Austin Fontaine 
Megan Novelli Perhaps this topic might be a compilation of impertinent observations, but it interests me nonetheless. As I was reading chapters 12 and 13 to prepare for the quiz, I was struck by an interesting thought. Let me first give you the context and perhaps you will see where I am coming from.
Although the subject matter is always interesting, some of my favorite parts of Hergenhahn’s textbook are the biographical portions. As I was reading about J.B. Watson who I only knew on the surface as an adulterer (thanks to that quiz question), I was gradually amazed.
J.B. Watson earned his masters degree at the age of 21. He then went on to the University of Chicago where he would suffer a nervous breakdown in 1902. Despite that fact, he managed to finish his doctoral thesis and had it published in 1903. The thesis was accepted and Watson graduate magna cum laude as the youngest person ever to obtain a doctorate at the University of Chicago at the age of 25. He then went on to get married and become an assistant professor at the University of Chicago. By 1907, Watson accepted a teaching position at Johns Hopkins University. It was at Johns Hopkins that Watson met Rosalie Rayner and began the affair that essentially ended his career as a psychological researcher and teacher. The end of Watson’s professional esteem did not leave him crushed or devastated. Instead he looked for work at an advertising company called J. Walter Thompson. After a successful and highly influential career as a psychologist, Watson was back at the bottom. Four years after Watson was hired at the advertising company, he was considered one of the leading people in advertising and eventually became vice president of William Esty Advertising in 1935. Watson used psychological principles to conduct market research (which was an almost unknown concept at the time) to influence sales.
As I read about the influential “parents” and “grandparents” of psychology, I notice a continual trend. If one is brilliant is it absolutely necessary for them to suffer some sort of debilitating nervous breakdown? Do they also need to be the recipients of unrequited love? How many times have I read that this person was crazy or depressed for a few years and then came out of it to make monumental strides in their field? Why is a life altering heartbreak a part of so many of these stories?
When someone has reached some of the highest intellectual capacities, do they HAVE to become a “sick soul?” Is there a general formula for being brilliant?
Anne Weaver
7:39 pm, 10.24.10
I think there is something to the notion of struggling through life and though situations to become a better version of who you are. Some of the most remarkable people I know have lost loved ones, been dealt devastating blows, struggled through cancer and lived, and have struggled through sickness and died with a life well-lived as a result. A maturity comes from pain. That doesn’t mean we enjoy it or seek it out, but it does mean we give it our all when hard times come as well as help others who are struggling to trek through their own journey. I don’t think I can answer your question concerning brilliancy, but I can say many “sick-souls” have a lot of wisdom to share.
Josh Morrison
10:42 pm, 10.24.10
That’s a fascinating idea. I’ve thought about that sort of thing before and it is interesting to me that so many people seem to achieve greatness through tragedy in areas other than artistic ones. I can easily see people turning their pain into art but the connection between suffering and greatness in other fields is a little less intuitive.
Amy McLean
12:08 am, 10.25.10
This is a cool idea. My best friend and I used to give her dad a hard time because he only like artists that had a hard life. As far as art/music goes, I can see why that may have been. Experiencing hardship and overcoming it seems to give some people greater insight and also gives them experience to make their work more multi-faceted.
Jeremiah Blalock
8:15 am, 10.25.10
well, i would say to look at it this way; what change has ever come from positive? To clarify, why would someone change their way of acting or, in this case, thinking if everything was working and going great for them? In my opinion, and it could be truth to some or most, an authentic change in any process has to go through some negative. Look at it this way, if you did not go through any adversity, would you have changed at all? let’s say you always fought in school, and nothing ever came to intervene. You never lost in both pride, respect, or even the fights themselves. you never had anything negative derive from your fighting. Would you stop? Would you put your hands down and apologize? I wouldn’t think so. This also incorporates thought process to me, because if the way we were thinking was good enough, or at least satisfied our own life questions, then we wouldn’t question it until adversity hit it, a negative came about, and we realized it was time to change or divert from the norm even if it meant the norm of society. just a thought, loved the post.
Michael Bartholomew
1:37 pm, 10.25.10
That’s a very interesting thought. It’s a trend I never picked up on, but it should have been fairly obvious. Much like you say, we do read about these stories all the time. It makes me wonder if these things are prerequisites of the greats, the ones that get remembered. Or if perhaps life is just that universal and we are reading too much into it, also a possibility. Still, further study on this would be interesting. I would love to see the results.