[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;38065435]Van Gogh, right?
[editline]17th October 2012[/editline]
Oh snap, I was actually right.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOlnpT_TgmI[/media]
at 44:00.
[QUOTE=lotusking;38065545]funfact: van gogh drank so much ethanol and absinthe it gave him brain damage.[/QUOTE]
That's not a very fun fact [img]http://lparchive.org/Knights-of-the-Old-Republic-II/Update%2032/emot-saddowns.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=ironman17;38064090]To be honest, when I said "I dunno how things are going", I meant to say that I don't think I'm suited for the kind of workload uni expects from me; as in there's so much coursework and so little time in which to do it.
I work easier when there isn't too much pressure, and having 3 modules per semester is a bit too much for me; the kind of workload set at college wasn't too hard, but then again uni's a totally different beast, the kind that eats away at your time. If it were 3 pieces every 2 weeks, or even just 2 modules per semester, I think I could deal with it, but the way it is now, with all these new ropes and rules you have to take onboard, it makes me feel like I bit off far more than I could chew. To be fair, this might sound a bit whiny, but I feel like I want out; unless there's an opportunity for me to transition to a less taxing part-time degree with like 2 modules per semester, I'm probably not gonna make it.
But enough about my troubles and issues; I assume you were like an "editor" for the band, like recording the songs and assembling the albums? Or am I thinking about a different job role? Also, what skills did you acquire from your Computing course?[/QUOTE]
I see, what are you studying yourself?
I found it very hard juggling 4 'thin' modules (in my Higher National Diploma, 3 'fat' ones in my top-up degree following) per semester and I felt confused a lot of the time. Luckily I was able to complete most work in the few days before each deadline and still obtain decent grades with help from friends on my course (not copypasta, they would explain things to me). I've always found it very hard to make myself start things because I have this irrational fear that things might not be perfect that stops me initiating them in the first place and generally find it difficult to concentrate anyway too.
In the band I was the vocalist and lyricist, was death metal/grind/core kind of thing and a really good outlet at the time. I did edit recordings from time to time and add drum beats using FL Studio when our drummer wasn't around.
I don't feel I gained a great deal from my Computing degree, mainly the following;
Advanced VB .NET programming skills
Advanced Local Area and Wide Area Network skills
Basic JavaScript + HTML5 Canvas
ActionScript + Flash + Photoshop
MySQL and Oracle databases
Project Management and Systems Analysis stuff
Mainly I guess I learnt how to refine my thoughts and write a bit better towards the end doing my final year dissertation/project which was about "The Use of Social Media for IT Service Delivery"
[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;38066202]That's not a very fun fact [img]http://lparchive.org/Knights-of-the-Old-Republic-II/Update%2032/emot-saddowns.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
funnerfact: not only was vincent a good painter he was also a pretty badass poet
[QUOTE]I put my heart and my soul into my work, and have lost my mind in the process.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]One may have a blazing hearth in one's soul and yet no one ever came to sit by it. Passers-by see only a wisp of smoke from the chimney and continue on their way.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Desuh;38062382][IMG]http://modcatlove.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/wains-schizophrenia-progression.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The top-right image reminds me of an earthbound battle.
That explains Garry.
Writer, mapper, video editor - PTSD and anxiety
My friends GF is an artist/writer and seems to have similar issues
My personal experiences agree with this. I hang out with the most creative kids at my school and none of us are quite stable.
[t]http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/kim_jong-il_280x450_11384a-tm.jpg?w=217&h=350[/t]
[QUOTE][I]See how open mindedness is a mental disorder, send them to the reeducation camps![/I][/QUOTE]
I don't have any mental issues.
Does that mean I'll never be truly creative?
this is bullshit im fucking crazy and im not creative at all
[QUOTE=Bobie;38062154]i'm not surprised to hear this. the liberal left revels in 'art' and 'music'- when the [i]real things[/i] that [b]matter[/b] are fixing the economy. friedman never bothered with that useless stuff...[/QUOTE]
Holy shit strawman..
I have a good feeling the only reason you know who Friedman is, is because I've mentioned him on this forum.
[editline]16th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jocke;38064645]
I never stop making up ideas and expanding them with knowledge turn them into something big.
Some of these ideas are so big and full of madness that it actully ruins my life.
[/QUOTE]
This is the most retarded thing I've read in a good while.
It's a sad thing that most people overinflate their own self worth.
[editline]16th October 2012[/editline]
God damn, reading through this thread, everyone thinks they are the next Picasso.
[editline]16th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rellow;38070512]I don't have any mental issues.
Does that mean I'll never be truly creative?[/QUOTE]
No, but how can you know you have no mental issues for sure?
[QUOTE=Strider*;38070715]Holy shit strawman..
I have a good feeling the only reason you know who Friedman is, is because I've mentioned him on this forum.
[editline]16th October 2012[/editline]
This is the most retarded thing I've read in a good while.
It's a sad thing that most people overinflate their own self worth.
[editline]16th October 2012[/editline]
God damn, reading through this thread, everyone thinks they are the next Picasso.
[editline]16th October 2012[/editline]
No, but how can you know you have no mental issues for sure?[/QUOTE]
I loved to read the part you were calling my statement retarded when your own posts to several others are way out of the league, you need to think before you make up something like that because that's the 2nd worst post I've heard this year.
And according to what you were saying that you think other people think they're more worthy?
I think you should look on your own post and read my post a bit more careful.
And put some effort to your post instead of sounding like an idiot, because it seems you don't know anything about this subject.
Thank you.
[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbjp8sg1cp1rhmyvzo1_500.jpg[/img]
[I]It gives me a whole new perspective on things[/I]
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38070623]this is bullshit im fucking crazy and im not creative at all[/QUOTE]
Same here. I think what they are trying to get at though, is those with mental illness experience and feel more creative/abstract thoughts in their head, so they have more ideas and reason to put it down on paper. More "imagination" simply (even if it's reality to many people).
[QUOTE=J!NX;38065147]also, try [URL="http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/autism.htm"]this[/URL]. I scored 9. (No autism at all)[/QUOTE]
25, and diagnosed with Asperger's.
Though that may partly be because I figured out I can't get upset about my plans getting screwed up if I don't plan anything to begin with so I answered all those questions accordingly.
In any case, I found that I can spin up one hell of a thing (a story, a picture, whatever) as long as I have a base idea of where to start.
I think I get what you mean, I find it really hard to start things but once I have a suitably stimulating starting point I can often write a ton of shit
[QUOTE]As a group, those in the creative professions were no more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders than other people[/QUOTE]
Isn't that the opposite of what the article is saying? I'm confused
[QUOTE]But they were more likely to have a close relative with a disorder, including anorexia and, to some extent, autism, the Journal of Psychiatric Research reports.[/QUOTE]
Creative people are more likely to have an anorexic relative? How does that work?
[editline]17th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=geoface;38062504]not suggesting at all that homosexuality is a mental illness, but is it just a coincidence that some artistic geniuses and scientific geniuses were (also allegedly) homosexual?
I tried my best to word that carefully cause I'm not here to offend.[/QUOTE]
People with mental illnesses are more likely to be creative because they think differently to the majority of people, whereas homosexuality just makes people think slightly more like the opposite sex really
[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;38065412]There's really quite a lot of criticism around DSM and their "methods" especially that it's focused on superficial symptoms. I would have to type up quite a bit to explain it properly. I'm not denying mental illness doesn't exist, but a lot of the things they classify as a mental illness are just laughable (such as classifying internet addiction as a disorder)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38066096]A lot of the psychologists involved in contributing and editing do happen to have financial vested interests in pharmaceutical companies that produce dubious psychoactive medications though so it is best to view it through a sceptical lense as more diagnostic criteria and conditions often means more medication (often with an unknown mechanism of action aside from that observed/reported by the patient) and more profit.[/QUOTE]
I love whenever people criticize a thing in a way that automatically invalid due to the nature of the thing in question. Demonstrates an amazing lack of understanding.
So here's your psych tidbits of the day:
[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;38065412]focused on superficial symptoms[/QUOTE]
Symptoms are inherently superficial. Symptoms are a required focus for a manual on distinguishing between and identifying diseases. The people taking issue with the superficiality of the DSM are talking about trying to bring in more about etiology and pathology, and that isn't happening from a lack of trying, it's happening because we don't [I]know[/I] that shit yet.
[QUOTE=Changes in Psychiatric Diagnosis, Psychiatric Times. Vol. 25 No. 13]It has always been understood that the descriptive approach adopted by DSM will eventually be replaced by a classification informed by an understanding of etiology, which would put psychiatry in line with much of the rest of medicine. Given that DSM-V is slated for publication in 2012, has the time finally arrived for an etiologically based classification, or, falling short of those aspirations, at least one that includes objective laboratory tests as part of its diagnostic definitions?
Given the enormous advances in imaging technology and molecular genetics over the past 15 years, one might assume that such an approach is finally within our reach. In fact, when Allen Frances and I wrote the DSM-IV Guidebook, given the explosion in new technologies available in the early 1990s, we were very optimistic that by the time DSM-V came out (which we envisioned would be sometime around 2007), it would include at least some biologically based diagnostic criteria. For example, in our explanation of the diagnostic criteria for dementia of the Alzheimer type, we wrote:
"[O]f all of the criteria sets in DSM-IV, this is the one most likely tobecome quickly outdated. As of 1995, the definite diagnosis of Alzheimer disease can be made only by autopsy or brain biopsy. . . . Fortunately, research in this area is uncovering fascinating leads concerning the genetics and pathogenesis of this form of dementia. It seems likely that before DSM-V is published, diagnostic tests for Alzheimer disease will evolve that will supersede the current clinically based criteria set. This event should be a marvelous moment in the history of psychiatry, hopefully to be followed by . . . similar advances in the understanding and diagnosis of other psychiatric conditions (eg, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder)."
Unfortunately, our hopes for the development of diagnostically specific tests that could be included in the DSM-V criteria sets for Alzheimer disease have not been borne out. One of the 12 research planning conferences, convened with the goal of reviewing the scientific literature in advance of starting formal work on DSM-V, focused on diagnostic issues in dementia. Biomarkers (eg, cerebrospinal fluid t) have been identified that have sufficient diagnostic sensitivity and specificity to distinguish between patients with Alzheimer disease and normal healthy controls; however, these markers have not been demonstrated to be useful in differentiating Alzheimer dementia from other types of dementia. This, of course, is precisely the diagnostic scenario most likely to be faced by the psychiatrist in actual clinical settings.
The lack of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity is even more the case for putative biomarkers in other diagnostic categories. [B]The essential problem is that despite recent scientific advances, the study of the causes of mental disorders remains remarkably complex: for example, while it initially appeared possible to discover the “gene” behind a particular mental disorder, it is now clear that disorders are caused by a complex interaction of genes and the environment.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;38065412]I'm not denying mental illness doesn't exist, but a lot of the things they classify as a mental illness are just laughable (such as classifying internet addiction as a disorder)[/QUOTE]
That's an entirely different criticism, and an incorrect one. Your example would be terrible, because it's very clear internet addiction is either [URL="http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=99602&journalid=13"]a unique disorder[/URL] or a complicating factor to OCD. Inclusion in the DSM V (it isn't in the DSM IV TR) is an ongoing debate, contrary to whatever shit you read on reddit would have you believe.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38066096]A lot of the psychologists involved in contributing and editing do happen to have financial vested interests in pharmaceutical companies that produce dubious psychoactive medications[/QUOTE]
It's more than that, pharmaceutical companies directly contribute to the DSM discussions. There's no false pretenses at all, pharma plays openly.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38066096]it is best to view it through a sceptical lense as more diagnostic criteria[/QUOTE]
Of course it's best to view diagnostic criterion as diagnostic criterion. Nobody is using the DSM as a bible.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38066096]and conditions often means more medication (often with an unknown mechanism of action aside from that observed/reported by the patient) and more profit.[/QUOTE]
This is a problem distinct from the DSM. The DSM is a list of criteria for saying "you have disease X". "Big Pharma" doesn't actually want [I]more[/I] diseases, because the profitability of a treatment will depend upon the cost of the pill to manufacture, trials, and all that other wonderful junk, even if you assume they're going to lie about what the trials say. Not every pill makes money, and they can't lie about contents or simply not do mandatory federal testing. "Big Pharma" profits off existing, known, high-margin diseases. They've never fabricated one based on what would make them the best profits possible, to assume so is reaching into conspiracy-theory grade denialism and supposition of the unproven.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
