A Beautiful Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste

For me, much of the film was familiar in minor ways:

Nash was gifted at recognizing patterns; I'm exceptional at interpreting symbols and metaphorical content, as well as assigning plausible interpretive meaning to abstracts.

Like Nash, I can be described as "an acquired taste."

Like Nash, I have a certain shyness when interacting with other people and I recognize that I don't generally like most of the people whom are part of my day-to-day existence (I, however, have worked at learning to live beyond both of these conditions and have attained a respectable degree of success as a result of these efforts).

Like Nash, I tend to prefer a verbally-direct approach, and the response varies widely (a few find it refreshing and audacious, but the majority prefer to condemn it as my being distasteful or ill-mannered).

When the fictitional characterization of Nash was queried as to why he discontinued use of his psychotropic medications, his explanation of "Because the pills made it hard to see the answers..." and his eloquence in later describing the price paid for living without chemical assistance (relinquishing the ability to hope and dream) were both astonishingly and painfully familiar.

Nash, however, is schizophrenic; I am bipolar. The two are sibling conditions, really -- my own opinion is that they are simply distinguished from one another by a difference in the degree of severity of symptoms experienced. It has been a decade now since I last experienced a hallucination, and I was consciously aware of the discrepancy between what was real and what was being generated by my own mind -- but that didn't stop me from acting in accordance with what the hallucination suggested, nonetheless.

The most significant difference between our respective existences, however, is this: While I am slightly above average in many areas, I am not exceptional in any one. Unlike John Nash, a Nobel prize-winning mathematician rewarded for his contribution to the field of Economics, I will likely never be distinguished or professionally celebrated. The best I can hope for is to masquerade successfully as being "normal" and unexceptional. Nobel prize material I'm not, and I have no delusional thinking in this regard.

The underlying theme of the movie (cultivating a benign tolerance for the "mentally ill" in our society) is really only intended to be applied to those who are exceptional; even the movie's director, Ron Howard, acknowledges this: "How do you understand what goes on inside a person's mind when under stress, when mentally ill, when operating at the highest levels of achievement?" To me, it seems that Hollywood has yet again reinforced the message that understanding and acceptance are not to be bestowed upon everyone, but instead to be held in reserve for a magnificient few whose contributions cannot be denied lest we wish to appear to be prejudiced. And while it's a genuinely good movie that will undoubtedly be recognized with critical acclaim when the Oscars are next handed out, my fear is that this one sad flaw will be swept under the red carpet in the process.

(P.S. -- It is also my opinion that the typical g**k should see this movie, if only to enjoy a superb example of arrogant repartee that all could benefit from aspiring to. Just think how much more amusing this world could be if we all had a phalanx of scriptwriters waiting in the wings, generating our casual utterances and bons mots.)

	Reality intrudes (none / 0) (#1)
	by Peter Johnson on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 11:18:34 AM PST

	Just think how much more amusing this world could be if we all had a phalanx of scriptwriters waiting in the wings, generating our casual utterances and bons mots. Technically we do. Count how many times you've heard the following phrases in real life: \|plural noun\|? We don't need no steenkin' \|plural noun\|! These aren't the \|plural noun\| you're looking for. Show me the money! NOT!! The list is far from comprehensive, but I'd say that scriptwriters have a lot to answer for. As for the rest, you're certainly an aquired taste, but an easy to aquire one. And sure, people don't understand or tolerate our disorder, that's fine. We always have the last laugh when the voices order us to make soup out of their entrails. --Peter Are you adequate?

	Get off it. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 11:46:46 AM PST

	I don't believe in psychological disorders. Most of them are made up by crackpots so that they could sell dangerous psychotropic drugs to you. -- Peace and much love...

	You don't have to believe in something... (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 04:02:59 PM PST

	for it to be real.

	Leaving something out, aren't we? (none / 0) (#3)
	by elenchos on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 12:27:52 PM PST

	Well, the film conveniently found a way to gloss over the teeny, tiny little factoid that Nash was a --->HOMOSEXUAL<--- of the most confused psuedo-closeted kind. The kind of closted homo who gets married, has nine kids and still ends up on the front page of the town newspaper with in a full-color photo of getting arrested for public lewdness and indecent exposure in the men's room. And typical geeks really need to realize how much they have in common with that. Geeks, do you really want to live a furtive live of sordid, anonymous rendevous in disgusting public toilets? Or will you finally admit the truth and live a truly open, out, and self-affirming life? Ron Howard obviously was no more prepared to face facts than the slashbots are. In contrast, consider the noble and heroic Alan Turing, who after his service as the single individual most resposible for the defeat of Nazi Germany, refused to trade on his then-classified record of national service to escape persecution for his (quite prouod) homosexuality. Turing ought to be the archtypal geek role model, not the sad, confused Nash, and certainly not lightweights like ESR or doodlers like Knuth. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	He's schizophrenic, dude (5.00 / 1) (#20)
	by jvance on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 08:07:12 PM PST

	Did it occur to you, or the outing brigade who are simply _screaming_ their heads off, that Nash's sexuality is confused precisely because he's schizophrenic? Take a rational mind, and scramble all of the inputs, so that you completely misread social cues, hallucinate voices, and see people who aren't there, and you'd be lucky that your object of affection isn't a camel saddle, let alone a member o f the same species. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	So? (none / 0) (#23)
	by elenchos on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 09:09:53 PM PST

	What difference does it make if that is the cause of his being gay? Does that explain the denial? It isn't hard to see why the movie studios didn't want a "gay themed movie." Money. Gay movies are ghettoized, and a movie about a mathematician is not exactly that manistream to begin with. Why Ron Howard didn't want to take any risks is a little harder to explain, but let him work it out. But the geeks. Why do they so like to avoid this? Why does it bug them so much? And why don't they give Turing his due? So anyway, I take it you have some information in hand associating mental illness with homosexuality? You'd have thought if such evidence existed the religious right wouldn't let anyone forget it. So they will be changing the DSM-V to account for this reversal? Mmmm? I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	So... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
	by jvance on Tue Feb 5th, 2002 at 12:12:34 AM PST

	"inappropriate affect" That's one of the criteria in the DSM IV. This disease, in some of its manifestations, scrambles the sufferer's emotions and emotive reactions to the world around him. The woman who stalked David Letterman, for example, was absolutely convinced that they had a personal relationship and that he loved her. But I suppose in your world, where sex is completely devoid of emotional content, sexuality would be exempt from this scrambling. Don't worry, Elenchos. Schizophrenia is not contagious. You won't catch it and, God forbid, turn straight. jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	Sir, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
	by elenchos on Tue Feb 5th, 2002 at 01:48:05 AM PST

	It appears you have come as some kind of marauder commit acts of unspeakable terrorism here at Adequacy.org. You might expect us to become alarmed, but you are too late: we are today under non-stop barrages of every kind of cheap and vile trick ever conceived in the foul underbelly of the Internet. What this means to you is that your wild ranting and grapeshot blasts of shocking accusations, supported by the most spurious reasoning has very, very little meaning or effect upon us. We weather worse storms daily. We brush aside thugs and ruffians twice your size before breakfast. This mode is not your strong suit. Perhaps you would do better as a "Skript Kiddie"? You may easily download little programs that will launch Deviation of Services attacks (D.o.S.) on any target of your choosing. Many even come with a friendly Windows interface, making what was once an undreamed-of and too-daunting challenge into something even the crudest mugger can handle. That won't work against us either, but it'll be better than this, at least. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Apologies! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
	by jvance on Tue Feb 5th, 2002 at 11:38:03 AM PST

	I am terribly sorry. It certainly wasn't my intent to pour salt on the open wound that, I see now, is your conflicted sexual identity. All I can say in my defense is that, given your other comments , I thought you were secure enough to handle some gentle "ribbing". But no matter - consider the subject dropped. In the future, I will endeavour to meet the high standards and general air of bonhomie that is Adequacy. jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	My sexual ambiguity is not... (3.00 / 2) (#29)
	by elenchos on Tue Feb 5th, 2002 at 07:05:04 PM PST

	...a source of any confilict whatsoever. What you must take responsibility for is your transparent avoidance of the original issues raised in this discussion in order to score what you imagine to be points in some sick, cruel game only you yourself are totally conscious of playing. Your clever manipulations are not clever enough, and you have been caught red-handed. These acts of pure TERRORISM that you have done, that you continue to do, have earned you a place on the Adequacy.org Enemies List. The F.B.I. is constantly made aware of the names on this list, and many of those who resided of at the top are no longer around, if you know what I mean. They have simply disappeared, and the world became a better place. You would be well-advised to remain on-topic in the future. The policy of you are either for us or against us is still in effect. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Normal People (none / 0) (#5)
	by Orinoco on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 10:36:44 PM PST

	It has become painfully clear to me that the only normal people are those whom I do not know well. I wish I had known this some time ago before wasting hundreds of thousands of someone's (not mine, thankfully) hard earned dollars in the pursuit of excellence which, while occasionally showing some ankle, continues to elude me like a coquettish French maid being chased round the stable by the groom. Or some fucking thing.

	Normal people (none / 0) (#6)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 12:55:42 AM PST

	Unfortunately, I've met some depressingly normal people. They follow the same routine 365 days a year without a break. The merest thought of deviance is enough to send them into a blind panic. They believe everything they read and consider sitcoms to be the highest form of art. Their greatest worry is the possibility of demonstrating independent thought or action, that they might somehow differ from what they're told is "normal." Of all the things I've ever aspired to be, "normal" is not one of them. A troll's true colors.

	three responses to this post. (none / 0) (#7)
	by nathan on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 01:08:18 AM PST

	The average person is nothing more than a Joe Six-pack! He probably has an unglamorous job, like mining or steelworking or auto repair, and is not nearly as important, cool or cultured as people who visit this site or others like it. In fact, he's nothing other than a pathetic dupe of society and authority, numbing his brain as quickly as possible, suitable only to be a lowly labourer or body-servant in the age of tehnocracy. I hate ordinary people! They suck so hard! They don't get my weak attempts to seem smart, and they don't realize that your smarts are the most important thing about you! (That must be why they aren't as fiercely contentious about intellectual pissing contests as I am. They're too dumb to know better!) Their interests are boring, lame, and irrelevant in comparison with mine, and I am their superior, both by nature and by virtue of my own hard-won swellness! Personally, ordinary people worry me, because they're racist and sexist and violent. They are all dangerous bigots with too many guns and too much religion, and we've been fools to let them get away with it for this long. I mean, have you ever listened to that Rush guy? They certainly have. At best, they tune it out and just watch soap operas, but when they get exercised, they're like stampeding buffalo. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	a little glib, mr fish (none / 0) (#11)
	by nathan on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 08:59:04 AM PST

	FYI, Gilmour got the line from Thoreau. Anyhow. Beg pardon for quoting a huge chunk, but: I have lived with and around people who ... live their lives defined by what they have been told, and by what their peers tell them is normal. They want nothing more than to live up to that standard. That standard and nothing more. Anything else would earn them the most horrifying label of all: different. You realize that this applies just as much to the cool kids as to those unpleasant blue-collar types, don't you? Good heavens, man, have you ever heard of slashdot? Or maybe you've never hung around with a bunch of social progressives and watched them feed off of their own shared prejudices and ersatz virtues. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Back to topic, eventually (5.00 / 1) (#30)
	by jvance on Tue Feb 5th, 2002 at 09:30:39 PM PST

	My sexual ambiguity is not a source of confilict whatsoever I'm glad to hear you're comfortable with your sexual ambiguity. Really, I am. As for the rest of your post, I'm impressed. You're obviously a quick study. You've only been exposed to groups.google.com for a few days and you've already mastered the art of the death threat. Clearly, I am overmatched, "elenchos." Or should I say Mossboy? But enough of this good-natured banter. What struck me the most about the character of Nash was the way he overcame his affliction through the sheer power of his intellect. Is the book worth reading? Does it handle this aspect of Nash in the same way? If so, I'm going to have to buy it. Wishing you happiness however you define it, I am jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	Re: (none / 0) (#8)
	by tkatchev on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 01:28:27 AM PST

	So true! If only people like you ran the government... -- Peace and much love...

	I'm sure you do. (none / 0) (#9)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 03:31:03 AM PST

	I have lived with and around people who could have been lifted straight out of Pleasant Valley. They live their lives defined by what they have been told, and by what their peers tell them is normal. They want nothing more than to live up to that standard. That standard and nothing more. Anything else would earn them the most horrifying label of all: different. Personally, I don't give a shit about your opinion or sarcasm. I know people who live with what David Gilmour referred to as "quiet desperation," locked into lives with narrow boundaries, simultaneously fascinated and horrified by anything outside them. Whether or not you believe they exist doesn't change them. They are "normal" in the worst sense of the word, and they will actively resist any change that might threaten that normality. But don't worry. This isn't real life. This is just a movie for your entertainment. A troll's true colors.

	Bullshit. (none / 0) (#10)
	by tkatchev on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 04:37:36 AM PST

	I think the problem is in you. These people you so bravely despise are not automatons, no matter what your unhealthy pride is whispering to you. If you had taken the time to talk to these people, to get to know what they are really thinking and feeling behind the facade, you would find that they are not much different from you and me. The outside mannerisms of these people are just that -- masks, designed to protect the things they treasures they hold most dear from people like you. Personally, I understand where they are coming from. You don't seem like a very pleasant person in real life. (Correct me if I'm wrong, though.) -- Peace and much love...

	Gilmour or Thoreau (none / 0) (#17)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 03:54:59 PM PST

	The sentiment is the same. Thoreau made the observation and Gilmour echoed it. Why? Because the wisdom still holds. Yes, the sentiment applies to the cool kids as well as the nerds, the jocks, the druggies and Mom 'n' Pop. People yearn for peer approval, and sacrifice their own individuality for it. I don't care what stereotype you assign to them, the whole concept disgusts me. Others applaud them for it. I've been in groups where people tried to mimic each other because they didn't want to be different. I've been in other groups where they picked up patterns from each other through long association, but avoided becoming carbon copies of each other. They allowed their common interests bring them together without sacrificing what made them different. There are marked differences between these attitudes, and those differences lie at the heart of my argument. A troll's true colors.

	no. (none / 0) (#19)
	by nathan on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 05:39:16 PM PST

	You can't get out of this one. You weren't striking a courageous blow against conformity in all its forms. You were mocking so-called ordinary people for being less clever than you, in a rather odiously self-aggrandizing fashion. I mean, the "sitcoms" line sort of traps you. There are people who look totally ordinary to you who are very far from it on the inside. So long as you've got a license to dismiss them, I'm sure you'll be able to hide from it. That's your loss and you should regret it. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	bit late (none / 0) (#12)
	by osm on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 09:42:18 AM PST

	for the teen angst routine, don't you think?

	oh, fuck yeah! (none / 0) (#13)
	by derek3000 on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 09:44:57 AM PST

	I know people who live with what David Gilmour referred to as "quiet desperation," locked into lives with narrow boundaries, simultaneously fascinated and horrified by anything outside them. Yeah, I suppose being all into Pink Floyd isn't passe or anything, right? You've really delved into something no one else has thought of before. I've got news for you, you self-righteous fuck. I knew a ton of kids in high school who thought they were building "the wall," and each one was more 'normal' than the last. I think that you'd better realize that things aren't as simple as you think they are. And neither are people. Now go pout in your faux isolation. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	passe (none / 0) (#18)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 04:17:01 PM PST

	Yes, it's true. I like Pink Floyd and I don't care who else does or doesn't. I could go through a list of things that I like or don't like with reasons for each of them. And that's the point. I don't like something because someone else told me I should. I had a friend introduce me to the band Garbage, and I wasn't terribly impressed. I still don't pay much attention to them. That same friend introduced me to VNV Nation and got me hooked. Not because my friend wanted me to, but because I found something in the music that I enjoyed. How many people ever pause in their lives and ask questions about what they like, what they don't like and what they believe? How many people ever really examine themselves? How many people actively make decisions for themselves instead of letting other people make their decisions for them? My experience tells me that the answer to that question is "damned few." I'm not "building the Wall." I'm not tearing it down, either. It's a non-issue to me. I'm pointing out that people exercise less active control over themselves and their lives than they could, and certainly less than I think they should. I'm not trying to force anyone to think for themselves, that would be futile. I like to sow the seeds and let them fall where they will. Does this make me a self-righteous fuck? Probably. I freely admit to an oversized ego. But I acknowledge it and I make my choices. Nor do I apologize because someone doesn't like it. You always have the freedom to ignore me, just as I ignore those who have nothing to contribute for me. A troll's true colors.

	Not trying to be audacious, but (none / 0) (#22)
	by chloedancer on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 09:02:15 PM PST

	ya kinda missed the fucking point, SG. Not "normal" as in pedestrian (or bus-riding) mundane, but instead "normal" as in being accorded a certain level of acceptance that I only experience when I am living up to what other people believe to be appropriate. To be "mentally ill" and average just isn't enough to win one tolerance or acceptance, truth be known. The only alternative route is to be exceptional and that, I realize, just ain't part of the current experience for me this time around. So instead of being brilliant enough to skate around the rules, I get to try to live by as "normally" as possible -- think of it as an invisible straight-jacket, one which is worn 24/7/365. My grandmother used to say that the gods only give you what you're capable of handling; remembering this is the only thing that pulls me through some days.

	Then you misunderstand me. (none / 0) (#24)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 09:43:17 PM PST

	I'm not referring to the normality of "my life is out of control, I need a little normality." I'm referring to the "my life is safe and sterile, and I fear what might break me out of this box." I apologize if you thought I was trying to criticize you for wanting something better than what you have. I was instead responding to the concept of normality described at the beginning of this thread. A troll's true colors.

	Perhaps I don't want to see this movie! (none / 0) (#14)
	by typical geek on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 10:28:26 AM PST

	Since it's Oscar time, there are any number of movies I'd rather see, such as: Lord of the Rings, again The Birthday Girl, Nicole Kidman is a hot redhead, though too skinny In the Bedroom, I've heard it's really good Amelie, she' sno Juliette Binoche, but she's French Black Hawk Down Mulholland Drive Man Who Wasn't There, gotta love the Coen brothers. So, you can see, there's much better movies to watch than some boring math one. gcc is to software freedom as guns are to personal freedom.

	OT: Lord of the Rings. (none / 0) (#15)
	by tkatchev on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 11:03:48 AM PST

	I saw the "lord of the rings" movie recently -- quite to my surprise, I really liked it. To me it seemed like a very strange post-modernist work, on one hand, and a deeply conservative parable on the other. Very interesting. I think this is the first time I've seen a non-liberalist message clothed in such a completely post-modernist fashion. The best part, in my opinion, was the weird non-causality of the movie. I mean, there wasn't any logic to the flow of the movie -- we got all sorts of strange scenes melting one into the other without any sense of logic to it. At the same time, the flow was very even and structured, without the clip-like "jarring" I expected. Great job. -- Peace and much love...

	Interesting. (none / 0) (#16)
	by hauntedattics on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 11:48:20 AM PST

	To me it seemed like a very strange post-modernist work, on one hand, and a deeply conservative parable on the other. Given that the movie was directed by Peter Jackson and adapted from a work by Tolkien, your observation doesn't surprise me.

	Non-Causality (none / 0) (#21)
	by First Incision on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 08:09:47 PM PST

	I agree. Much of the "non-causality" you describe was due to cutting out large chunks of plot. I think the style in which movie was presented kept it entertaining as it sped through the vital plot points. Incidentally, tkatchev, I have recently heard from a Russian classmate about the "New Chronology." I did a little cursory reading on it. I would be interested on hearing your thoughts on the subject. Would you mind posting a diary entry (or even submitting a diary entry) about it? _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Correction (none / 0) (#25)
	by First Incision on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 10:27:54 PM PST

	Again, my proofreading skills escape me. Please replace "or even submitting a diary entry" with "or even submitting a story for the front page" _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.