Strange that a psychoanalyst didn't see abuse of drugs as a problem... but instead something to endorse.
Yeah, I remember when (it seemed) most doctors smoked until the 80's when people started pointing out the hypocracy of it all.
If you wanna know about sin, ask a sinner.
Your last few comments were slightly absurd and quite rhetorical. So I just thought I'd join in.
Strange that a psychoanalyst didn't see abuse of drugs as a problem... but instead something to endorse.
I find it intriguing that the word "endorse", used here virtually in the same sentence as "cocaine", is also an anagram of "red nose". Was this a coincidence?
Your last few comments were slightly absurd and quite rhetorical. So I just thought I'd join in.
Really? maybe you could point out the absurdities then?
You're a funny guy.
It's interesting you chose the least of the comments to address. Should I assume you know your comments are rhetoric? And, if that is the case, why in the world would I get into a debate that is going to be nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions in a medium that lacks the ability to reflect the subtlities needed to discuss such a complex issue in a useful and productive manner?
I'm not against rhetoric, it can be lots of fun. But all that is going to happen here is I will point out something, then you will respond with your opinions, then I will, then you will, then I will, then you will....and 100 messages later you, me and some others will be trapped in a great circle of pointless rhetoric.
Better to just let it go now, and enjoy my beer.
Nice catch.
Your last few comments were slightly absurd and quite rhetorical. So I just thought I'd join in.
Really? maybe you could point out the absurdities then?
You're a funny guy.
It's interesting you chose the least of the comments to address. Should I assume you know your comments are rhetoric? And, if that is the case, why in the world would I get into a debate that is going to be nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions in a medium that lacks the ability to reflect the subtlities needed to discuss such a complex issue in a useful and productive manner?
I'm not against rhetoric, it can be lots of fun. But all that is going to happen here is I will point out something, then you will respond with your opinions, then I will, then you will, then I will, then you will....and 100 messages later you, me and some others will be trapped in a great circle of pointless rhetoric.
Better to just let it go now, and enjoy my beer.
No.. what's funny is you didn't even address my comment.
You simply ramble on for multi sentences about how unproductive rhetorical things are (wasn't even rhetorical.. )
Nice attempt to dodge the question though but it's fairly clear "simply absurd" was just a blanket term to dismiss my position
Ok.
Okay guys, back on topic...
Autism is a disability. Schizophrenia is a mental illness. People are born with autism. People develop schizophrenia usually in young adulthood. Both involve some sort of social withdrawal but that's just about where the similarities end. Look it up in the DSM-V if you don't believe me.
Bobby Fischer didn't display full signs of schizophrenia (he never hallucinated, as far as we know) but he definitely could have some schizoid-type mental illness. This doesn't explain or excuse his chess ability and certainly not all of the hateful things he said.
Okay guys, back on topic...
Autism is a disability.(it's technically a disability.. but certainly not for everyone... Every child prodigy who has ever existed was autistic) Schizophrenia is a mental illness. People are born with autism. People develop schizophrenia usually in young adulthood (increased in size because extremely incorrect). Both involve some sort of social withdrawal but that's just about where the similarities end.(there are afew others but... there DEFINITELY no where near the same) Look it up in the DSM-V if you don't believe me.
Bobby Fischer didn't display full signs of schizophrenia (he never hallucinated, as far as we know) but he definitely could have some schizoid-type mental illness. This doesn't explain or excuse his chess ability and certainly not all of the hateful things he said. (if he were schizioid.. it certainly could so thats why its wrong)
Yeah.. you were pretty much wrong on all counts.
I've highlighted them
I increased the size of "usually in young adulthood" because technically "adult" is when you are able to produce offspring
so ages 11-16 which is when you usually don't get schizophrenia
It's ages 17-26+
Actually, everything he said is spot-on. In fact, I thought he was reading from a textbook. You can address grey areas if you want, but what he said is the way educated people in the field of psychology diagnose autism and schizophrenia.
wow theres so much BS here about autism and schizophrenia
I REALLY REALLY wish chess.com had a like button.
But, since it doesn't:
I've studied the DSM 4 and 5 excessively
They you either didn't understand what you read or you're not being truthful.
autism is a disability for everyone.
most child prodigies are not autistic.
people are born with schizophrenia also, it just usually isnt diangosed until later.
Schizophrenia does not necessarily involve social withdrawal
Fischer displayed full signs of schizophrenia. Not all schizophrentics hallucinate. ANd even if they do you might not know it. Regardless, that doesnt mean he actually was schizophrentic. Even if he did hallucinate.
A common myth laypeople have is that genius often comes with mental illness. I think its some sort of pro-egalitarianism propaganda. The truth is the opposite. Intelligent people are less likely to have mental illness.
"autism is a disability for everyone."
Subjective.. don't know why you're arguing about it
"most child prodigies are not autistic." name one that isn't then
"people are born with schizophrenia also, it just usually isnt diangosed until later." This actually isn't known...
It is believed people are born with the genes that allow you to be schizophrenic but that environmental pressures and drug use are what induce it in most people
For example.. someone who was abused and put in stressful situations are FAR more likely to be schizophrenic then someone who was not
"Fischer displayed full signs of schizophrenia. Not all schizophrentics hallucinate. ANd even if they do you might not know it. Regardless, that doesnt mean he actually was schizophrentic. Even if he did hallucinate."
No he didn't... psychosis does not equate to schizophrenia...
"A common myth laypeople have is that genius often comes with mental illness."
There have been studies proving a connection.. actually
Are you joking? Are you actually saying one shouldn't criticize someones work because you believe it is a great achievement?
Actually I was troll-mirroring.
But seriously, regarding their achievements, Freud and Popper can't be compared. Freud is the father of psychoanalysis, the basic stone of modern psychology, despite being proven wrong in some minor details. OTOH, Popper is hardly more than cheeky detractor with absurd opinions. His "theory", i.e. unfounded assertions about falsifiability as main criterium of science and falsification as main scientific method, is just ridiculous. Induction and verification deserve priority all day long. But the main problem isn't Popper himself, it is the promotion of such bullshit by dummy useful idiots to have an artificial tool to denounce and reject inconvenient valid theories and ideologies as so-called "pseudoscience".
Oh god...*slowly walks backwards and shuts door quitely behind him*
Literally the only person who brought up Popper was you... so Why would you even say "Freud and Popper can't be compared. Freud is the father of psychoanalysis, the basic stone of modern psychology"
He wasn't even MENTIONED let alone compared...
It hasn't been my fault you failed to spot the link between you and dummy Popper apologists, arrogant enough to label Freud's work as pseudoscience. (red highlighted)
My point is that Freudian psychoanalysis is probably valid and most its critics are dummies spreading Popper's bullshit.
...the spectrum is very narrow. Another major similarity between autism and schizophrenia is the subject's inability to distinguish facial expressions and emotions. And I would go further to say, this is probably due to the current (since the end of WWII) idea that woman can abondon their roles as mothers, leave the child in daycare, and join the workforce. Not all social change is progress. Freud again: Anatomy is destiny. If women accepted their primary role as nuturing mother, we would see the virtual elimation of childhood developmental imfirmaties.
HAHAHA... again with the pseudo-scientific nonsense...
BTW... Freud was a cocaine snorting retard.
Most of his theories were complete rubbish and never proven
The mental midget Popper wasn't in position to judge Freud's great achievements. So aren't you.
Are you joking? Are you actually saying one shouldn't criticize someones work because you believe it is a great achievement?
Karl Popper was morally bankrupt (along with Bethrand Russell). Regarding the latter, this became abundantly clear with his pontifications on WW1. Shameful behavior. Almost reprehensible.
It's unfortunate their pinheaded views still rule the roost in some quarters, and among so many chessnuts. We're such an eccentric lot.
Four pages now ... no connection to chess ("Fischer".ne."chess"). ... so why the title?
Noo! Don't leave! I was learning so much!
autism is a disability for everyone.
most child prodigies are not autistic.
people are born with schizophrenia also, it just usually isnt diangosed until later.
Schizophrenia does not necessarily involve social withdrawal
Fischer displayed full signs of schizophrenia. Not all schizophrentics hallucinate. ANd even if they do you might not know it. Regardless, that doesnt mean he actually was schizophrentic. Even if he did hallucinate.
A common myth laypeople have is that genius often comes with mental illness. I think its some sort of pro-egalitarianism propaganda. The truth is the opposite. Intelligent people are less likely to have mental illness.
"most child prodigies are not autistic."
That could be changed if they suddenly make it a symptom of autism, which they honestly should to balance out the negative diagnoses.
" name one that isn't then"
Mozart and Capablanca, but that's all I got. Fischer and Carlsen display some symptoms of Asperger's, moreso Fischer.
The problem with labeling Autism as a full on disability is that it carries with the implications of the need for "curing".
"if you guys are interested in this subject try using wiki or something...and actually read what it says."
The problem with the Wiki is it frames autism in a negative light, this link is more credible than the Wikipedia page because it doesn't frame autism as something that needs to be cured, comes from actual autistic people, and I agree with their stance more:
http://tomplastow.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/dear-autism-parents-we-dont-want-to-be-cured-2/
"name one that isn't then" omg...really? Mozart was one, obviously. The tremendous vast majority.
"This actually isn't known..." Theres a great deal that is not known about schizophrenia but some things are known...One thing that is known is that genetics plays a key role.
"No he didn't... psychosis does not equate to schizophrenia.." Schizophrenia is often diagnosed with behavior although its understood that this is not the best way. THere are physical biochemical/neurologicla differences in schizophrentics. Theres a collection of symptoms that may or may not be present. Schizoaffective disorder is not schizophrenia...although it can be indistinguishable from it by behavioral focused diagnosis. And by the way...its schizoaffective disorder...'schizoid' refers to multiple personality disorder and is totally unrelated to either.
"There have been studies proving a connection.. actually" totally wrong. Just use some information the internet has availible. THe connection is totally opposite.
Okay. I'm seriously done with chess.com forums.
Stupidest people ever..It's like visiting a class room full of the mentally handicapped but sadly you don't have that excuse.
BYE A DUERHP A DURP
Good bye oxoxvc/mathemagics
kleelof: Any 1st year studenty knows nothing.
Well, I have met many first year psychology students, including myself many years ago, and I would say they at least know more than you about the subject.
Freud WAS pragmatic in his approach to understanding the human mind. So when you say 'any modern mind that has studied the subject realizes the lack of pragmatic value [in his work].', you are actually contradicting yourself and showing your lack of actual knowledge and true understanding of his work and its place in modern psychology.
I know it is easy to make this mistake. His work is so well known that it is easy for any clever person to feel they can understand and comment on his work and sound like they have some knowlede on the subject when, in fact, they don't.
I remember in high school every girl I knew seemed to know a lot of the basics of psychoanalysis. The first 2 years of study, most of my classmates and I were able to sleep through many of the psychology classes waiting to get to the real meat of his work. And this is the level you have to be at to actually appreciate and understand his work.
You, and I believe someone else here, wants to attack his drug use. You should remember, many-many great contributors to science and culture also had personal problems that would be easy to attack. But these things in no way should be considered valid detractors from their accomplishments.