Re: From sign conventions to Galois Theory
From: Nora Baron (norabaron_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/22/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Newton shows pi is transcendental"
- Previous message: C. Bond: "Re: Non-restoring binary square root and convergence"
- In reply to: Jim Spriggs: "Re: From sign conventions to Galois Theory"
- Next in thread: Wayne Brown: "Re: From sign conventions to Galois Theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Feb 2005 15:51:33 -0800
Jim Spriggs wrote:
> Nora Baron wrote:
> >
> > My theory is that Harris indulges in 'magical thinking'. It
>
> At the risk of being offensive--and please believe me I don't intend
to
> be--do you think that Harris is suffering from a mental condition
that a
> clinician could put a name to and perhaps even cure?
>
I am no expert in psychology or psychiatry, and certainly not
a devotee of Freud, e.g., but Freud did say one thing that I think
rings true. He said that the definition of mental disease is
that the person is unable to love or to work. We actually don't
know much about Harris on either of those factors - he has worked
as a programmer, and he may still be doing so now - I have no
idea about his personal life - he mentions his family on rare
occasions. What I like about Freud's criteria is that they lead to
relatively straightforward, down-to-earth questions that you can
answer in real life, and every now and then you can even answer
them on your own behalf. But in Harris's case we don't have enough
information. I think Harris has been depressed at times, and
I think he drinks and some of his most vicious rants derive
from this, but drinking is not a sole criterion for diagnosing mental
illness as far as I know.
> I ask because I find his posts so unpleasant. It's not so much his
> incompetence at mathematics that bothers me (that would be a case of
the
> pot calling the kettle black) but his exceedingly nasty remarks about
> the people who try to help him.
>
He is vicious, no question. However I don't think viciousness
or mean-spiritedness are criteria for 'mental conditions' either.
As for people trying to "help" him: everyone acts out of selfish
motives. When we try to prove someone wrong, to some degree we
are not trying to help them, but rather polishing our own apple,
showing that we are smart gals and guys too. Our motives are not
so high and morally pure. My usual motive with Harris is (1) to
try to figure out the correct math, (2) to try to figure out where
his thinking has gone wrong - that is one of the fun things about
teaching math, trying to see how students fall off the logical
tightrope and how to get them back on it again, (3) to explain what
I think is right in the simplest possible way, and (4) to crush
Harris underfoot like the disgusting pillbug that he is. Not
entirely facetious, that last bit.
> It would be nice to think that his unpleasantness might some day be
> cured--if it is curable.
I think not. Being unpleasant is not a disease. The question
is really how deep his delusions run - does he really believe what
he says, deep down - at some point they will become so entrenched
that being forced to give them up would be unbearable and would plunge
him into serious depression, at which point Freud's criteria would
start to take hold. He keeps moving in that direction but may not be
there yet.
Nora B.
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Newton shows pi is transcendental"
- Previous message: C. Bond: "Re: Non-restoring binary square root and convergence"
- In reply to: Jim Spriggs: "Re: From sign conventions to Galois Theory"
- Next in thread: Wayne Brown: "Re: From sign conventions to Galois Theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
