
The only reason I was considered smart was because I had a very high level of conceptual comprehension. I could understand complex concepts and I showed it. Also people ignored the fact that I have one of the worst memories in history. I said earlier that I can't spell, or write very well (as I'm sure many have noticed by now). Funny thing is I learned Spanish as an adult and I almost never misspell Spanish words. Why? Spelling in Spanish is conceptual (you spell it as it sounds) whereas in English there are so many conflicting rules that people are mostly just expected to memorize the spelling. To memorize thing is a talent I simply do not even have a trace of.
How does this all connect with the thread topic? Well if I'm right and that the level of Brilliance is, for the most part, the same in people and the differences are pretty much the different talents and application of those talents. Then the way this would affect mental health would be when you start hitting extremes in certain talents (or lack of certain talents).
I think a bigger cause is that when we are young people assume things about us and hand us a part to play in this play called life, and sometimes we accept that role and sometimes we don't. And weather that's good or bad depends on the role and what we decide to do with it.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, I don't think ANY of them is necessarily crazy (hee hee), but there are more than a few that are probably not fulfilling their potential in society.
Define "fulfilling their potential", please.
I'm happily married and just shy of 23,000 words into writing my novel. I also balance the ATM transactions for a local credit union. Am I unfilfilled in some way because I'm not out studying the climatology of Mars or discovering a new species of dinosaur? Why should anyone else have the right to decide what my potential is just because they can measure my intellengence and ability to excell on standardized tests?
Shouldn't the real question be, "Do we manage to find fulfillment and happiness regardless of our childhoods?" It's not that it's harder to be happy because you're smart. It's just harder to be who other people think you should and still be happy because the standards are so high.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A - what I meant by fulfilling their potential IN SOCIETY means doing the maximum their abilities allow to benefit society. This does not always equate to personal fulfillment.
And, as I suspected, this has broken down into a discussion about intelligence, though that wasn't the real point of my musings. My point wasn't weather highly intelligent children were in any way "better" than the other students. It wasn't to imply that high intelligence was the only way to be unique. It wasn't even to imply that highly intelligent children are always more psychologically scarred than others.
It was this - when a highly intelligent person is found to be mentally ill it is almost always assumed the intelligence and the illness are related. I was pointing out that high intelligence often equates to traumatic childhood which in other cases is assumed to contribute to the psychological disturbance. So why, with highly intelligent individuals, are childhood problems usually overlooked while the intelligence itself is blamed?
However, I'll bite at something Tresopax said, about extremely athletic and extremely creative children - assuming that the creativity does not in any way also imply an unusually high intelligence. I am not saying that these children do not have good gifts, and obviously these children prefer to be in environments where they can express their gifts, but there gifts do not, per se, make finding peers difficult. Being extremely Athletic makes one more capable of doing physical things, it does not fundamentally alter every aspect of their being. If you take an extremely athletic child of only average intelligence, and you were going to injur that child... do you think their parent would prefer you paralyze them or give them brain damage? Perhaps there are a small number of parents who would choose a physically whole child, but I would bet that nearly all of them would give up their child's athletic prowess to preserve their brain. The reason is quite simple. A physically handicapped child is still, fundamentally, the same child. (I think, coincidentally, that this is a point Card makes in Zana's Gift.), however in almost all cases brain damage fundamentally changes who the person is. One of the biggest problems in brain damage cases is to get families to understand exactly how much of a person is changed from brain injury, even when most of the obvious cognitive skills are restored. When significant cognitive skills are lost - well... I've even met a few parents who considered changing the child's name.
While there may not be any specific preference to which types of "giftedness" are preferable, I do think there are substantial differences in the way they affect the person's life.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: So why, with highly intelligent individuals, are childhood problems usually overlooked while the intelligence itself is blamed?
Because for the most part people with average intelligence don't like smart people?
What are the stats? 1 in 4 people have some flavor of mental illness? Pick four random histoical figures. One of them probably suffered from something.
We see a correlation because we want to, but in the end it's meaningless. Much like your gripe that smart people aren't doing enough to fill their place in society. Society should have been nicer to me if it wants something from me now.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's true that people with average intelligence don't like smart people.
I think that people in general don't like people who lack social skills. Also, they don't like people who don't like them. If someone is feeling looked down on by a person without social skills, it isn't their intelligence that is being objected to.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thinking about it, my first thought is: lower intelligence with mental illness = childhood trauma high intelligence with a mental illnes = the way your mind works much like: mental illness if you are poor = crazy mental illness if you have money = eccentric The most intelligent person I know, is clinically depressed stemming from her constant need to be perfect. Some people of high intelligence may seem more "quirky" to us average folks. Which may make us wonder if others are mentally ill when that may not be the case.
Posts: 204 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: It was this - when a highly intelligent person is found to be mentally ill it is almost always assumed the intelligence and the illness are related. I was pointing out that high intelligence often equates to traumatic childhood which in other cases is assumed to contribute to the psychological disturbance. So why, with highly intelligent individuals, are childhood problems usually overlooked while the intelligence itself is blamed?
Given how much evidence there is now for most (maybe all) mental illness having a strong genetic component, I think you are looking in the wrong place if blaming childhood.
That has been pretty much disproved as a key cause since the 1970s.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trauma probably gets cited since a high level of stress will aggravate a mental illness. On the other hand, who doesn't feel they were traumatized by something as a kid? If everyone has a period of unusual stress relative to their own life, why do only 25% of us suffer from a mental illness?
Then again, part of the reason I agree with rivka is because my depression symptoms almost exactly match my mother's even though I was never aware of seeing her suffer from it. I figure I either picked it all up subliminally, or it's just hardwired into my brain chemistry.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Multiple personality disorder seems to be strongly connected with severe emotional trauma in childhood. With that exception, I think that the relationship between mental illness and childhood difficulties has been fairly widely discredited. Even in the case of multiple personality disorder, we are talking about very severe trauma, like repeated ritual abuse. There is no evidence that the more common kinds of childhood trauma, like being picked on by kids at school or misunderstood by teachers and parents, is a significant contributor to mental illness.
I've known several unusually intelligent (possibly genius level) people with severe mental illness, enough to give me the impression that there is a correlation between very high intelligence and mental illness. But the studies just don't support that conclusion. The studies have found that intelligence is actually anti-correlated with mental illness. Highly intelligent people are in fact less likely to have a debilitating mental illness. Very intelligent people who do have some form of mental illness are more likely to be able to cope with life and function in society than people with lower intelligence.
My anecdotes don't match the studies most likely because of sampling bias. Since my teenage years I have tended to make friends with very intelligent people. The members of my extended family are largely very intelligent. I've always worked at Universities, so my colleagues tend to be very intelligent people. Because there are severe social stigma's against mental illness, I'm unlikely to know about it unless I'm know the person or their family very well.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Multiple personality disorder seems to be strongly connected with severe emotional trauma in childhood.
Good point. Even in that case, I think a family tendency toward mental illness has been shown to be linked.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Multiple personality disorder seems to be strongly connected with severe emotional trauma in childhood.
Good point. Even in that case, I think a family tendency toward mental illness has been shown to be linked.
Yeah. I really don't think we (meaning human doctors and scientists) have any real understanding of what causes mental illness. The brain is still a big mystery.
Its very weird. We know chemicals can alter what we think and feel, but we also know that what we think can alter brain chemistry. In that kind of system its easy to get positve feedback loops that drive the system out of control. I don't think we have much of a handle on what and how that gets started.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
