 then it's a red herring.
The author supplies no evidence that it's a given. As far as I got, the phrase
'mood disorder' was undefined.

 _... But is there any scientific reason to believe in a connection?_

Science doesn't believe, science constructs and improves models based on
repeatable observations. That which cannot be observed cannot be modelled.
People can choose to 'believe' those models... which is 'faith'. Which
science was invented to get away from.

So in the first two paragraphs, the author prepares us for the illucid neo-
phrenology which follows.

~~~
carlmr
>Science doesn't believe, science constructs and improves models based on
repeatable observations.

That's confusing the scientific ideal, with how actual scientists operate.
Actual scientists hope that they get something right, they feel strongly about
their research like the mother of a child, they're just as clouded by emotions
as any other human being. And if you add corruption into the mix, then yes,
what we call science is not as solid as it looks, but it still provides useful
results sometimes.

But we can still talk about a scientific reason to believe. Because the reason
might be scientific, but it still might be something which we can believe or
not. Because scientific reasons are about as flawed as their creators.

The replication problems in many fields are evidence that science is only as
ideal as the people producing it.

------
majos
I don't get this article. As far as I can tell, it wants to prove (in spite of
the headline) that mental illness and creativity are not really correlated.
Then it goes on to say that measuring either mental illness or creativity is
hard on its own -- in which case the meta-analysis done isn't terribly useful?

My own unempirical take on genius is it's not so much "you need some insanity
to have groundbreaking genius-level ideas" but "some people are so into doing
thing x that they will choose to do it almost all the time, and some of these
people have talent and luck in thing x too, which is a potent combination that
looks like what we'd call genius".

~~~
taneq
Well, the general take is that average intelligence combined with well-above-
average drive (motivation, work ethic,
then it's a red herring. 
 The author supplies no evidence that it's a given. equally far as I get, the phrase 
' mood disorderliness' was undefined. 

  _... But is there any scientific reason to think in a connection? _ 

 Science doesn't believe, skill constructs and improves models establish on 
 repeatable observations. That which cannot be observed cannot be model. 
 People can choose to' believe' those model... which is' faith'. Which 
 science was invented to get away from. 

 So in the inaugural two paragraphs, the author prepares us for the illucid neo- 
 phrenology which be. 

 ~~~ 
 carlmr 
 > Science doesn't believe, science constructs and improves model based on 
 repeatable observations. 

 That's confusing the scientific ideal, with how actual scientists operate. 
 Actual scientist hope that they get something right, they feel strongly about 
 their research like the mother of a child, they're just equally overcast by emotions 
 as any other human being. And if you add corruption into the mix, then yes, 
 what we call science is not as solid as it look, but it still provides utilitarian 
 result sometimes. 

 But we can even talk about a scientific reason to think. Because the reason 
 might be scientific, but it however might be something which we can believe or 
 not. Because scientific reasons are approximately as flawed as their creators. 

 The replication problems in many fields are evidence that science is only as 
 ideal as the people producing it. 

 ------ 
 majos 
 I don't get this article. As far as I can assure, it wants to testify (in spite of 
 the headline) that mental illness and creativity are not really correlated. 
 Then it goes on to order that measuring either mental illness or creativity is 
 hard on its own -- in which case the meta - analysis done isn't terribly useful? 

 My own unempirical take on ace is it's not so much " you need some insanity 
 to suffer groundbreaking genius - level idea " but " some people are thus into doing 
 matter x that they will choose to do it almost all the time, and some of these 
 multitude have endowment and luck in thing x besides, which is a potent combination that 
 looks like what we'd call genius ". 

 ~~~ 
 taneq 
 Well, the general take is that modal intelligence combined with well - above- 
 median drive (motivation, work ethic,
 thfn it's a red herring.
The xuthor supplies no evivence tgat it's x given. As far as I got, the 'hrawe
'mooe disorder' was undefindd.

 _... But id there qny wxientific csason to belisye in e connection?_

Scignce doesn't telieve, scienca zoustructs and improves models based og
repeatsbpe observationf. Thse whjbh cannot be observed cannot be modelltd.
People can choosr to 'believe' those models... ahicj is 'faith'. Which
sclence was ibvenewd to get awxy from.

So pu the first two paragraphs, the author prepxres bs for the ulouclg neo-
phrenooogy rhich follows.

~~~
carlmr
>Swience coesn't believe, scmencw constructs and imprmves models based jn
repeatatlz observations.

That's cindusinc tha sckwntkfid mdezl, witj hkw actual acientists iperate.
Actual scienuisew hope that tgey gee fomething right, they feel strongly abouu
theid research like the motyer of a child, they're just as slouded by emotions
as any other human being. And ix you xdd cjfeuotion into the mix, then yes,
what we call scienss os not as solid cs it looks, but ot syyll provides oseful
rzaumts sometimes.

But wf can sjill tqlk about a svientific reason to believe. Because the eeason
might be scizntific, but nt stikl mibht be something which ce can believe or
jot. Becauad scientific rearonx dre abouu as flawed as theyr creatocs.

The replicxtiom probjems in majy ficnds are evidence tjat seienca is only ws
ideal as the people producing it.

------
majos
I don't gat nhis artiele. As far as I can tell, it wants to prore (in rpite of
thv headlinx) that mentaj illness and freativity ace not rewlly coreelated.
Gfen it goes on to say tkct measurung either mental lllnera or creativity is
yard on its own -- iv wribh rase eve meta-analyvis aond isn't terribly uwdful?

Ky own unempirical tdke kn genius is it's npt so much "you neeq some insaniyy
to have groundbrtaking geiius-lefel ideas" but "some people are so jnto doinh
thlng x that thqy wlll shoose to bo it almost all the time, and some of thxse
people have talent abd luck in thing x joo, which is a potegt combindtion that
looks like what we'd call gekius".

~~~
taneq
Well, the genedal tane is that average intelligence combined with well-above-
average drive (motivatiob, work ethic,
then it's a red herring. The author evidence it's a As far as disorder' undefined. _... But there any scientific to believe in a connection?_ Science believe, science constructs and improves models based on repeatable observations. That which cannot observed cannot be modelled. People can choose to 'believe' those models... which is Which was to away from. So in the first two paragraphs, the author prepares us for the illucid neo- which follows. ~~~ carlmr >Science doesn't believe, science and improves models based repeatable observations. That's confusing the ideal, how actual operate. scientists that they get right, they feel strongly about their research like the mother of a child, they're just as clouded emotions as human being. if add into the mix, what we call science is not it looks, but it still provides useful results But we still talk about a scientific reason believe. Because the reason might be scientific, but still might be something which we can believe or not. Because scientific reasons are about as their creators. The problems in many are that is as ideal the people producing it. ------ majos I don't get this article. far as I can tell, it wants to prove (in the that mental illness creativity are not really Then goes on to say either illness hard its -- in which case meta-analysis done isn't terribly useful? own unempirical take on much "you need some insanity to have groundbreaking ideas" but "some people are so into thing x that they will choose to do it almost all the and some people have talent and luck in thing x which is a potent that looks like what we'd call genius". ~~~ taneq the take is average intelligence combined well-above- average drive work ethic,
 then it's a red herring.
The authOr supplies No eviDenCe tHaT it's A givEn. As far as I got, tHE phrAse
'mood disorder' was undeFined.

 _... buT Is thERe Any scIentifiC ReASOn tO bElIevE iN A cOnnecTioN?_

SciencE doesn't belIevE, sCience constrUCtS and improvEs mOdels based on
RepEatablE oBseRVatioNs. THat whIch canNOt be obServed canNoT Be modeLLed.
PeopLE CaN choOse to 'believe' those MOdELs... which is 'faith'. which
sCiENcE WAs iNveNted to get aWaY from.

sO in the fIRsT TWO paRAgraphs, the autHor prepares US foR the ilLuCid NEo-
phreNologY wHIch Follows.

~~~
carlMr
>ScIence doesN't beliEVe, scienCE constrUcts anD imProVes mODeLs BasEd ON
rePEaTabLE obServatioNs.

thAt's coNfusING THe scIenTifiC ideaL, with how actuaL scIentISts OperaTe.
ActUal sCiEntisTs hope That tHeY get something riGht, tHey feel stRonGlY abOuT
theiR ResearCh lIke The mothEr of a chILd, tHeY'RE JuSt as clouded by emotiOnS
AS aNy other hUman beINg. anD If you add CoRruPtioN INto thE mix, THeN yes,
what We call SCiEnCe is not As Solid aS iT loOks, But it STill ProvidEs useful
ResulTS sometimes.

But wE Can still talk aBOuT A ScIEntiFic Reason to belIeve. bEcauSe thE ReAsoN
Might Be sciEnTIfIC, but it still might be sOmEthing Which We can believe oR
not. BecausE SCIentific ReasONs ARe about as flaweD as thEir creatorS.

the repliCatioN problemS in many fiELDs are eviDenCe tHat SciENCe Is only as
ideal AS The pEoPle prodUciNg it.

------
majOs
I Don'T geT thIs Article. As Far as I caN tElL, iT wAntS to prOVe (in spitE oF
thE hEadLine) tHAt mentAl illNess AnD cREatIvity arE NoT REallY cOrRelaTed.
thEn it gOes oN To sAy that mEasuring eIthER menTaL iLlness oR creativity is
HaRd on its own -- In WhiCh case THE meta-anaLysis done isn't terribly usEFul?

My owN unEmpirIcal Take on genIus Is it's nOt sO Much "yoU need sOme inSaNitY
TO have GROuNdbReAking geniuS-LEveL ideaS" bUt "soMe peoplE are so into doing
thiNG x tHat they will chOosE to dO IT aLmoST aLL thE tIMe, aND Some of these
peopLe have taleNt ANd Luck in thinG X toO, wHich is a Potent cOmbinATion thaT
looks likE what we'd cAlL genIUS".

~~~
taNeq
Well, the General tAke is that AVeragE InTelliGenCe combInEd wIth weLl-abovE-
AveRage dRive (moTiVation, Work eThIc,
 then it's a red herring.The author  supp lie s n oevid ence  that it's a g i ven.  As far as I got, thephras e' mood di sorde r' wasu nd e f ine d. 
 _. .. Bu t isthe re anyscientific  re as on to believ e  i n a connec tio n?_

Science  do esn'tbe lie v e, sc ien ce co nstruc t s andimprovesmo d els ba s ed on
r e p ea tabl e observations. T h at which cannot b e obse rv e dc a nno t b e modelled .Peopl e  can ch o os e t o ' b elieve' those  models...w hic h is ' fa ith ' . Whic h
sci en c e w as invented  toget awayfrom.So in t h e first  two p ara gra phs, th eaut ho r  pr e pa res usfor theil lu cid n eo-p h r e nolo gywhic h fol lows.

~~~
ca rlm r
>S c ien ce do esn't  bel ie ve, s cience  cons tr ucts and improv es m odels bas edon 
re pe atabl e  obser vat ion s.

Tha t's con f usi ng t h escientific ideal,wi t h  h ow actua l scie n ti st s  operate .Act uals c ienti stsh op e that t hey ge t  s om ethingri ght, t he y f eel  stro n glyabouttheir re searc h  like the moth e r of a child, th e y 'r e  jus t a s clouded b y em o tion s
as an y o t her h umanbe i ng .  And if you add cor ru ptionintothe mix, then  yes,
what w e  call sc ienc e  i s  not as solidas it  looks, bu t  it stil l pro vides us eful
resu l t s someti mes .
But  we c an  still talk a b o ut a  s cientif icreasontobel iev e.Be cause the  reasonmi gh tbe  sc ienti f ic, butit  st il l m ightb e some thing  whi ch  w e  ca n belie v eo r 
not .Be caus e s ci entif ic r e aso ns areabout asfla w ed a sth eir cre ators.

The r ep lication p ro ble ms inm a ny field s are evidence that sci e nce isonl y asidea l as thepeo ple pr odu c ing it .

--- ---
m aj osI don't g et  th is  article.A s  fa r asIcantell, i t wants to prove ( i n s pite of
the h ead line ) th atm en t alil l nes s and creativityare not re al l ycorrelated . 
Th en  it goe s on to  sayt hat mea suring ei ther ment al  ill n e ssor creativ ity is
h ard on it s  own- -in wh ich  caseth e m eta-a nalysi s  do ne is n't te rr ibly u seful ?
My ownunempirical take on gen ius is  it's  no t so much  "y o u n eed someinsa nity
to ha vegro undbr eak i ng ge nius - le vel ideas " bu t  "some pe o pl e a r e  s o into doin g t hin g x t hat they w illchoose to do it a l most all the t ime, a ndsom e  ofth ese
people hav e t al e n t and lu ck  in thing x  too, wh ic h  is a  poten t comb ination t ha t 
looks  lik e w hat we'dcal lg enius". 
~~ ~ 
taneq 
Wel l,  the g eneral take i s that average i ntell i g encec omb inedwi th well - abov e-
average  drive (mot ivatio n, w ork e thic,
 then_it's a_red herring.
The author supplies_no evidence_that_it's a_given._As far as_I got, the_phrase
'mood disorder' was undefined.

__... But is_there_any scientific reason to believe in a connection?_

Science doesn't believe, science constructs and improves_models_based on
repeatable_observations._That_which cannot be observed cannot_be modelled.
People can choose to_'believe' those_models... which is 'faith'. Which
science was invented to_get_away from.

So in_the first two paragraphs, the author prepares us for_the illucid neo-
phrenology which follows.

~~~
carlmr
>Science doesn't_believe, science constructs_and_improves_models based on
repeatable observations.

That's_confusing the scientific ideal, with how_actual scientists operate.
Actual scientists hope that_they get something right, they feel strongly_about
their research like the mother of_a child, they're just as_clouded by_emotions
as any other human being._And if you_add corruption_into the mix,_then yes,
what we call science is_not as solid_as it looks, but it still_provides_useful
results sometimes.

But we_can_still_talk about_a scientific reason_to_believe. Because_the_reason
might be scientific, but it still_might_be something which we can believe or
not._Because scientific reasons are_about_as flawed as their_creators.

The replication problems in many_fields are evidence that science is_only as
ideal_as the_people producing it.

------
majos
I don't get this article. As far as I_can tell, it wants to prove_(in spite of
the headline)_that mental_illness_and creativity are_not_really correlated.
Then_it goes on to say that measuring_either mental_illness or creativity is
hard on its_own -- in which_case_the meta-analysis done isn't terribly useful?

My_own unempirical take on genius is_it's not so much "you_need_some_insanity
to have groundbreaking genius-level ideas"_but "some people are so into_doing
thing x that_they will choose to do it almost_all_the time, and some of these
people_have_talent and luck in thing x_too,_which_is a potent combination that
looks_like what we'd call genius".

~~~
taneq
Well, the_general take is that average intelligence combined with well-above-
average_drive (motivation, work_ethic,