Well then, discussion over... and it's hardly proven to say that brilliance and happiness are mutually exclusive or even strongly correlated. Being a common figure of speech, "Ignorance is bliss" doesn't make it a correct statement.

Isn't van Gogh the standard upon all which all suffering geniuses are compared?

I'd rather not be van Gogh. From what little I know of his personal life, van Gogh would have also rather to not be van Gogh.

Anyone who wishes to be remembered* as van Gogh is a fool. It is like getting a big insurance policy so you can be rich once you are dead.

Of course, I do very much appreciate his work. I am glad that van Gogh was van Gogh, although I do feel a bit of sadness that van Gogh had to be van Gogh for me to benefit.

*a common affliction of the young.

Missed this.

Brilliance and happiness are strongly correlated in a positive way. Usually. A brilliant person who has a strong wanderlust will quickly come to the conclusion that they should drive a truck OTR. Of course, this smart truck driver will be entirely happy and entirely unknown.

As an aside, usually the phrase, "conversation over" stands by itself. It is one of those strange phrases that can only be reduced in meaning by adding additional words.

Being a brilliant mathmatician (not garden variety ones who you can understand by getting a normal PhD in math theory), seems to be strongly associated with being either a miserable cuss and having a lack of certain abilities that help us mere mortals get along well in every-day life..

I see where you are coming from and agree with some of it but my main point is about the bold part of what I quoted. You see, it isn't that far fetched to think that people who have thoughts "regular" minds don't understand don't also have emotions regular people don't understand. I'm not trying to say I can totally relate but I see some parallels between these super minds and some other people. I for one used to be (I'm getting better) ultra competitive to the point where it was almost a disability. Even as young as 12-years-old I would sit and cry and evaluate athletic competitions I had just lost (or even won but wasn't happy with my performance). I've broken up with girlfriends over board games because I wanted to win the last game but they didn't want to play anymore and have many other stories many less competitive people might find ridiculous. To everyone on the outside, including my family in my own home, it appeared my entire life from the time I was about 3 years old until after I graduated high school was one big heap of misery and dissatisfaction with every aspect of my life. I couldn't even eat food without trying to finish before everyone else, take a piss in a public bathroom without trying to do it better (actually I still do this, ever go into a public bathroom and wonder how the **** so many people can't actually piss INSIDE the urinal? How the **** does so much piss get on the floor? Anyway, no point for that derail really...) than everyone else. This lead me to never being happy with any performance no matter how well I did and finding myself in extreme agony any time I failed. And compared to my expectations of myself, I failed nearly 100% of the time. The strange thing about this is, even though I was spending a lot of time being critical of myself and being in sheer agony most of the time, I really didn't live a life of agony and pain. In someway I was actually in a state of something other than agony and pain, I'm not sure if happiness is the right way to describe the emotion. I guess if I could say purpose was an emotion, that might describe it the best I know how.

I don't pretend to have a Tesla like mind or know exactly what brilliance feels like but I just wanted to point out that there may be more going on with their thoughts and emotions than others can decipher as an outside observer attempting to look in or that the genius can describe verbally to someone. One, they might not understand some of their thoughts and emotions well enough to articulate them into words, and two, if they could, it may take a like mind to understand them.

I just re-read this and see that I took a lot of words to make a simple point and didn't articulate it very well. I'm pretty tired so I don't really feel like editing it but let me know if that is necessary to understand my perspective.

To add to this line about great minds behaving irrationally on occasion try the story of
Grigori Perelman (although far less strange)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman

Now you go ahead and tell me that reading this you dont find certain things that can be done differently and in fact because of doing them differently enhance his position and his disagreements with organized math committees/awards/cheating in academia (lol the other thread) etc basically elevate his positions and win against the "evil" side !

I mean why not eg accept the prize and tell them they are pathetic while doing that for XYZ arguments and then for this reason not keep the money for himself but give 50% of the money to Hamilton and take the rest and create a fund for new students that show promise to help them with books and equipment and travels abroad etc. Basically take the money and use it to create healthier more ethical students according to his line of thinking about proper research ethics etc.

Or the claimed resignation from Math etc. Why give up on math, if so this is bs. Give up on the academic losers and petty people sure but why on Math (he may be still working on his own anyway but he still shows a resignation from the field and not being active and interacting with young people is not reasonable even if you want to give the finger to all others!) . Plus you can do that 1-2 times per month even not every day! That way have all your free time to do whatever and still keep somewhat active with others that are totally decent and innocent people.

Sure hope he is silently working on a major result and then stick it to them of course! lol. But my point is why allow something as fundamentally ridiculous as induced depression because of the perceived poor social ethics of others (ridiculous because you know it has partial chemical basis so you can mentally fight it) take you away from your field.

A (now) relevant link about idiotic "geniuses"

http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/190.htm#Idiotic

I don't really agree with this. I don't think brilliant mathematicians are any more likely to be a "miserable cuss" than garden variety ones, non mathematicians etc. Tons of great mathematicians have great soft skills....like getting the most out of their students, knowing when to ease off if they are getting discouraged etc.

I think smart money would be on him making at least one more valuable contribution to math. He's just a boss like that.

There are some inconsistencies present here...

lol

I would like to see some research on this. It would make sense IMO, since math brilliance, perhaps more than in any other discipline, can only be appreciated by other mathematicians, and thus the field is very isolating to the individual. But there are sane brilliant mathematicians too.

Having just one dear friend and/or lover makes one not at all isolated in emotional terms. Even acquaintences who share some fondness is usually sufficient to avoid feelings of isolation.

Doing the work of being a brilliant mathematician might be entirely isolating, but that was what my point. Mere mortals clock out at 5 (or at least at some point before last call) and head to a bar to make new and interesting friends.