Is There a Link Between Genius Mathematicians and Mental Illness?

[Borogoves]

Inherent how? What specifically are the causes?

It is a talent that the person is born with, and through nurturing, the full potential of the person can be realized. It is also a simple case of whether the person has a deep interest in a subject, be it math or science.


Cancers of the brain directly affect the brain. Other cancers can and do spread to the brain. So is affecting the brain enough to establish a link?
One can search for evidence that supports or refutes it. One can also come up with a theory. Do you have a theory? A mechanism? Any supporting evidence?

I don't profess to have a theory which explains the mechanism for the supposed link.
I merely wanted to find out what the possible causes could be and as you say the mechanisms involved.

What would you say is enough to establish a link ?
It's not an easy question to answer, since, many mistakes are made in diagnosing a mental illness, and we still do not know how the brain functions in its entirety.


Maybe all you're willing to is speculate. Other people try to do more. They are generally called scientists.

Science is full of nothing but theories. It's all rather speculative at the end of the day.

Sure, people may work to become good at something they're obsessed with or become obsessed with something they're good at. But obsession alone is just obsession. And you do understand that the obsessions of OCD are not normal obsessions, right? Same word, different meaning.

Again, why do you think that's a paradox?

The typical person suffering from ocd is believed to perform all manner of rituals, which are illogical, and yet if he or she has an exceptional aptitude for math, which is a highly logical subject, then the situation represents a paradox.

 

[honestrosewater]

What would you say is enough to establish a link ?
It's not an easy question to answer, since, many mistakes are made in diagnosing a mental illness, and we still do not know how the brain functions in its entirety.

I'll get to the rest of this in a minute, but to see what's wrong with this argument consider a similar one:

What would you say is enough to prove a theorem?
It's not an easy question to answer, since, many mistakes are made in proving theorems, and we still do not know every theorem of any given theory.

We say up front what constitutes a proof (or establishes a link).

Science is full of nothing but theories. It's all rather speculative at the end of the day.

Nothing but theories? Performing experiments has been a crucial part of science for centuries.

The typical person suffering from ocd is believed to perform all manner of rituals, which are illogical, and yet if he or she has an exceptional aptitude for math, which is a highly logical subject, then the situation represents a paradox.

First, a paradox should prompt you to take another look at your assumptions.
Second, it still isn't clear how this is paradoxical. Look at the definition of compulsions:

Compulsions are defined by the following 2 criteria:

* The person feels driven to perform repetitive behaviors (eg, hand washing, ordering, checking) or mental acts (eg, praying, counting, repeating words silently) in response to an obsession or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.

* The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are meant to neutralize or prevent or they are clearly excessive.
- http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1654.htm

IOW, if you don't perform the compulsion, you will be in pain!
If you have a headache, want to relieve it, and know that taking some Tylenol will relieve it, the logical solution is to take some Tylenol- unless its side effects are worse than the headache. But there is nothing strictly logical about taking Tylenol to relieve a headache. You have learned through experience that taking Tylenol relieves headaches, and perhaps you have even discovered through experience how taking Tylenol relieves headaches. In the same way, there is nothing strictly logical about washing your hands for 2 hours to relieve anxiety. But if you have anxiety, want to relieve it, and know that washing your hands for 2 hours will relieve it, the logical solution is to wash your hands for 2 hours- unless the side effects are worse than the anxiety. People with compulsions have learned through experience that performing their compulsions (at least temporarily) relieves their anxiety. But AFAIK, no one has discovered how performing compulsions relieves anxiety.
So in this context, how are compulsions illogical? Do you think taking Tylenol to relieve a headache is illogical? Do you know how Tylenol works?

I don't profess to have a theory which explains the mechanism for the supposed link.
I merely wanted to find out what the possible causes could be and as you say the mechanisms involved.

Okay, are you looking for a behavioral mechanism, i.e., people with mental disorders tend to behave in a certain way, and this behavior leads them to excel in math? Or are you looking for a physiological mechanism, say:

Pathophysiology: The exact pathophysiologic process that underlies OCD has not been established. Research and treatment trials suggest that abnormalities in serotonin (5-HT) transmission in the central nervous system are central to this disorder. This is strongly supported by the efficacy of specific serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of OCD.

Evidence also suggests a role for abnormalities in dopaminergic transmission in cases of OCD. In some cohorts, Tourette syndrome and multiple chronic tics genetically co-vary with OCD in an autosomal dominant pattern. OCD symptoms in this group of patients show a preferential response to a combination of SSRIs and neuroleptics.

Functional and anatomic studies in OCD have demonstrated some reproducible patterns of abnormality. Specifically, MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) scanning have shown increases in blood flow and metabolic activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, limbic structures, caudate, and thalamus, with a trend toward right-sided predominance. In some studies, these areas of overactivity have been shown to normalize following successful treatment with either SSRIs or cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). These findings suggest the hypothesis that the symptoms of OCD are driven by impaired intracortical inhibition of a para-limbic circuit that mediates strong emotions and the autonomic responses to those emotions. Cingulotomy, a neurosurgical intervention in OCD, interrupts this circuit (see Treatment).

Similar abnormalities of inhibition are observed in Tourette syndrome, with a postulated abnormal modulation of basal ganglia activation.
- http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1654.htm

and this causes them to excel in math?
I think you'd have a hell of a time finding any evidence to support your proposed "innate talent for math". And I still haven't heard any reason for suspecting that there is any link between mental disorders and mathematical ability. Do you just want to look for a link for no particular reason?

 

[Borogoves]

I'll get to the rest of this in a minute, but to see what's wrong with this argument consider a similar one:

What would you say is enough to prove a theorem?
It's not an easy question to answer, since, many mistakes are made in proving theorems, and we still do not know every theorem of any given theory.

We say up front what constitutes a proof (or establishes a link).
Nothing but theories? Performing experiments has been a crucial part of science for centuries.

Incorrect. Do you know what constitutes a rigorous mathematical proof ?
It's not even an argument. It was, and still is a question which I posed/am posing.
The intricacies involved in what constitutes a mathematical proof is quite different to that of diagnosing a mental illness. So it's not reasonable to compare the two.
Science is full of theories such as Relativity, QFT, String Theory et cetera.
So physicists are no different in that they are proposing an idea which may not have any factual basis.

First, a paradox should prompt you to take another look at your assumptions.
Second, it still isn't clear how this is paradoxical. Look at the definition of compulsions: IOW, if you don't perform the compulsion, you will be in pain!
If you have a headache, want to relieve it, and know that taking some Tylenol will relieve it, the logical solution is to take some Tylenol- unless its side effects are worse than the headache. But there is nothing strictly logical about taking Tylenol to relieve a headache. You have learned through experience that taking Tylenol relieves headaches, and perhaps you have even discovered through experience how taking Tylenol relieves headaches. In the same way, there is nothing strictly logical about washing your hands for 2 hours to relieve anxiety. But if you have anxiety, want to relieve it, and know that washing your hands for 2 hours will relieve it, the logical solution is to wash your hands for 2 hours- unless the side effects are worse than the anxiety. People with compulsions have learned through experience that performing their compulsions (at least temporarily) relieves their anxiety. But AFAIK, no one has discovered how performing compulsions relieves anxiety.
So in this context, how are compulsions illogical? Do you think taking Tylenol to relieve a headache is illogical? Do you know how Tylenol works?

This is not a debate about logic so I will not comment any further on this particular topic, except to say that it is unreasonable to engage in excessive handwashing for example, since their belief that there may be a risk of contamination or that they may die, is completely unfounded and false. The patients themselves know that their acts of handwashing are in fact not logical but they can't stop themselves, that is to say, it is a compulsion.


Okay, are you looking for a behavioral mechanism, i.e., people with mental disorders tend to behave in a certain way, and this behavior leads them to excel in math? Or are you looking for a physiological mechanism, say:
and this causes them to excel in math?
I think you'd have a hell of a time finding any evidence to support your proposed "innate talent for math". And I still haven't heard any reason for suspecting that there is any link between mental disorders and mathematical ability. Do you just want to look for a link for no particular reason?[/QUOTE]

I am not looking for anything. I have made it clear what the purpose of this discussion is in my original post. You cannot deduce from what I said in my original post, that I thought there was a link. So your assumption that I made an assumption is incorrect.

If we take Godel, who was clearly an intellectual man, he acted in many ways which to the average person would be regarded as eccentric and unreasonable. Let's not forget that he died because of his mental illness, as he refused to eat if I recall correctly.

Now the paradox is evident here. He could understand the logic of math, but he could not see that his fear of contamination was in fact false.

 

[shyboy]

it looks like that good people just keep a genetic pool, and some unfortunates have to do the dirty work of geniuses

 

[honestrosewater]

Alright, I give up. I don't think this thread is anywhere near PF's standards.

 

[bomba923]

This is going to be a late reply,
but I speculate that it is the initial possession of mental disturbances (problems/issue..if that's what you call them) that brings people to math, art, philosophy, and the such.

Alright, I give up. I don't think this thread is anywhere near PF's standards.

 

[Loren Booda]

I am a physicist with an MS. I developed schizoaffective disorder (an alternation between schizophrenic and bipolar symptoms) in my sophomore year at Yale and had to leave, continuing my studies at home near D. C. 27 years later, I have worked 10 years for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, volunteered 19 years at the local nature center and 5 years as group leader and visitor at a local nursing home, all of where I apply my genius for social concerns, as opposed to the hard sciences. Along the way, I came to the conclusion that I would feel better and contribute more conscientiously by working closely with sentient beings, not designing missiles and ship hulls. My medicines - antipychotic, mood stabilizer, antidepressant, and minor tranquilizer - help me survive, maintain creativity and enjoy myself more than ever.

Tom Cruise, the elite self-appointed scientist, threatens the progress many with mental illnesses have made. He's a person who has never met an illness he could not overcome - yet. If the body can suffer, Mr. Cruise, why not the brain?

 

[honestrosewater]

It isn't the topic that I object to, it's the passing off of opinion and speculation as undisputed fact, repeated false claims, and general misunderstandings and unwillingness to learn or be corrected. This stuff normally gets a thread closed or sent to (the soon to be closed) GD.

This is going to be a late reply,
but I speculate that it is the initial possession of mental disturbances (problems/issue..if that's what you call them) that brings people to math, art, philosophy, and the such.

Yes, I think a disorder might cause people to avoid and/or seek certain professions. For instance, if someone has a snake phobia, they might avoid working with snakes as a profession, unless they are willing to treat their phobia or accept their suffering. Or someone with a disorder might seek a profession that invloves treating or curing their or similar disorders or otherwise helping people that suffer from them, as Loren Booda seems to have done.
You're talking about people becoming "academics", right? Were you thinking of anything in particular? For instance, being able to work alone much of the time, being more suited to "introverted" personalities, involving little physical risk, etc. Were you thinking their disorders make them actively seek these professions, or do you think they are steered into these professions by trying to avoid other professions?

 

[bomba923]

You're talking about people becoming "academics", right? Were you thinking of anything in particular? For instance, being able to work alone much of the time, being more suited to "introverted" personalities, involving little physical risk, etc.

Well, I admit I wrote assuming that "introversion"+"working alone" were associated with academics--but that is wrong when you think about it.

Were you thinking their disorders make them actively seek these professions, or do you think they are steered into these professions by trying to avoid other professions?

*A little bit of both. The idea was that possessing certain mental disturbances/problems/issues would encourage people to pursue careers with good structure or order or safety, like the nice subjects of mathematics, physics (orderly), philosophy-->fields favoring "rational" analytical ability that would hold back "irrational" fears/emotions/mental-disturbances. Yes, disorders may steer people away from becoming great motivational speakers or world leaders, yet the time spent on the Mathematics, physics, philosophy (actually more than that) would also encourage them within those fields.

Notice I did not examine any evidence, nor define my viewpoints too well . But this is only speculation, by no means even a reasoned judgment! So:shy:, what say you?

 

[honestrosewater]

BTW, my objections weren't directed at you, and though the things I mentioned do bother me personally, it's PF's standards that I was concerned about and that compelled me to try to make corrections where I could.

Well, I admit I wrote assuming that "introversion"+"working alone" were associated with academics--but that is wrong when you think about it.

Well, they're things I casually associate with academics too. You can at least determine what the working conditions of certain professions are, so you're off to a decent start. Which "personality types" are more suited to which professions can be fuzzier, but there are at least some straightforward situations, like specific phobias and jobs involving repeated exposure to the objects of those phobias.
I think the hardest part is generalizing about how people react to and deal with their disorders. For example, you could have four people with almost identical symptoms, each pair having almost identical personalities, and see them all deal with their disorders in different ways. Some people seek treatment right away, some wait, some have supportive family and friends, some don't, some opt for the easiest route, some are willing to suffer for something more important, and so on.
And I don't know if you are arguing for this, but others were talking about a connection not just with the profession chosen but with the person's talent or ability in that profession.

*A little bit of both. The idea was that possessing certain mental disturbances/problems/issues would encourage people to pursue careers with good structure or order or safety, like the nice subjects of mathematics, physics (orderly), philosophy-->fields favoring "rational" analytical ability that would hold back "irrational" fears/emotions/mental-disturbances. Yes, disorders may steer people away from becoming great motivational speakers or world leaders, yet the time spent on the Mathematics, physics, philosophy (actually more than that) would also encourage them within those fields.

Yeah, this is what I meant above- the problems with generalizing about how people deal. For instance, here's a personal account from .

Ira, a forty-eight-year-old man, has suffered from OCD since he was nineteen years old. The following excerpt from his survey response provides us with an answer [about the core of OCD].
"I work in the city, and it's such a filthy place. If I could have my way, I wouldn't go there, that way I wouldn't have to go near so many dirty people- people sneezing, coughing, touching everything- but that's where my law firm is. During the day, I'm not too bad. I have dirty clothes for wearing outside and decontaminated clothes for home. I make sure to keep my hands away from my mouth during the day, and I'll only go out to lunch at certain clean restaurants.
But when I get home, that's when the ordeal begins. I make everyone in the family come into the house through the laundry room. That way they can take their clothes off down there, go straight to the downstairs shower to wash, and then put on house clothes."[/color]

Ira goes on to describe his laundry procedure, taking a shower first, washing "outside" clothes three times, changing gloves and rewashing his hands each time, cleaning the outside of the washer with ammonia during the last two cycles, and running the empty washer twice before washing the "house" clothes. He also describes similar rituals for dealing with groceries and things his family brings home, like his kid's homework. He obviously has contamination obsessions (among them, his family getting AIDS) and compulsions. BTW, he says, "I know none of this makes sense, but..." Now, would you guess that this person works at a law firm? I wonder how often he has to shake hands with clients. And he has a family. Little kids are always dirty. Remember, he's been suffering since he was nineteen, so- assuming he is actually a lawyer- he even went through law school with OCD.
There are many other stories out there, which you can just google for, to get an idea of how varied and specific people's symptoms can be.
For just OCD alone, the same book claims worldwide studies place lifetime prevalence rates at 2-3%, about 1 in every 40 people. You could look for other studies on other disorders and compare those with the percentage of people working in academics to get an idea of any limits it puts on your theory.

Notice I did not examine any evidence, nor define my viewpoints too well . But this is only speculation, by no means even a reasoned judgment! So:shy:, what say you?

Gee, I hope I didn't scare you.

 

[bomba923]

By no means am I an expert on OCD, but I found that whenever I had harmful thoughts (not as intense as those of OCD--but speculatively disturbing), I would just force some kind of mental distraction under the guise of logical or philosophical objectivity-->e.g.,
1) just think of something else
2) concentrate hard on that "something else"
3) Verbalize in my head why returning back to the disturbing thought is illogical/unreasonable-->especially since that "something else" is not any less significant a topic for momentary thinking as the original thought
4) Convince myself that both thoughts lack objective significance
5) (Philosophize further)...or focus on "good" thoughts-->or the most convenient topics at hand for peace of mind
----------------------
Not really OCD, but when alone and without any immediate or planned tasks at hand (or the convenience of carrying out any task of relative importance)...things (disturbing thoughts) just tend to get into my head (sometimes preventing relaxation, unless I might reason myself into it:shy:)
-----------------------------------

Gee, I hope I didn't scare you.

Nah, its good; it seems I can't help but speculate!(almost about anything!)

 

[honestrosewater]

Well, I'm not qualified to give serious advice. But just FYI, the content of the thoughts or images isn't relevant- it's how they make you feel and how you respond to them- and for a diagnosis, how much they interfere with your life. Occasional disturbing thoughts and anxiety is normal. Pathological anxiety differs from normal anxiety in being unreasonably intense, disruptive, uncontrollable, exaggerated, irrational, and persistent.
For OCD in particular, http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1654.htm lists some of the biological aspects, but classical and operant conditioning also play a major role in its development and maintenance- and not only in OCD, but in other anxiety disorders as well. I can't find a thorough link (books explain much more), but here's a little:

While learning a conditioned response slows dramatically in Alzheimer patients, it appears to do just the opposite in people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and people with autism, finds Indiana University's Steinmetz and his colleagues.

In a series of studies Steinmetz conducted with Indiana University's Dick McFall, PhD, JoAnne Tracy, PhD, Sushmita Ghose and Tamara Stecher, the researchers found that under some conditions people with symptoms of OCD condition three times faster than people without OCD.

"Normally, people show consistent conditioned responses after about 10 to 15 trials," says Steinmetz. "Our OCD subjects showed consistent conditioned responses after as few as three to five trials."

This finding implies that people with OCD make associations between neutral and aversive stimuli more quickly than people without the disorder, says Steinmetz. That's consistent with theories that people with OCD, and perhaps more general anxiety disorders, may suffer from a general susceptibility to aversive conditioning, he says.

- http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar99/alzh.html

They're talking about classical conditioning. It's also thought that compulsions are acquired and maintained through operant conditioning (done to avoid punishment (anxiety, obsessions)). For someone with OCD, avoidance behavior and developing neutralizing rituals is exactly what usually happens and is exacty the wrong thing to do. Someone put the basic idea of Exposure and Response Prevention (a main treatment for OCD) as "If x frightens you, then we'll help you overcome your fear by confronting and never avoiding x." So you end up having to "unlearn" your conditioned responses. It's very interesting to me to think of having a biological predisposition to actually learn a specific behavior. Well, it's complicated, but if you happen to read a an example of how the process might go, it's surprisingly, well, predictable.
Anyway, if you can't easily dismiss the thoughts, I think it's just generally a good idea to try to confront them instead of avoiding or inventing rituals to neutralize them.

 

[Nyxie]

People love to be in denial that the majority of great mathematicians did in fact suffer from at least a bit of mental illness. Some mathematicians with signs of mental illness severe enough to cause some type of disability: Cantor, Godel, Ramanujan, Isaac Newton. Russell had suffered major depression. Taniyama committed suicide. Nikola Tesla deserves mention (OCD), though he was an inventor. Albert Einstein also, though he wasn't a mathematician strictly speaking.
If you don't believe me, inform yourself.

I believe that both the mental strain of pushing the mind to its limits and the difficulties of society, which is dominated by the mediocre, introduce risk of mental illness commensurate with intellectual capability. This has more to do with intelligence than with mathematicians, I would guess, but I'm not entirely sure.

My friend and I joked that Cantor seemed to have thought so hard and long about infinity that he scrambled his brain, which is why he ended up in a mental institution for several years of his life.

I'm a math major and I have a mental illness, if that means anything. So I feel better knowing that I'm not alone in feeling lonely and frustrated with the world, and in distorting reality through my overrationalization.

Overall though even if the mental illnesses of many mathematicians were covered up or overlooked, it's clear that not all were unhappy or bipolar (Leonhard Euler in particular seemed like a happy guy!) Madness doesn't produce mathematics, but mathematicians often suffer mental or emotional disorders. I think they suffer emotional disorders before doing math or psychosis afterwards.

More on the subject:
http://www.lomont.org/Math/Talks/Mathematics%20and%20Insanity.pdf
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/39/11/36.full

 

[micromass]

People love to be in denial that the majority of great mathematicians did in fact suffer from at least a bit of mental illness. Some mathematicians with signs of mental illness severe enough to cause some type of disability: Cantor, Godel, Ramanujan, Isaac Newton. Russell had suffered major depression. Taniyama committed suicide. Nikola Tesla deserves mention (OCD), though he was an inventor. Albert Einstein also, though he wasn't a mathematician strictly speaking.
If you don't believe me, inform yourself.

I believe that both the mental strain of pushing the mind to its limits and the difficulties of society, which is dominated by the mediocre, introduce risk of mental illness commensurate with intellectual capability. This has more to do with intelligence than with mathematicians, I would guess, but I'm not entirely sure.

My friend and I joked that Cantor seemed to have thought so hard and long about infinity that he scrambled his brain, which is why he ended up in a mental institution for several years of his life.

I'm a math major and I have a mental illness, if that means anything. So I feel better knowing that I'm not alone in feeling lonely and frustrated with the world, and in distorting reality through my overrationalization.

Overall though even if the mental illnesses of many mathematicians were covered up or overlooked, it's clear that not all were unhappy or bipolar (Leonhard Euler in particular seemed like a happy guy!) Madness doesn't produce mathematics, but mathematicians often suffer mental or emotional disorders. I think they suffer emotional disorders before doing math or psychosis afterwards.

More on the subject:
http://www.lomont.org/Math/Talks/Mathematics%20and%20Insanity.pdf
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/39/11/36.full

Of course some mathematicians suffer from a mental illness. But the point is, do you have evidence that mental illness are somehow more common amond mathematicians than among other people? I don't immediately believe this... The only disease which does seem to happen more among mathematicians seems to be schizophrenia, but even then, this is just a correlation and not a causation.

But aside from psychosis, there has not been shown a link between mathematical abilities and diseases like OCD, depression, bipolar,...

 

[Stephen Tashi]

. to be a bit poetic 'There is a fine line between genius and insanity'.

I prefer this version:

"There is very little difference between genius and insanity - but genius has its limits."

 

[Nyxie]

Extreme mental strain precluded my illness, as it did for very many scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and intellectuals. I think there is a link, much the way you can "fry" a computer with information and processing overload. I experienced this, and no one can tell me that my brain strain had nothing to do with the illness.

We don't understand the brain well enough to say for sure, but studies generally find that intellectual people may be more prone to such illness. There is good evidence, but it remains inconclusive.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Extreme mental strain precluded my illness, as it did for very many scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and intellectuals.

Surely this isn't what you meant to say! "Precluded" means "prevented".

I think there is a link, much the way you can "fry" a computer with information and processing overload. I experienced this, and no one can tell me that my brain strain had nothing to do with the illness.

We don't understand the brain well enough to say for sure, but studies generally find that intellectual people may be more prone to such illness. There is good evidence, but it remains inconclusive.

 

[Nyxie]

Surely this isn't what you meant to say! "Precluded" means "prevented".

Lol! Uh, scratch that, reverse it.

 

[UMyronGaines]

preceded?

 

[Gerder10]

In the meantime, Vasistha Narayan Singh had nationalistic dreams and thought of doing his matribhoomi, Bharat, proud; rather that stay on in US as his HOD and NASA wanted him to do. He returned to India and worked at ISI Cal, IIT K and TIFR Bombay. His parents got him married to an Army Officer's Daughter with some good dowry. This army officer was from Jaipur. Due to reasons unknown, marriage did not work out and his wife left him after sometime to never come back again to him. This left him heartbroken and made his condition worse. Soon after that, He lost his mental balance and was admitted to Mental Hospital, Kanke, Ranchi. But, Dr Jagannath Mishra got him out of Kanke as he had to get some other person admitted there, in the VIP ward. He did go to Merutt hospital and after that he ran away. He suffers from Schizonfrania. He has been treated by NIMHANS Bangalore also but not much details are available. His family did not have enough money to support his treatment and Bihar Govt threw him out of Kanke which made his condition worst. It appears that he fled from Merut Mental Hospital and was untraceable for many years until someone from his village saw him as a ragpicker in Chapra in mid 90s and informed his family.

 

[SteveL27]

Why is it that many mathematicians in the past who have made significantly profound contributions to the world of math, actually suffered from quite severe mental health problems which we nowadays recognise as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder or schizophrenia etc.

Lots of people who aren't mathematicians have the same problems.