But who are these idiots you're referring to? Eight months in a hospital and then he's released. To me, the mistake lies there. You say he clearly was not normal - but how do you, or we for that matter, know? He must have appeared normal to convince presumably competent psychologists that he was safe to…
But who are these idiots you're referring to? Eight months in a hospital and then he's released. To me, the mistake lies there. You say he clearly was not normal - but how do you, or we for that matter, know? He must have appeared normal to convince presumably competent psychologists that he was safe to reenter society. So these idiots are who? The doctors? The NYT who made him a star? Hollywood who wanted to exalt him? Yale and every other university who wanted to accept him? The profs at Yale who thought he was brilliant and overlooked his obvious flaws? Is there an ideological slant here that taints everyone with blood on their hands - or was it just a mistake made, like mistakes are made everyday medically that no one hears or cares about.
Didn't the article say that the Yale profs knew he couldn't do the work? Unless I read that wrong, everyone seems to have been kidding themselves. To serve what end?
Apparently he was doing the work with assistance from fellow students as in some read to him, some typed his papers - Rosen didn't say they wrote his papers - and professors talked with him at length and didn't brush him off. How is this any different than someone with learning issues and needs someone to read to them, type their papers and provide time to talk through assignments etc and give support.
What became clear was that in Michael's post doc work, he could not think clearly or deeply enough to produce the type or number of published papers in law journals etc. that would have put him on track to teach or clerk. Moving from an academic world to a professional world was not achievable for him.
He may have been able to do research or be hired to read and discuss as he was brilliant but this would have been because someone understood his limitations, provided this job and been able to monitor him. Michael may not have been accepting of this type of role because of the lack of status vs a professor or practicing lawyer.
Of course we have sympathy. A loved one with a mental illness is a horrible struggle. Worse when it's one's child. I cannot imagine the daily torment. But society can ill afford pretending that they are "normal" when they're clearly not and pose dangers.
Of course, which brings me back to the mistake the doctors made after his eight month long sojourn in a hospital. They release him, allowing the wider world to assume he's better adapted to adjust, but he isn't. So perhaps its not society that is at fault, but doctors who (in retrospect, at least) should have known better..
While the doctors may take some blame, from what I read above, his Professors KNEW he still had issues. He told one of them he current saw angels and the Prof even admitted that he thought it was a joke at first, but then decided it wasn't.
This is a case of people whose ideals/beliefs were put to the test and reality won. People with real mental issues don't get better with head pats or just doing their work for them.
And this is nothing new. Increasingly, regardless of cause, we will elevate and promote people who can't actually do things. Kids with learning hinderances simply get less homework. Female firefighters are expected to carry less weight to pass their exam. Heck, lets get rid of standardized tests so they won't hold people back that can't get good enough scores.
Ideology over practicality. Form over Function. He was in a minority group, so he needs to be given extra.
He may have, indeed, been better, was released, then over time, relapsed. This happens all the time with mental illness and addiction. It happened to a friend of mine. She was able to live out of an institution only under the supervision of her daughter who was a psychiatric nurse, who understood the propensity to lie that is part of mental illness and addiction. It's tough stuff, living with a mentally ill person or an addict. There's an unreal component to it, and a person who attempts it needs to have a lot of support in place. On the plus side, it can be done, in some cases, and the one who does it with awareness, ends up stronger.
That was the reply I was expecting.
But who are these idiots you're referring to? Eight months in a hospital and then he's released. To me, the mistake lies there. You say he clearly was not normal - but how do you, or we for that matter, know? He must have appeared normal to convince presumably competent psychologists that he was safe to reenter society. So these idiots are who? The doctors? The NYT who made him a star? Hollywood who wanted to exalt him? Yale and every other university who wanted to accept him? The profs at Yale who thought he was brilliant and overlooked his obvious flaws? Is there an ideological slant here that taints everyone with blood on their hands - or was it just a mistake made, like mistakes are made everyday medically that no one hears or cares about.
Who are the 'they' here?
Didn't the article say that the Yale profs knew he couldn't do the work? Unless I read that wrong, everyone seems to have been kidding themselves. To serve what end?
Apparently he was doing the work with assistance from fellow students as in some read to him, some typed his papers - Rosen didn't say they wrote his papers - and professors talked with him at length and didn't brush him off. How is this any different than someone with learning issues and needs someone to read to them, type their papers and provide time to talk through assignments etc and give support.
What became clear was that in Michael's post doc work, he could not think clearly or deeply enough to produce the type or number of published papers in law journals etc. that would have put him on track to teach or clerk. Moving from an academic world to a professional world was not achievable for him.
He may have been able to do research or be hired to read and discuss as he was brilliant but this would have been because someone understood his limitations, provided this job and been able to monitor him. Michael may not have been accepting of this type of role because of the lack of status vs a professor or practicing lawyer.
Guilt? Sympathy?
Guilt? Please. Raised protestant. Not in the lexicon.
Sympathy for?
Sympathy for attempting to overcome a mental affliction.
Of course we have sympathy. A loved one with a mental illness is a horrible struggle. Worse when it's one's child. I cannot imagine the daily torment. But society can ill afford pretending that they are "normal" when they're clearly not and pose dangers.
Of course, which brings me back to the mistake the doctors made after his eight month long sojourn in a hospital. They release him, allowing the wider world to assume he's better adapted to adjust, but he isn't. So perhaps its not society that is at fault, but doctors who (in retrospect, at least) should have known better..
While the doctors may take some blame, from what I read above, his Professors KNEW he still had issues. He told one of them he current saw angels and the Prof even admitted that he thought it was a joke at first, but then decided it wasn't.
This is a case of people whose ideals/beliefs were put to the test and reality won. People with real mental issues don't get better with head pats or just doing their work for them.
And this is nothing new. Increasingly, regardless of cause, we will elevate and promote people who can't actually do things. Kids with learning hinderances simply get less homework. Female firefighters are expected to carry less weight to pass their exam. Heck, lets get rid of standardized tests so they won't hold people back that can't get good enough scores.
Ideology over practicality. Form over Function. He was in a minority group, so he needs to be given extra.
He may have, indeed, been better, was released, then over time, relapsed. This happens all the time with mental illness and addiction. It happened to a friend of mine. She was able to live out of an institution only under the supervision of her daughter who was a psychiatric nurse, who understood the propensity to lie that is part of mental illness and addiction. It's tough stuff, living with a mentally ill person or an addict. There's an unreal component to it, and a person who attempts it needs to have a lot of support in place. On the plus side, it can be done, in some cases, and the one who does it with awareness, ends up stronger.