The Smiley Smile Message Board

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 (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)

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.

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.

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

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!!!

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

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!   :lol 

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.

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.

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?

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?

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!  ;)

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.....

(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.

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.

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.

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

There's nothing illegal about this university thesis. It wasn't published with the intent of profit. It just so happens with the existence of the internet, it is available online. It doesn't pretend to be anything but an academic paper in the field of experimental psychology, and psychology is a social science. His sources are cited and are all from things that have already been published and are still available. Even Brian's autobiography, while subject to multiple lawsuits in the US, is still being published in other countries (and the guy who wrote it lives in a country that isn't the United States).

I didn't read the paper and am not commenting on its legality, just for the record. Just the concept of legality of health information in general.

Kitty Kat - First, I'm not so sure about whether it is "illegal" or not.  Do you mean "criminally illegal" or in a "civil" or "damages" context?  

Second, "psychology" might be considered by some to be a "social science" but not really.  Psychologists, with advanced degrees can and are very much actively involved in the "medical" context and some both "treat" and "prescribe" (usually under supervision) Is a school psychologist a medical "provider?" - no, they aren't.  They deal with testing to measure academic ability and work within the school context.  This is a Ph.D, outside of the US.  

But, I would bet you could "redact" (remove the names) from that mess (I have no other word for that "psycho-babble") and hand it out as a law school exam, and allow the students might find lots of "actionable" offenses contained therein.  It is of no consequence that there was no profit.

And, I was "offended" by this..."We can infer this from his unremarkable (even poor) lyric-writing ability." I bet there are people on this board who can rattle off all of the songs where Brian did both music and lyrics, even if he had Cracker Jack lyricists. Brian is credited with Surfer Girl, Girl Don't Tell Me, I'm Bugged at My Old Man, The Little Girl I Once Knew, Til I Die, etc. to name a few, and this looks like it could be construed to be kind of slander of his profession.  

It is Brian's gift for finding simplicity in complexity, that is part of his genius in my book. "Cork on the ocean, rock in a landslide, leaf on a windy day." Bad lyrics? I don't think so. Brian found the essence of life; that is a philosopher.

As others have alluded to, above, there are very special protections for behavioral health patients and their providers.  Whatever Brian and Melinda chose to, and revealed "generally" is not the same as the conjecture that this person engaged in.  First, he "particularized" his impressions, and second, he "named names" and drew inferences from the work products of others.  I only know of one exception for a "treating provider" to reveal information, and that is if the patient would cause another risk of imminent serious bodily harm.  

Other information could be required by a court, if that behavior was in issue with respect to a crime or a defense to that crime.  There are other limited exceptions.  Largely it is a locked vault.  He does not appear to be a treating provider. Ray L. enlarged that concept well.

But, I find it offensive, and no less so, than I am offended by so much of this excess testing that goes on in school systems for someone to get a doctorate, or for a book company to sell textbooks.  They are no less predatory in my view, as someone (the kids) is being "exploited" to "benefit" another.

Money isn't the only kind of compensation.  It could be some kind of recognition, or a job as a professor, or even a scholarship, sort of a kind of bartering that gives something "of value."

Happy 2015 to all!  :beer

And good health to all the BB/BW sphere! You have enriched us all with your work and voices!

But don't  :beer and drive!  ;)

Happy New Year, Ray! 

The point is, it's a school paper. The main judge and audience for it would be college professors, and perhaps other professionals who want to read it and can judge for themselves whether it's worthy. If Brian's lawyers want to go to the UK and sue the guy, then let them. I just don't think it rises to that level. Unless they want to sue Peter Ames Carlin, Todd Gold, and whoever else's work was used as a source for the paper.

The writer can't be sued for sharing his opinions and analyses of information in the public domain.  Didn't Brian disclose to the NY Times in a short interview that he was taking Luvox and another medication some years ago?  I also recall someone posted a link to a magazine article in which Brian was asked in detail about his auditory hallucinations and he answered candidly and in detail.  His medical records are absolutely confidential under California law unless and until he consents to their release.   

urbanite - this is an old paper, relatively speaking. When I read it, it just didn't pass the ethical "smell test." It matters who the "actor" is.  It is not a college freshman in psych 101, studying BF Skinner and the rats, and doing a copy-and-paste from wiki.  This is a person with a doctorate, who is held to  a higher standard or code of behavior in this profession.

We are all governed by codes of ethics in the professions.  There are codes for research as well.  Over time, many "experiments" have been conducted in predatory manners, such as in institutions where the "cohort" for "experimentation" have been behaviorally or developmentally challenged orphans, or others.  The history of self-policing has been poor, abysmal, really. 

That is not to include professionals who are honest, engage in full-disclosure, are "transparent" about research methods and who are not afraid of "informed consent."  I've met and dealt with both good and bad, so it isn't fair to paint everyone with the proverbial broad brush. I've dealt with some true gems in education, and my fair share of fakers, looking to pad their "client load." And, outside the scope of education, as well.  The most ethical among them enjoy great reputations among clients, but may not do so well "industry wide" because they don't always "play the game." Just my personal experience and opinion.

And I started with the American Psychological Association first, who cover in their code, "scientific, educational, and professional" then looked to the British side, and they, too, have a canon of ethics for those who work in the field, do research and publish findings.  There is a site called  simplepsychology (research ethics) which I found to be a good starting point.

This is a guy with a doctorate in psychology who is attempting to infer that Brian is gifted musically (in the composition context) but maybe not so much, as a lyricist and connect it through some psychological matrix. (I maybe expressed that poorly.)  Hardly the work of a psychologist, whose work credentials are not as an expert in that field.  His opinions offend me, as a BB/BW fan, and it appears that he has wandered into territory that isn't his field of expertise, with an analysis of a proven singer-songwriter. Art is received by each person differently, and isn't always "quantifiable" in a way he might like to "quantify" it. 

Apologies for bumping this one but I saw the original post before New Year's and it made me want to join the board specifically to offer an opinion on this before the thread fades for good.

I agree that the article is poorly reasoned, poorly researched, and at points, absurd (making judgments on Brian’s "intelligence"). All that's a different issue than, I suppose, the ethical or legal questions involved in the decision to write and publish the article in the first place.  In any case, ethical (and moral) treatment of Brian Wilson was sadly thrown out the window sometime in the early 1940s. So things are what they are.

Because Brian has been viewed for so long as drug burn-out (at least that’s the general impression I remember getting from the media when I was a kid), and now more recently, as a man bravely battling mental illness and/or depression, the nature of his "illness" gets misinterpreted and/or obfuscated and/or outright buried.  Medical professionals presumably have to ascribe a technical name to whatever Brian Wilson's symptoms are, but for the layman it all comes down to child abuse. In my opinion, the only disease or illness that Brian Wilson has suffered from is the impact of a disease that makes a parent attack a child.  That disease is social. The article whose link was posted at the top of this thread, for all its technicality (and the reference to a computer program as a diagnostic tool), says nothing compared to what Brian himself says in the song “Love and Mercy,” in which he, in effect, identifies the disease and then offers a remedy.

There is a stigma attached to both depression and mental instability, but there's a greater stigma attached to either being abused, and/or being a survivor of abuse. If this stuff was addressed more openly, maybe some of the mystery surrounding Brian's interesting and important life would become clearer, and the huge scale of his achievements better recognized.

This is a heavy and unpleasant topic, but I thought this viewpoint should be aired (there - I feel better now...)