Brian Wilson Mental State Research Article

[RollPlymouthRock]

Interesting Article I've just found written by one Stefano Belli of the Experimental Psychology department at Oxford University. Looking at which diagnosis is likely to be most accurate and the link between creativity and mental illness.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stefano_Belli/publication/223533269_A_psychobiographical_analysis_of_Brian_Douglas_Wilson_Creativity_drugs_and_models_of_schizophrenic_and_affective_disorders/links/02e7e51647cd5413b4000000.pdf

[jeffh]

I know it's been done a lot in the past, but theae diagnosises of Brian's mental issues just seem so cold, cruel, and invasive. Enough already.

[Peter Reum]

I have been guilty of this type of thing in past years. I think, after years of work in the field, that people deserve a private life free of being picked apart by "experts." For what it is worth, in this world I now am persuaded that it is more importantto identify a patient's assets rather than his deficits.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I have been guilty of this type of thing in past years.

We all have, Peter, and all of us are far less qualified than you are in this particular field.

[Lee Marshall]

I started to read it yesterday afternoon.  Maybe the first 1/4 of the text I read pretty much word for word.  By then I'd started to feel uncomfortable and began to skim a little.  By the 1/2 way point I was wondering what I was doing...like I was invading someone's privacy and...like...what the heck did I think I was doing...and I closed the file.

I sure as shootin' wouldn't like it if MY life was spread across the information super-highway like that.  Jesus H. Christ!!!

[filledeplage]

I have been guilty of this type of thing in past years.

We all have, Peter, and all of us are far less qualified than you are in this particular field.

This is different.  This is a submission for scholarly academic research in a medical context.  I found it beyond offensive.  When one reads this type of research there is never a reference to an "individual" and a revelation as to an "identity." This is done with what I can best refer to as "layered hearsay" and this "scholar" has used an aggregate of publications.

When there is a scholarly article to be reviewed, a patient is never identified. (at least in the US) First, I find that it is a privacy invasion.  Second, this guy does not appear to have ever examined his "subject."  

On page 14, " Although music ability did appear to run in the Wilson family (Carlin, 2006, pp. 5-9), Brian outstripped all his relatives in skill. Whether this talent (as distinct from creativity) is directly related to his mental disorders and has little precedent in the literature, but it can be reported with little doubt that his high musical intelligence is certainly a factor in his creativity. We can infer this from his unremarkable (even poor) lyric-writing ability."

DSM IV, which is among his references, and which has a subsequent criteria (DSM V) (with a great deal of "big pharma"  and "industry influence") needs to be taken with scrutiny and a grain of salt. These medical indices are very controversial.  

The only medical name included with which I am familiar and respect is Dr. Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and who actually puts her patients in a brain scanner of sorts and as part of their treatment, puts them in a running program to attempt to rebuilt the damaged pre-frontal cortex where the endorphins have been damaged.  Later, in treatment, she has their brain rescanned to show the addict areas that are improving, and has them continue in the running program while following them.  The scanning is not unlike a simple xray of a broken limb, knitting in a cast.  

And, I'm not a medical professional so I don't represent that I know more than a layperson.  But, on many levels, I find this paper offensive and insulting, having been culled from non-professional resources, from a person who is not a treating provider, and who attempts to draw inferences, then disclaiming them, and not protecting his identity.  And, concerning a person who is very much alive.

Is this pscycho-journalism or scholarly research in the medical/academic context done by someone who has a doctorate?  

Just sayin'.  

Did Brian write the music and lyrics for "Til I Die?" (and other songs) Not only does he cross the professional line; he really doesn't know his BB stuff.  JMHO

[Lee Marshall]

I hear that 'filled'.  I wondered as I shut the file down...how do you 'examine' a patient only through books written by other people?

[filledeplage]

I hear that 'filled'.  I wondered as I shut the file down...how do you 'examine' a patient only through books written by other people?

Add Some - I read this yesterday and my head nearly exploded, so I decided to "sleep on it" before responding. 

Ya, you got that right - "examining a patient" through the publications of others. 

Hope he got a big F for it.

He sure got one from this teacher!    

[John Malone]

In regards to the charges of invasion of privacy and dehumanization toward this "scholarly" work, if I can play devil's advocate for just one moment, there's something about fan sites and message boards like this one that could be open to the same criticism. I've seen lots of armchair doctors and therapists weigh in on these pages through the years. And, by feeding our appetite for the personal gossip surrounding the BB/BW universe, aren't we doing the same thing? Not that I plan on quitting! Just sayin... BTW, although I hardly post, I read daily. Happy New Year everyone.

[Lee Marshall]

I get that John...but, I at least, [can't speak for all who post here and elsewhere] really don't profess to be...nor would I qualify to impress others as being...an expert in the field.

[Mikie]

I'm not sure it's a bad thing that people have discussed Brian's disorder(s) through the years. When we don't understand, we ask questions to learn. The disorder(s) are not an easy thing to understand, and we aren't professionals. If we read what the doctors have diagnosed over the years (pre and post Landy) there seems to be varying degrees of symptoms and analysis, and it requires a deeper knowledge of psychiatry to understand it all, even after investigating it on our own. The root cause seems to be depression, and some have said Brian had this symptom even in the early 1960's; others say he had it going back to when he was a child. We wonder about causes and medication, and also why it took the family until the mid-70's to realize that Brian really needed professional help. We also surmise that the second phase of that help from a doctor (quack) did more to make things worse (with controlling drugs) than it did to help him. There's even ongoing questions as to how bad Brian's back problems currently are. He just had another procedure to correct (or help with) this condition.

Same with the source of his inability to hear the same out of both ears. It was speculated that Murry hit him with his hand, then a piece of 2 x 4, then we were told that he was born with a defective ear. Same with his mental disorder. We wish he didn't have it of course, but still, we are are interested to find out more about it, and if there's a "cure", and if there's drugs available to minimize it's impact, and even if it's life-threatening.

Of course we'd like to have all the facts, but we don't have ALL of them, only simplified accounts, so we continue to ask questions and continue to speculate. Let's see if Brian's book reveals something about his condition that we don't know already. Obviously, the books discussing his medical state have fallen short. Brian isn't the only one with Depression - there are millions of people out there with it, and educating the masses out there isn't a bad thing, is it?

[guitarfool2002]

I want to chime in with only my opinion and suggest at some point it's not the business of fans to dig deep into this kind of thing beyond the curiosity factor. It does become intrusive, at some point, when it keeps repeating itself to the point of kicking the proverbial dead horse. If the person who is actually dealing with these issues chooses to open up in an interview or otherwise, that's one thing. To have these kinds of discussions continue to appear and fans speculate and "want more" information which ultimately is personal, I don't know what purpose it serves, to be honest. What could or should be gained by discussing articles such as this one posted above which hasn't been discussed before?

Let me draw a comparison. Or two.

Take a public figure who is or was an alcoholic...sticking to the Beach Boys relationship, Glen Campbell who for decades publicly battled alcoholism. What more can be said about Glen Campbell and alcoholism? If he wanted to open up publicly about his struggles, he did - But for how long afterward will the alcoholism be associated with Glen's life or his career as an entertainer? Should it be mentioned alongside someone posting on a message board how great a song "Wichita Lineman" is? Should it be mentioned whenever something from his career comes up...or repeated in whatever Glen Campbell fan communities exist? Every so often, on Twitter or whatever, have a Glen Campbell follower post something about Glen's battles with alcoholism - "Yeah, we love his music, and by the way, he had quite a battle with alcohol and here is a 15 year old magazine article describing it." At some point doesn't it become redundant?

How about a family member or a close friend who had battled drug addiction, but who has been sober for some time. Would it be appropriate to introduce that person as "a recovering addict" whenever you're with them? At family gatherings or outings, the person shows up and someone says "oh yeah, he/she is the one who had the addiction". "Here is my friend, the recovering addict." Again, at what point does it go beyond something useful to have it be forever associated with that person or persons? Not that it didn't happen or isn't happening, not that it's trying to ignore the elephant in the room, but at what point does the person become an individual who either chooses to talk about these things, or chooses not to talk about them?

I'm just airing out some of my thoughts after the past year or so has seen several of these topics come up, including one with a magazine article which was close to a decade old about this same topic. Not that it's off-limits or anything of the sort, but put yourself in the mindset of these people we're discussing and ask how it would be received if it were close to you. At what point is privacy the order of the day over fan curiosity?

[filledeplage]

In regards to the charges of invasion of privacy and dehumanization toward this "scholarly" work, if I can play devil's advocate for just one moment, there's something about fan sites and message boards like this one that could be open to the same criticism. I've seen lots of armchair doctors and therapists weigh in on these pages through the years. And, by feeding our appetite for the personal gossip surrounding the BB/BW universe, aren't we doing the same thing? Not that I plan on quitting! Just sayin... BTW, although I hardly post, I read daily. Happy New Year everyone.

No argument from me. What you said I agree with. People on boards opining outside their base of knowledge, and expertise annoys me, too. This isn't "scholarly."

But, the difference is this paper cites on pages 17-20 scholarly and some journal (magazines) as well as books, and record jackets, some of which have been discredited.  But message boards don't offer credentials, such as degrees.  

If a university or music school dissected any of Brian's work, strictly in a music context, that is fine, maybe even useful, but tying illness from the sidelines, and, making inferences without direct knowledge, it is probably not fine.  The first instance just analyzes the work product of Brian, and this second kind, uses speculation of other authors to create an inference with no apparent medical examination of Brian, but just based on collateral published material, I find it beyond unethical.  

Buried within one of these references is one deceased predatory "professional" who exploited his patient for personal gain. And, had to be removed from his care, as I have read, and who lost his license, in CA. As I scanned the reference list, the most recent looks around 2007, which was after that certain doctor's death. The "autobiography" listed in the references, was reportedly done without Brian's input. And, even if Landy did pull Brian back from the brink, early on, his later  collaboration in a business context takes the bloom of that rose.  Landy tainted himself. His work lacks credibility because his motives were unethical.  And it appears Brian wasn't the only high profile patient who was professionally exploited, by Landy.  

Had this article been written "generically" where creatively was "generally" compared, without naming names, that would, perhaps help everybody. I agree with Mikie.  This area of study is just scratching the surface.  And despite whatever went on, and only those fellow creators, and family members, both living and gone, can or could opine about Brian, accurately.  No medical professional would ever disclose patient information, especially without consent.  Not second-hand hearsay.  (I don't know if Brian gave permission for this.) I tend to think that Brian had and has, plenty of lucidity and clarity. Some taped interview circa 1977-8 shows Brian pretty together.  Dennis' interview with Peter Fornatale on YouTube seems to support that.

Happy New Year to you! And, please post more!  

[Mikie]

I want to chime in with only my opinion and suggest at some point it's not the business of fans to dig deep into this kind of thing beyond the curiosity factor. It does become intrusive, at some point, when it keeps repeating itself to the point of kicking the proverbial dead horse. If the person who is actually dealing with these issues chooses to open up in an interview or otherwise, that's one thing. To have these kinds of discussions continue to appear and fans speculate and "want more" information which ultimately is personal, I don't know what purpose it serves, to be honest. What could or should be gained by discussing articles such as this one posted above which hasn't been discussed before?

I disagree. I say put it out there. It doesn't have to be private. Again, he isn't the only guy on Earth with this affliction. When I first got on the internet, Brian's mental state was not fully diagnosed. Since then, he's seen many doctors, and they have diagnosed his state on a professional level. And remember - his mental state has been made public (formally) on various radio and television and magazine interviews. Remember Brian and Melinda being interviewed on Larry King? It's not a secret. I call it an education, as I alluded to in my last post.

P.S. There's been so many dead horses beaten on this board, it ain't funny. This one is right on the heels of the subject as to why the C50 ended. This one is no different and will continue to be a "source of curiosity" almost as much as the primary reason why his voice changed in 1975, in addition to other mysteries surrounding Mr. Wilson's life.

[guitarfool2002]

Maybe the issue is considering a discussion about C50 on the same level for curious fans as someone's personal life and the things they deal with privately every day. It's interesting too that many if not most of the psychology/psychoanalysis materials cited are more than a few years old, and to have interviews years old and articles close to a decade old rehashed by fans in 2014 doesn't seem all that revelatory to me, at least. Has Brian himself gone on the record about any of these issues in the past year or so? Has any of that been published? If so, then of course it's worth noting for those interested. If not, the silence may speak volumes just the same.

[Mikie]

To some, it isn't re-hashing old articles, Craig. To many newer fans, it is all new to them. Again, it isn't formally discussed in depth in books out there on Brian & The Boys but only scratched on the surface. Digging deep by doing a "search" on this board will reveal a lot of information on the subject. To us, we've been down the road many times on this and other boards, but to some, they haven't read as much as we have on the subject. And I STILL don't know as much as say......Mr. Reum on the subject. Again, it's an education.

[Smilin Ed H]

To some, it isn't re-hashing old articles, Craig. To many newer fans, it is all new to them. Again, it isn't formally discussed in depth in books out there on Brian & The Boys but only scratched on the surface. Digging deep by doing a "search" on this board will reveal a lot of information on the subject. To us, we've been down the road many times on this and other boards, but to some, they haven't read as much as we have on the subject. And I STILL don't know as much as say......Mr. Reum on the subject. Again, it's an education.

Agreed.

I think when the threads are informative. instead of the Mike is sh*t/Brian's been useless without the Boys threads that descend into snarky attacks on other posters and come out of nowhere, they're worth having.

[urbanite]

If nothing else, this article makes it relatively clear that people who have some form of mental illness should not be ingesting drugs unless it's at the direction of a physician.  Even marijuana, which is gaining greater acceptance, can make things worse. 

[Ray Lawlor]

I want to chime in with only my opinion and suggest at some point it's not the business of fans to dig deep into this kind of thing beyond the curiosity factor. It does become intrusive, at some point, when it keeps repeating itself to the point of kicking the proverbial dead horse. If the person who is actually dealing with these issues chooses to open up in an interview or otherwise, that's one thing. To have these kinds of discussions continue to appear and fans speculate and "want more" information which ultimately is personal, I don't know what purpose it serves, to be honest. What could or should be gained by discussing articles such as this one posted above which hasn't been discussed before?

Let me draw a comparison. Or two.

Take a public figure who is or was an alcoholic...sticking to the Beach Boys relationship, Glen Campbell who for decades publicly battled alcoholism. What more can be said about Glen Campbell and alcoholism? If he wanted to open up publicly about his struggles, he did - But for how long afterward will the alcoholism be associated with Glen's life or his career as an entertainer? Should it be mentioned alongside someone posting on a message board how great a song "Wichita Lineman" is? Should it be mentioned whenever something from his career comes up...or repeated in whatever Glen Campbell fan communities exist? Every so often, on Twitter or whatever, have a Glen Campbell follower post something about Glen's battles with alcoholism - "Yeah, we love his music, and by the way, he had quite a battle with alcohol and here is a 15 year old magazine article describing it." At some point doesn't it become redundant?

How about a family member or a close friend who had battled drug addiction, but who has been sober for some time. Would it be appropriate to introduce that person as "a recovering addict" whenever you're with them? At family gatherings or outings, the person shows up and someone says "oh yeah, he/she is the one who had the addiction". "Here is my friend, the recovering addict." Again, at what point does it go beyond something useful to have it be forever associated with that person or persons? Not that it didn't happen or isn't happening, not that it's trying to ignore the elephant in the room, but at what point does the person become an individual who either chooses to talk about these things, or chooses not to talk about them?

I'm just airing out some of my thoughts after the past year or so has seen several of these topics come up, including one with a magazine article which was close to a decade old about this same topic. Not that it's off-limits or anything of the sort, but put yourself in the mindset of these people we're discussing and ask how it would be received if it were close to you. At what point is privacy the order of the day over fan curiosity?

This so called scholarly article takes irresponsibility to new heights. Leaving aside the "sources" this guy uses , basically magazine articles , Landy's "autobiography" , a completely discredited source, record jacket liner notes ect. ; essentially "diagnosing " BW using published sources of other people's work; the fact remains that this character , nor anyone else, could write intelligently on Brian's diagnosis without access to Brian's medical records,or access to Brian; neither of which the author has. Actually; GuitarFool, Add Some and Filledeplage state it far more elequently than I have; and I will leave it at that.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I want to chime in with only my opinion and suggest at some point it's not the business of fans to dig deep into this kind of thing beyond the curiosity factor. It does become intrusive, at some point, when it keeps repeating itself to the point of kicking the proverbial dead horse. If the person who is actually dealing with these issues chooses to open up in an interview or otherwise, that's one thing. To have these kinds of discussions continue to appear and fans speculate and "want more" information which ultimately is personal, I don't know what purpose it serves, to be honest. What could or should be gained by discussing articles such as this one posted above which hasn't been discussed before?

Let me draw a comparison. Or two.

Take a public figure who is or was an alcoholic...sticking to the Beach Boys relationship, Glen Campbell who for decades publicly battled alcoholism. What more can be said about Glen Campbell and alcoholism? If he wanted to open up publicly about his struggles, he did - But for how long afterward will the alcoholism be associated with Glen's life or his career as an entertainer? Should it be mentioned alongside someone posting on a message board how great a song "Wichita Lineman" is? Should it be mentioned whenever something from his career comes up...or repeated in whatever Glen Campbell fan communities exist? Every so often, on Twitter or whatever, have a Glen Campbell follower post something about Glen's battles with alcoholism - "Yeah, we love his music, and by the way, he had quite a battle with alcohol and here is a 15 year old magazine article describing it." At some point doesn't it become redundant?

How about a family member or a close friend who had battled drug addiction, but who has been sober for some time. Would it be appropriate to introduce that person as "a recovering addict" whenever you're with them? At family gatherings or outings, the person shows up and someone says "oh yeah, he/she is the one who had the addiction". "Here is my friend, the recovering addict." Again, at what point does it go beyond something useful to have it be forever associated with that person or persons? Not that it didn't happen or isn't happening, not that it's trying to ignore the elephant in the room, but at what point does the person become an individual who either chooses to talk about these things, or chooses not to talk about them?

I'm just airing out some of my thoughts after the past year or so has seen several of these topics come up, including one with a magazine article which was close to a decade old about this same topic. Not that it's off-limits or anything of the sort, but put yourself in the mindset of these people we're discussing and ask how it would be received if it were close to you. At what point is privacy the order of the day over fan curiosity?

This so called scholarly article takes irresponsibility to new heights. Leaving aside the "sources" this guy uses , basically magazine articles , Landy's "autobiography" , a completely discredited source, record jacket liner notes ect. ; essentially "diagnosing " BW using published sources of other people's work; the fact remains that this character , nor anyone else, could write intelligently on Brian's diagnosis without access to Brian's medical records,or access to Brian; neither of which the author has. Actually; GuitarFool, Add Some and Filledeplage state it far more elequently than I have; and I will leave it at that.

Both posts +10.

[Mikie]

So........Ray. If a doctor (licensed of course) who had been involved in Brian's diagnosis transcribed it into a medical journal or a writer who had interviewed the doctor wrote a magazine article about it and all the information from the medical records were properly mirrored in the article, would that be OK with you? I mean, would it be OK to make it public knowledge, as long it was accurate? I'm not sure California law permits a doctor to disclose a patient's diagnosis through medical records unless a court of law solicits it, but if it were made public, would that be OK with you? You know, Brian's diagnosis has already pretty much been made public already.....

[the captain]

(At least with respect to the U.S.,) I am almost 100% positive that HIPAA and a follow-up law the name of which escapes me forbids the sharing of any medical information without the individual's consent. PI and PHI (Personal Information and Personal Health Information, I believe are the relevant acronyms) have to be safeguarded and the sharing or even potential sharing of them triggers a data breach event. Actually I think personal health info was confidential anyway, even before those laws, but those are the ones I'm familiar with.

So if someone is going to publish something about a particular case, I would guess that requires either specific agreement / sign-off from the patient(s), or making the patient anonymous so that the reader can't trace it back to him or her.

[Ray Lawlor]

So........Ray. If a doctor (licensed of course) who had been involved in Brian's diagnosis transcribed it into a medical journal or a writer who had interviewed the doctor wrote a magazine article about it and all the information from the medical records were properly mirrored in the article, would that be OK with you? I mean, would it be OK to make it public knowledge, as long it was accurate? I'm not sure California law permits a doctor to disclose a patient's diagnosis through medical records unless a court of law solicits it, but if it were made public, would that be OK with you? You know, Brian's diagnosis has already pretty much been made public already.....

Hi Mikie;

No , it wouldn't be ok with me ; I find the whole thing to be intrusive and a troubling invasion of privacy. I was good with Brian and Melinda sharing some of his depression issues on Larry King , because it was their choice to do so , with the idea of eliminating some of the stigma of mental illness. I would definitely be ok  if Brian , along with his doctors, wanted to share some of his medical info publicly, but only under those circumstances. I doubt any of us would want our medical information splayed all over a public forum; I know I wouldn't. Nobody but the Wilson family and Brian's doctors has the ability to accurately talk to these issues , and until they decide to do so I think it is best left alone.

[guitarfool2002]

Just wanted to add about privacy and the like: Without knowing specifics by state or even in general regarding different practices in medicine (general, psychological, etc), there are very strong rules and regs about confidentiality and privacy regarding medical records of any kind. I know there have been cases brought to the criminal courts where medical employees from nurses to file clerks have leaked confidential records to various media outlets in some cases for payment, and I'm 99% sure that is a criminal offense. Same thing if a doctor were to publish information without consent, I'm pretty sure they'd end up losing their license to practice as well as face other charges in the courts because you cannot publish that kind of doctor-patient information or medical records in general without consent.

I'll say again I think the ultimate consideration is privacy, and whether or not the people involved choose or agree to release anything of the sort. Beyond that consent, it gets into all kinds of issues beyond legal and moral and right down to basic privacy and choice, I'd think.

[the captain]

You're right (re laws), and they're federal, though supplemented by state.