[Read Kindle] ⚖ A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness ♁ Tyrakel.de

The psych student in me was extremely excited to open this delectable treat and it certainly didn t disappoint as by page 2 I get in times of crisis, we are better off being led by mentally ill leaders than by mentally normal ones If you aren t intrigued by that then I think there s an RL Stine or Twilight book out there that might be right up yer alleyOn to the next onenow after studying psych here s what I can tell you Ghaemi is brilliant for those who don t know in depth psych the correlations of varying mental illnesses are short sweet In turn he s killer for those of us that have and are dying for I may be lurking in a class or two of yours soon Dr Ghaemi I mean that in a strictly non stalkerish way of course.In short, I think this book is unbelievably fascinating For a myriad of reasons It puts a whole unseen light of what mental illness has done to BETTER society Which in turn just sparks dialogue and hopefully understanding of those who suffer from it Hell for those of us that do its a beacon For understanding that what afflicts us isn t completely a curse but in such a larger social context a blessingwithin reason of course Bc what may be for the best of society is hell within one mans home A fine line of genius is walked, but understood so much.Some phenomenal quotes follow within this book as well such as Our leaders cannot be perfect they need not be perfect their imperfections indeed may produce greatness We make a mistake, however instinctive, when we choose leaders like us In every possible way, there has never been a incredible and concise argument for why mental illness has advanced and in especially bad environments mixed with the wrong medication, de evolved mankind There need not be a shun on such things IF acknowledged and treated in the right way It is why in fact, mankind has thrived at points and failed in others.Mind BLOWN Well not really but finally stoked to see someone put in words what society has worked so hard to reject.I am absolutely sneaking into some of Dr Ghaemi s lectures if I don t just drop my career and Pursue a phd already Boom. The psychology of mental illness is a rough subject, especially when dealing with a deceased individual, even one who is so eminent that you have a lot of data to gather upon I received an incomplete impression of the psychology of these figures, and recalled examples from my own, alternate readings that may have contradicted these findings.I admired the study done on Lincoln s melancholy, and found it to be profoundly inspirational Yet this broader view misses some of the other characteristics Flaws do not leaders make Nixon s paranoia ruined him And what else is to be said of the special brand of madness or psychopathy found in dictators that causes people to seize and maintain power for as long as they can, inflicting death and ruin upon untold millions as they do so In short, mental illness can be a great beneficiary to leadership, except for when it isn t Correlation is not causation. [Read Kindle] ♴ A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness ☹ An Investigation Into The Surprisingly Deep Correlation Between Mental Illness And Successful Leadership, As Seen Through Some Of History S Greatest Politicians, Generals, And Businesspeople In A First Rate Madness, Nassir Ghaemi, Who Runs The Mood Disorders Program At Tufts University Medical Center, Draws From The Careers And Personal Plights Of Such Notable Leaders As Lincoln, Churchill, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr JFK, And Others From The Past Two Centuries To Build An Argument At Once Controversial And Compelling The Very Qualities That Mark Those With Mood Disorders Realism, Empathy, Resilience, And Creativity Also Make For The Best Leaders In Times Of Crisis By Combining Astute Analysis Of The Historical Evidence With The Latest Psychiatric Research, Ghaemi Demonstrates How These Qualities Have Produced Brilliant Leadership Under The Toughest Circumstances Take Realism, For Instance Study After Study Has Shown That Those Suffering Depression Are Better Than Normal People At Assessing Current Threats And Predicting Future Outcomes Looking At Lincoln And Churchill Among Others, Ghaemi Shows How Depressive Realism Helped These Men Tackle Challenges Both Personal And National Or Consider Creativity, A Quality Psychiatrists Have Studied Extensively In Relation To Bipolar Disorder A First Rate Madness Shows How Mania Inspired General Sherman And Ted Turner To Design And Execute Their Most Creative And Successful Strategies Ghaemi S Thesis Is Both Robust And Expansive He Even Explains Why Eminently Sane Men Like Neville Chamberlain And George W Bush Made Such Poor Leaders Though Sane People Are Better Shepherds In Good Times, Sanity Can Be A Severe Liability In Moments Of Crisis A Lifetime Without The Cyclical Torment Of Mood Disorders, Ghaemi Explains, Can Leave One Ill Equipped To Endure Dire Straits He Also Clarifies Which Kinds Of Insanity Like Psychosis Make For Despotism And Ineptitude, Sometimes On A Grand Scale Ghaemi S Bold, Authoritative Analysis Offers Powerful New Tools For Determining Who Should Lead Us But Perhaps Most Profoundly, He Encourages Us To Rethink Our View Of Mental Illness As A Purely Negative Phenomenon As A First Rate Madness Makes Clear, The Most Common Types Of Insanity Can Confer Vital Benefits On Individuals And Society At Large However High The Price For Those Who Endure These Illnesses This book would have gotten three or four stars had its theme been slightly different The author posits on p 17, The best crisis leaders are either mentally ill or mentally abnormal the worst crisis leaders are mentally healthy Had the book stuck to the specific cases, that is, something closer to Here are some amazing leaders who had mental illness, and I would argue that their illnesses helped inform and shape their successful leadership, I could have backed that thesis 100% I can t help but wonder about which historical leaders were potentially not successful because of mental illness, or maybe they didn t have the opportunity to shine because they didn t have the right crisis to lead through President Franklin Pierce comes to mind, who is said to have suffered from depression, as an example He had pre Civil War issues to deal with, among other problems, but has been ranked one of the least effective presidents by historians Was this a matter of the wrong crisis Not enough coping skills On page 223, the dismissal of the leadership contributions of Truman and Eiserhower took my breath away I would say that they were homoclites people of normal mental health , but that their presidential successes did not include handling major crises, like World War II almost over when Truman took office or the civil rights crisis Eisenhower briefly intervened in Little Rock, and otherwise avoided conflict First, Truman took a very Shermanesque approach to war, dropping two bombs that killed well over 100,000 people, many of them civilians, in order to stop the conflict and preserve the lives of hundreds of thousands No nod to that, given that Sherman was an inspriation for this project How is Truman s decision not bold and forward thinking Wasn t that decisive action in a crisis situation And perhaps Eisenhower s presidential leadership wasn t challenged in a way that allowed him to stand out, but what about his performance during World War II in Africa and Europe As Supreme Commander in both places, surely he had plenty of crises that he handled, and handled well, given the outcome of the conflict That was the point at which the author lost me as a reader, because I didn t trust him to be looking at the material objectively It s not a coindidence, I suspect, that I found the sections on mentally healthy leaders to be the weakest parts of the book Also, there was some carelessness in language for example, A depressive person sleeps less, and the nighttime becomes a dreaded chore that one can never achieve properly p 17 A final question Assuming leaders with mental illness are indeed the best kind to have during a crisis, what then Should voters be trying to elect depressive or hyperthymic leaders How do we determine this when such information is usually hidden from the public How do voters anticipate the crises that might necessitate different types of leadership I had high hopes for this book, and I do admire the author for his ambition, but a slightly different approach would have made it better. This book provides an interesting analysis of world leaders how their mental health influenced their leadership The author s analysis of such world figures as Lincoln, General Sherman, Hitler, FDR, Nixon, JFK and many others and how they reacted during crisis and non crisis situations depending on his interpretation of their mental health is fascinating His conclusion is that leaders with certain types of mental illness bipolar handle crisis situations better than non mentally ill normal personalities My sister, a psychologist, disagrees with much of his research findings, but I found his background info on each of the figures enlightening. I m not sure what to make of this one If I had some money, I think I would buy a few copies and pay some people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness to read this book I d really like to know what people with first hand experience think of this If you have a mental illness, could you, like, go to the library and then get back to me Maybe Anyway, the basic premise of the book is that people with mental illness are better leaders in times of crisis and mentally healthy people are better leaders when things are boring The author suggests that people with depression and bipolar disorder are resilient and mentally flexible because they have experience overcoming difficulties I guess this is the part that I am questioning If you are living with depression and I mean depression as in the actual disease, not just a case of the blues is this because something bad happened to you or is it an issue of brain chemistry or is it both In my own case, I think my episodes of depression were caused by a combination of bad stuff happening, plus my basic nature as a somewhat gloomy person It seems to me that a person with better brain chemistry or whatever would have reacted to those events in a different way that did not involve being depressed As a scientist, I am always aware that correlation is not causation Another thing I am aware of is that psychology is a soft science I think both those factors are at play here I think the author found a hypothesis and then cherry picked some observations to support it That s easier to do with this sort of science than it is in a field like physics In this case, I think the actual causation is not mental illness but introversion and a tendency toward self examination and reflection People who think a lot are better at dealing with complex situations because they are used to thinking They don t just react emotionally from their gut , like an animal That isn t the same as a mental illness, though I do think that some people with mental illness may spend time thinking about their feelings and emotional state If you don t feel good, there is to think about You think about breathing when you have a head cold than when you are healthy, right The GoodA First Rate Madness has a fascinating premise that in times of crisis, mentally abnormal leaders are effective than mentally healthy ones For various reasons, many of which are included in this book, I actually tend to agree with the author, and even if I didn t, his theory would be intriguing food for thought Additionally, Ghaemi writes well and is consistently engaging, keeping his work from becoming dry as one reads.The BadI have extreme reservations about the evidence Ghaemi gives to support his claims There s a lot of cherry picking, both of subjects and of symptoms Clearly no book can cover every major world leader, but he s chosen to highlight only a very few when simply shortening the sections on each would ve made room for a larger, varied sample size Additionally, any studies that don t agree with the theme are brushed aside, and the symptoms he focuses on in the case of each leader are clearly cherry picked from often limited available information One suspected incident of depression does not a depressive or bipolar make half hearted juvenile attempts at suicide do not denote a suicidal or depressed adult Beyond even that, there s a lot of assumptions made and only the flimsiest of contexts given, which makes me wary of putting much stock in the examples on which Ghaemi basis his ideas.I think the idea is good and deserves major study, and I would love to read the result of one Unfortunately, this isn t it.The What the Hell MomentSo I was nearing the end of the book and all was going pretty well, I was disappointed but still intrigued, and while I hadn t yet settled on my rating since I hadn t yet finished reading , I figured things would hold steady until the end And then I reached the top of page 257 and, as Ghaemi is discussing the negative stigma attached to mental illness, he writes this This stigma is the basis, I think, for most of the intuitively negative reactions that readers may have to this book s theme Passive aggressive attempt to foist any failures of the book onto the reader Sorta seems that way It s not the theme that gets a negative reaction, sir, but the sparse study and supporting information Perhaps he meant it innocently I m sure many will agree that he did , but for me it shows a distinct lack of faith, either in his work or his readership, neither one of which is forgivable So really, Nassir Ghaemi, what the hell The SummaryAn excellent theory, intriguing and deserving of further work, but the book itself fails to deliver on its premise and makes the factual, scientific side of me squirm uneasily Take it or leave it, the book doesn t make much of a difference either way. And, isn t sanity really just a one trick pony anyway I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you re good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit The TickFrom his eminent philosophical standing, the Tick nicely summarizes pretty much the only point in this work s introduction I could accept The author s thesis, that mentally ill leaders are preferable in times of crisis while sane leaders are better at steering a straight course during non crisis times, seems over reaching, especially as he only chooses famous mostly dead international leaders to support his thesis The book is set up like a historical analysis, and even the author admits psychologists, like historians, often only have modest data upon which to base their conclusions If you want a thorough understanding of the book s psychology points, go ahead and read Nancy s review it does the book justice than I ever could Perhaps reading this text as a historical work rather than a work examining the qualities of leadership would be rewarding. . Nassir Ghaemi describes a strong correlation between mental or mood disorders, and leadership Many of the world s best leaders in times of crisis had mental disorders not very severe, but sufficiently ill so that they handled challenges with realistic outlooks than so called normal people However, they do not do well during normal times They do not make good managers On the other hand, normal people which he calls homoclites , can be good leaders during normal times But they often do poorly when faced with extraordinary challenges.Ghaemi s evidence for his hypothesis is largely anecdotal He describes the lives of some of the world s great leaders during times of crisis Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, General Sherman, John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Franklin Roosevelt, and Gandhi He showed how adversity due to mental illness often prepared them for challenges later in life Churchill was an active politician during the early twentieth century, but became a political has been during the 1930 s However, he foresaw the Nazi threat before any of the so called normal politicians like Chamberlain Ghaemi attributes Churchill s insight to the challenges he faced with manic depression.Ghaemi contasts General Techumseh Sherman, who took big risks during the American Civil War, with the staid General George McClellan Sherman suffered from hallucinations, was suicidal and depressed John F Kennedy suffered from a number of physical and mental problems Franklin Roosevelt was challenged by the adversity of polio Both Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi had depression, and contemplated suicide Nevertheless, all of these leaders took risks, were courageous, and were great leaders Ghaemi contends, however, that during normal times, these leaders were ineffective On the other hand, leaders like George W Bush, Tony Blair, and Neville Chamberlain were ineffective leaders during times of crisis, as they were mentally normal , and were simply not prepared for times of adversity.The book also discusses Hitler and other Nazi leaders during the World War II Ghaemi discusses how Hitler had mental problems that were exacerbated by bad medical treatments Ghaemi argues that Hitler s example also is evidence in favor of his hypothesis but I am not convinced, and he turns around and shows how many but not all of the Nazi leaders were normal from a psychiatric point of view.This is definitely a thought provoking book While I found it difficult to believe that Ghaemi s hypothesis is generally applicable to all leaders, he shows enough evidence to prove that the effect is not mere correlation there is probably some causation in effect, too Anybody interested in psychology and history would find a lot of compelling insights in this book.