I said I don’t think there’s any evidence of concentration leading to insanity in my first response. I also asked for evidence. For any great thinker you can point to who you think went insane, you could easily find another who didn’t. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t really cut it, so got any studies that show that intense study of a topic leads to insanity?
I have only my own study of the thing. And insanity is a very gooshy term after all. But if you examined concentration yourself you might come to a similar conclusion.
Consider the parts of my explanation. The fact that when you concentrate on one thing you ignore another. And then the habit and so on. Do any of these parts fit your own experience? Do any of them seem absurd?
It doesn’t fit my experience. I’m an engineer, I concentrated regularly in my studies and I concentrate regularly through my work, I don’t find its training me to ignore other aspects of the world or my life. I know lots of highly successful people, they tend to be more well rounded than not.
I wonder if maybe you are confusing concentration with hyperfixation?
So hypothesis not proof, great. Concentration require focus on a task not ignorance of others, so can you form a habit of opposite action to what you are completing? My hypothesis is that you can’t and that the habit formed would be to have good concentration and ability to focus your attention. Like the opposite of ADHD. If you have anti-ADHD are you then insane?
Again, that’s not proof, it’s hypothesis based on anecdotal observation.
Proof would be a well structured repeatable study verifying the hypothesis. Given the other comments, it doesn’t even seem repeatable across other anecdotal observations let alone within a study.
I will note, I do form habits easily, and my work and past times require concentration, but I have never found that forms a habit of ignoring things, it forms a habit of having improved concentration when required. If anything I have found increased study leads to improved awareness of my surrounds and increased desire to learn more in general.
You claim your observations are proof of your hypothesis, but my observations directly disprove your hypothesis, so whose observation is correct? You could claim my observations are clouded because if l’ve concentrated and then am unaware of my ignorance, but I could claim the same thing of you, or even that you haven’t concentrated enough and so are unaware of your surroundings and the true nature of things. This is a never ending cycle of anecdotal nonsense. Hence the need for a well structured repeatable study as proof.
I said I don’t think there’s any evidence of concentration leading to insanity in my first response. I also asked for evidence. For any great thinker you can point to who you think went insane, you could easily find another who didn’t. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t really cut it, so got any studies that show that intense study of a topic leads to insanity?
I have only my own study of the thing. And insanity is a very gooshy term after all. But if you examined concentration yourself you might come to a similar conclusion.
Consider the parts of my explanation. The fact that when you concentrate on one thing you ignore another. And then the habit and so on. Do any of these parts fit your own experience? Do any of them seem absurd?
It doesn’t fit my experience. I’m an engineer, I concentrated regularly in my studies and I concentrate regularly through my work, I don’t find its training me to ignore other aspects of the world or my life. I know lots of highly successful people, they tend to be more well rounded than not.
I wonder if maybe you are confusing concentration with hyperfixation?
It’s hard to account for what you’re blind to. Because you’re blind to it. You could be blind to a hundred things and never know it
It’s more like there’s no actual evidence other than the anecdotal.
We both know that when you concentrate on one thing you ignore another.
We both know that there is this thing called a habit.
Even without making an examination of the phenomenon we can put these obvious pieces together and reach the obvious implication.
That’s 2 paths to my conclusion. To casually disregard both is silly.
So hypothesis not proof, great. Concentration require focus on a task not ignorance of others, so can you form a habit of opposite action to what you are completing? My hypothesis is that you can’t and that the habit formed would be to have good concentration and ability to focus your attention. Like the opposite of ADHD. If you have anti-ADHD are you then insane?
Do you not ignore everything else when you concentrate on a thing?
Do you not collect habits like a bumper collects stickers?
That’s my “proof”.
Again, that’s not proof, it’s hypothesis based on anecdotal observation.
Proof would be a well structured repeatable study verifying the hypothesis. Given the other comments, it doesn’t even seem repeatable across other anecdotal observations let alone within a study.
I will note, I do form habits easily, and my work and past times require concentration, but I have never found that forms a habit of ignoring things, it forms a habit of having improved concentration when required. If anything I have found increased study leads to improved awareness of my surrounds and increased desire to learn more in general.
You claim your observations are proof of your hypothesis, but my observations directly disprove your hypothesis, so whose observation is correct? You could claim my observations are clouded because if l’ve concentrated and then am unaware of my ignorance, but I could claim the same thing of you, or even that you haven’t concentrated enough and so are unaware of your surroundings and the true nature of things. This is a never ending cycle of anecdotal nonsense. Hence the need for a well structured repeatable study as proof.