Smart But Sad

If you go on the internet and type ‘genius’ into the search bar, mostly likely your results page will list various other symptoms that are commonly associated. ‘Bipolar’, ‘Depression’, ‘Schizophrenia’ and ‘autism’ were some that I found. And the people on the receiving end of such a plethora of labels? Sylvia Plath, Virginia Woolf, Van Gough, Beethoven, Albert Einstein etc. The list goes on, with different web pages ascribing different possible

mental illnesses and disorders.

These historical figures with beyond normal levels of intellectual talent and the often accompanying mental difficulties are fascinating to most of us. Current discussion surrounding geniuses with less than conventional thought processes centres around the seemingly strong correlation between high intelligence and mental illness. In an increasingly mental health conscious society, these are the confines by which we try to understand the great thinkers. What made them outstanding in their respective fields and was the price for some an untimely end?

Maybe it’s time to change the discussion. The restrictive paradigm of societal norms versus anything outside of that is the linchpin by which we say yay or nay to signs of ‘madness’. But were they sad, mad or just smart? Should we be exploring the correlation between genius and madness, or should we be questioning to what extent ‘madness’ exists, if at all? Moreover, what happens to this correlation if our understanding of mental illness is undermined?

In our pursuit to obsessively categorise everything, sometimes we can miss the complicated, paradoxical nature of the universe and what it means to be human. Not everything fits into neat tidy boxes. Yet whenever anybody falls outside of the established norm, society is quick to label them as defective in some way. During the 1950s to early 1960s, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. It was even listed in the DSM-II (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) as a classified, treatable mental disorder.

And now? Obviously being gay is no longer considered a mental illness. It is a cruel and senseless way to treat people who wish to express their sexuality. Increasingly, homosexuality is now finding its way into society as an accepted, established norm. Were there new scientific discoveries that altered the diagnostic criteria? No, only loud protest and indignation from the gay community.

The relationship between the ‘norm’ and mental health diagnoses has a dark history. But how we construct meaning in the world and the way we operate as a result is a fundamental part in understanding why this ever happened in the first place. For example, somebody at some point decided to give the apple its name and label it a fruit. We didn’t come into the universe having everything named and categorised for us. We as a society agreed that it is a fruit and that it should be called an apple. That doesn’t change the essential components of the apple but the categorisation of it as a fruit affects our understanding of it in relation to other food. Essentially, somebody also looked at human behaviour and attempted to apply the same rule of logic. So who is it that decides what is normal and what isn’t? Who labelled us with ‘depression’ ‘bipolar’ or ‘anxiety’?

The psychiatrists and the doctors have that responsibility. Their evaluation can affirm your view of reality or discredit it. So how do specialists decide who is eligible to work in the field of psychiatry? Do they themselves have to be psychologically screened for signs of mental illness? I don’t think many people who have sat in the patient’s chair have stopped to consider whether their doctor is also suffering from depression, or if this could even affect their professional conduct. Furthermore, doctors always seem to fall outside the realm of analysis, their sanity beyond scrutiny. Are they not also susceptible to the same health conditions as the rest of us? Rates of depression and suicide among medical students would beg to differ.

In Australia, data shows that doctors experience significantly higher levels of psychological distress and suicide attempts compared to the general population. In 2015, Victoria, Australia, three psychiatry registrars and one trainee died suddenly, bringing to light a long hidden, normalised medical culture of modelled behaviour and cyclical abuse. Regardless, once young doctors have managed to jump through the career hoops (by whatever means necessary) their professionalism is sealed and their credibility beyond question.

This also brings us to consider the credibility of the patient. At the very least, it is diminished. The stigma experienced by those diagnosed with mental disorders can ruin lives. The undisputed expertise of the doctor and the reduced credibility of the patient leads to a significant imbalance of power. And yet in some instances, what might determine who sits in the medical chair and who sits in the patient’s chair is education. And by extension, privilege. Of course, many medical professionals are good at their job and can help improve quality of life for the patient if they are agreeable to receiving treatment. Nevertheless, by using this kind of diagnostic assessment, there is room for misdiagnosis. At worst, corruption and medically supported discrimination. Could the great thinkers of history have been subjected to similar treatment?

The historical geniuses listed at the beginning of this article were all highly educated individuals. Some had a more difficult road than others in realising their potential while others had short lived success. Mostly, we think of the genius as rare. The probability of their talent being one in a million. We are also used to witnessing geniuses in their triumph. But what happens to genius before opportunity or without education, and could genius be more prevalent than we think it is? We know Einstein was not a conventionally bright student. His teachers believed him to be intellectually challenged from an early age. If Einstein had believed his teachers, who knows where he would have ended up or what the world would look like now. Most likely, there are children like this today, with incredible potential, fighting a ‘one size fits all’ system.

Children who are currently recognised as gifted (intellectually talented) with high IQ display certain characteristics which place them outside of the norm. Intense emotions, hyper sensitivity to stimulus, strong moral convictions and extreme introversion are but some of the traits which naturally set them apart from others and can mean they process the world very differently from their peers. Misdiagnosis for these children is prevalent. Being bored and under stimulated in the classroom can look like ADHD. Crying at the irrationality and injustices in the world of which they are so aware can look like emotional instability. The list goes on and on for all the ways in which these children can be misunderstood.

With that said, consider the definition of psychosis. It roughly states that anybody experiencing feelings, thoughts or beliefs that are not grounded in an external, objective reality should seek medical attention for the condition. Keep this in mind as you read on.

Imagine if you will, a poor impoverished town where there lives an intelligent youth, without any educational background who is fascinated by physics. He talks about string theory with his doctor or that the world could be a hologram in distinctly non academic terminology. He has no qualifications to back up his curiosities and his thoughts are out of place with his environment. Arguably, string theory probably looks crazy to anyone who doesn’t understand it. His under funded, unfit doctor admits him for psychosis while sitting opposite the crucifix he has hung on the wall. The deep injustice would not be lost on the intelligent youth.

In these situations, genius without evidence equals insanity. I think it’s fair to say that anybody facing such a lack of fairness in their society would grow up to become depressed, anxious and believing themselves to be mentally ill rather than gifted. ‘Tragic’ wouldn’t really begin to describe such a societal travesty.

This isn’t to say that all people diagnosed with a mental illness are intellectual diamonds in the rough or that mental illness itself is an invention. However, it is possible to speculate that there are sufficient societal conditions that allow for institutionalised suppression of the genius. Being smart in this world is good. Being too smart can be dangerous.

To be labelled as abnormal in any way can be dehumanising, and can be a way to diminish individual experiences as not belonging to natural human behaviour just because they are in the minority. Maybe Sylvia Plath could relate? Or Virginia Woolf? If this were indeed the case, why would our society do this? We can all benefit from the progress that genius can provide. Is it really a case of tall poppy syndrome? Or is the mainstream possibly worried that if more people rise up claiming to be the same, the norm may shift? Thus rendering their own ‘normal’ experiences as more abnormal than previously thought? The rise of minority groups could mean that the current unified norm becomes so dissipated, there no longer is a norm. To what extent would this threaten notions of credibility and privilege? It’s paradoxical, but progress increasingly looks like varying societal groups become unified in their differences.

Democracy on the whole works quite well for the majority. Unlike a dictatorship, it doesn’t kill or punish people for speaking out against the ruling establishment. Regardless, ‘abnormal’ people may feel so dehumanised in society that quite possibly they unconsciously do the work of the validated majority in maintaining the norm via suicide. For some, living life in such traumatic conditions can be so unbearable they feel no choice but to remove themselves from the situation. If they seek treatment, society makes it clear that their voice does not contribute to the authentic human experience. It’s not impossible to think that for some, every divisive news story, rise in tuition fees or beauty advertisement in which they are excluded is slowly killing their will to live.

And yet they are told to be happy. All. The. Time. There are whole blogs offering blasé, unconstructive advice on how to feel more fulfilled and how to have un-interrupted, internal peace. Facebook friends will ‘helpfully’ share memes dictating all the things you’re doing wrong and why you feel constantly stressed. ‘Happy people don’t absorb other people’s negative energy’ or ‘if people try to tear you down it means you’re above them’ are a sample of some of this superficial online ‘happy’ rhetoric. These kind of posts are particularly annoying, purely for the patronising tone, shared by someone who has a picture of themselves doing yoga trying to prove how amazingly wholesome, healthy and ‘happy’ they are. There is war, famine, disease, inequality and global warming on this planet. Sometimes, being happy is inappropriate.

This style of communication undermines the integrity of visceral, authentic emotional connection, true compassion and empathy. Experiencing pain of any kind has become something society must avoid at all costs. It is important to look after ourselves, but I would argue it is also imperative to be sad or enraged about things that are not right or that are deeply unjust. Rather than happiness being a personal introspective mindfulness, it has now become a competition. An external spectacle of superiority. Existential crisis induced by contemplative realisation of the world we actually live in is not an acceptable part of life any more. You are ‘unhappy’ if you think about these things, let alone talk about them on social media. Otherwise you might be met with a barrage of ‘calm down’ ‘keep your opinions to yourself’ or an admittedly, slightly helpful ‘have a cup of tea and try and take your mind off things’. Sometimes, tea doesn’t help people forget all of the impending doom only they seem to notice while being forced to dig their own graves with a big smile on their face. Their critical voice is being stifled. They are not going to feel happy about it. Having the mind of Einstein and no outlet for intellectual expression would be a torturous combination.

Understanding that the norm is relative opens your eyes to the fact that you are part of a world where to a certain extent, order has been humanly constructed rather than just going along with a ‘natural’ pre-determined way of doing things. To see the world broken in so many ways and to have an awareness that things could be done differently is rather depressing. Not to mention an immense burden if you are anywhere near qualified enough to do something about it. For intelligent people who are marginalised, participating in the existing norm that they despise so much and that pathologises their insight is probably unbearable. Who would want to get up every morning faced with that prospect? However, does having this perspective mean you are mentally ill? Or is this a social awareness that we need to stop smothering with a diagnosis, followed by pity and faux support? After all, it is a lot easier to believe that Van Gough shot himself because he was mentally unstable rather than admit that we, as a collective species, can be hideous.

Until more research is done to find robust, empirical evidence of mental illness in the brain, this remains a socio-political/philosophical matter as well as a medical one. And even then, the cause and effect relationship between chemical imbalance of the brain and our environment still needs to be further explored. Medication has been shown to work amazingly well for many patients, and this article does not intend to undermine the progress made in mental health treatment. But if we are to learn anything from our past, it is that there are certainly current injustices society subscribes to that will one day be revealed for what they are. We tend to focus so much on how far we have come, that we forget future generations may see some of our methods as practically primitive. In time, we may be talking about our mad society rather than our mad geniuses.

Imagine if there is no longer a correlation between genius and madness to explore because there never was one.

---