A PSYCHIATRIST AND AN ECONOMIST LOOK AT GOLLUM. Ilya Somin on the Volokh Conspiracy blog discusses here this analysis of Gollum’s mental health. The analysis points out that an internet search turned up more than 1300 sites discussing Gollum’s “mental illness.” The analysis begins: “Sméagol (Gollum) is a single, 587 year old, hobbit-like male of no fixed abode. He has presented with antisocial behaviour, increasing aggression, and preoccupation with the ‘one ring.’” The author of the analysis consulted 30 medical students and 25 of them diagnosed Gollum as schizophrenic. Nevertheless, the analysis casts doubt on that diagnosis because Gollum’s preoccupation with the ring is not delusional. The Ring has real power. The analysis concludes that Gollum exhibits seven of the nine criteria for schizoid personality disorder and that this is the most likely diagnosis. Ilya Somin comments, as a law and economics scholar, that: “If we assume that Gollum valued long life, power, and wealth above companionship, socializing, and conventional morality, his actions seem perfectly rational.” Somin suggests: “Maybe Gollum is an example of Bryan Caplan’s thesis [Caplan is also an economist] that many seemingly insane people are not irrational, but merely have unusual preferences.” I have to say that I never thought of Gollum as anything but rational, taking into account that he was subject to the consequences of being the ring bearer.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
- Nick: Further informing my perspective was that in the writings of classical Romans the middle-aged authors opined...
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
- Dick Weisfelder: My prior comment was just in the context of sports. Whether or not from Pinker, I have seen the...
- erik: It seems doubtful that human nature has changed. The most likely explanation would be that modern culture gives...
- HOW BANKS PREPARED FOR A U.S. DEFAULT. (2)
- GREECE’S ADVANTAGE IN THE CHICKEN GAME. (2)
- Nick: That makes sense. It reminds me of the stories Pater Familias would tell me about how in Boston the person with...
- Dick Weisfelder: Greece seems to me to be playing a game that Karl Deutsch called “underdog.” While one...
- FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? (3)
- Nick: It was my understanding that boxing gloves were to protect the puncher’s hands and not the...
- Dick Weisfelder: Remember the Roman arenas? Bare knuckled boxing? Such injuries were taken as natural and accepted in...
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This isn’t about football. Or even sportsmanship. Well, it is about sportsmanship. But what...
- A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? (1)
- Nick: The fact that this has gone on for so long is pretty perplexing. The Economist is referring back to articles it...
- DECIDING WHAT KIND OF PATIENT YOU ARE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: One can be very open to new technology, but also risk averse. The recent debates about how to...
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
Meta
I suppose he is rational in the sense that there are clear, concrete motivations that he possesses, and that his actions accord with those motivations. The causes for these motivations are clear.
Perhaps based on your preferences argument I am trying to draw conclusions from it, and the only one I seem confident in so far is: Rationality is not a guarantor of sanity.