Aren’t you describing obsessive-compulsiveness? Sure, it’s one possible path to a certain kind of creativity, but I don’t think it’s the happiest or most fruitful path. Sorry for being a bit harsh—I’m just afraid that calling it “intellectual honesty” might make people double down on their obsessive ways, when they could’ve been better off cultivating acceptance habits.
What Martin is describing might somewhat resemble OCD, without actually being OCD. Let’s just say that some degree of obsession seems related to the development of ideas, at least in some cases.
I did want to focus on the descriptive question rather than the normative question. It is possible that almost all intellectual progress comes from obsessive people, while it’s also “not the happiest or most fruitful path”. Do you think that’s wrong? If so, why do you think there are other common paths? I’m actually fairly skeptical of that. It seems very plausible that obsession is causally important.
For example, the Sequences or HPMOR don’t read like they were written in an obsessive headspace. They have plenty of free-wheeling moments, remember the bit about Greengrass of Sunshine?
I think Martin’s describing something more like “curiosity” than OCD. It’s not obsessing over the problem so much as finding the problem interesting, wondering whether there’s more to it, digging deeper.
Funny that I had exactly the same thought when writing the comment above: Isn’t that just OCD? But if you look at concrete examples, it doesn’t feel like that. Einstein? Incapable of accepting easy solutions? Yes. OCD? Probably not. Even van Gogh, despite the host of psychological problems, probably haven’t had OCD.
Aren’t you describing obsessive-compulsiveness? Sure, it’s one possible path to a certain kind of creativity, but I don’t think it’s the happiest or most fruitful path. Sorry for being a bit harsh—I’m just afraid that calling it “intellectual honesty” might make people double down on their obsessive ways, when they could’ve been better off cultivating acceptance habits.
What Martin is describing might somewhat resemble OCD, without actually being OCD. Let’s just say that some degree of obsession seems related to the development of ideas, at least in some cases.
I did want to focus on the descriptive question rather than the normative question. It is possible that almost all intellectual progress comes from obsessive people, while it’s also “not the happiest or most fruitful path”. Do you think that’s wrong? If so, why do you think there are other common paths? I’m actually fairly skeptical of that. It seems very plausible that obsession is causally important.
For example, the Sequences or HPMOR don’t read like they were written in an obsessive headspace. They have plenty of free-wheeling moments, remember the bit about Greengrass of Sunshine?
I think Martin’s describing something more like “curiosity” than OCD. It’s not obsessing over the problem so much as finding the problem interesting, wondering whether there’s more to it, digging deeper.
Funny that I had exactly the same thought when writing the comment above: Isn’t that just OCD? But if you look at concrete examples, it doesn’t feel like that. Einstein? Incapable of accepting easy solutions? Yes. OCD? Probably not. Even van Gogh, despite the host of psychological problems, probably haven’t had OCD.