![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Madness and Theory of Mind
Reading some articles about brain disorders, as you do, I had some thoughts on River and the basis for her madness in Firefly.
“I am my thoughts. If they exist in her, Buffy contains everything that is me and she becomes me. I cease to exist. “
Oz in Earshot
In modern psychological parlance Theory of Mind or mentalising is the ability to appreciate that the mental states of others differ from our own and to use that insight to predict what others will do or think. In the BtVS episode Earshot Buffy acquires a form of involuntary telepathy, an initially amusing ability that soon becomes terrifying as it progresses to the point that she can no longer distinguish the thoughts of others from her own. Theory of Mind breaks down and madness ensues.
However, although Theory of Mind is innate, its emergence is a relatively late event in development. Three year old children usually do badly at tasks that require them to mentalise, they genuinely believe that if they close their eyes you can’t see them. Are three year old children mad?
“ they stripped her amygdala.”
Simon Tam talking about River in Ariel
Modern psychology is closely allied with neuroscience. You can’t define a mental state or process these days without at least some attempt to localize it to a particular region of the brain. Because we can. A combination of imaging studies to determine which areas of the brain light up during a relevant activity and detailed neuropsychological analysis of patents with specifc brain lesions can narrow down the regions required for any process that can be sufficiently well defined. It’s a highly reductive approach that I have to admit appeals to me as an experimentalist.
On the basis of these types of experiment Theory of Mind seems to be supported by a widely distributed neural system that includes regions of the brain involved in language, visual processing and decision making. However, the one area that appears to be essential is the medial temporal lobe and specifically the amygdala complex.
“She feels everything; she can't not.”
Simon ibid
River is crazy. Experimented on for an as yet unrevealed purpose (hopefully not testing theories on Theory of Mind) her amygdala have been stripped and, like Buffy in Earshot, this seems to have broken down the barriers between her mind and the world. In the episode Objects in Space we are given a disconcerting glimpse of the world according to River, a world in which other people’s thoughts flicker in and out of her consciousness, showing no correspondence with what people are saying, and even physical objects have lost clear meanings. However, if Joss is returning to a theme, this time around he seems a little more optimistic about the outcome. River may be mad but can still function with help from those who love her and responds to care. Her madness also seems to have unlocked some special abilities.
“Dru used to see things, you know? She'd always be staring up at the sky watching cherubs burn or the heavens bleed or some nonsense. I used to stare at her and think she'd gone completely sack of hammers.”
Spike confessing to First!Buffy in Selfless
Returning to real world consequences of having no Theory of Mind and the madness of very young children; while most three year olds rapidly acquire the ability to mentalise, this aspect of normal development is severely impaired in those with autism. Autists often respond by withdrawing from the world of social interactions, which they lack a model for understanding, and retreating into repetitive behaviours and routines that they can predict and control. However, these are responses to having never had a Theory of Mind. What would be the consequences of having the ability to mentalise but then losing it? A relatively new development in psychiatric thinking is the idea that impairments of Theory of Mind might underpin aspects of adult psycopathologies such as schizophrenia. So I wonder if, by serendipitously linking River’s madness with a metaphor for losing Theory of Mind, Joss isn’t anticipating the latest advances in psychiatric research?
ETA since writing this I came across the following quote from Niko Tinbergen
“Some people try to extrapolate from our studies to human behaviour but if you wish to learn about the behaviour of man don’t ask the ethologist; turn rather to the great writers. Read Dostoevsky, read Tolstoy.”
Which is also what I was trying to say but with less words.
“I am my thoughts. If they exist in her, Buffy contains everything that is me and she becomes me. I cease to exist. “
Oz in Earshot
In modern psychological parlance Theory of Mind or mentalising is the ability to appreciate that the mental states of others differ from our own and to use that insight to predict what others will do or think. In the BtVS episode Earshot Buffy acquires a form of involuntary telepathy, an initially amusing ability that soon becomes terrifying as it progresses to the point that she can no longer distinguish the thoughts of others from her own. Theory of Mind breaks down and madness ensues.
However, although Theory of Mind is innate, its emergence is a relatively late event in development. Three year old children usually do badly at tasks that require them to mentalise, they genuinely believe that if they close their eyes you can’t see them. Are three year old children mad?
“ they stripped her amygdala.”
Simon Tam talking about River in Ariel
Modern psychology is closely allied with neuroscience. You can’t define a mental state or process these days without at least some attempt to localize it to a particular region of the brain. Because we can. A combination of imaging studies to determine which areas of the brain light up during a relevant activity and detailed neuropsychological analysis of patents with specifc brain lesions can narrow down the regions required for any process that can be sufficiently well defined. It’s a highly reductive approach that I have to admit appeals to me as an experimentalist.
On the basis of these types of experiment Theory of Mind seems to be supported by a widely distributed neural system that includes regions of the brain involved in language, visual processing and decision making. However, the one area that appears to be essential is the medial temporal lobe and specifically the amygdala complex.
“She feels everything; she can't not.”
Simon ibid
River is crazy. Experimented on for an as yet unrevealed purpose (hopefully not testing theories on Theory of Mind) her amygdala have been stripped and, like Buffy in Earshot, this seems to have broken down the barriers between her mind and the world. In the episode Objects in Space we are given a disconcerting glimpse of the world according to River, a world in which other people’s thoughts flicker in and out of her consciousness, showing no correspondence with what people are saying, and even physical objects have lost clear meanings. However, if Joss is returning to a theme, this time around he seems a little more optimistic about the outcome. River may be mad but can still function with help from those who love her and responds to care. Her madness also seems to have unlocked some special abilities.
“Dru used to see things, you know? She'd always be staring up at the sky watching cherubs burn or the heavens bleed or some nonsense. I used to stare at her and think she'd gone completely sack of hammers.”
Spike confessing to First!Buffy in Selfless
Returning to real world consequences of having no Theory of Mind and the madness of very young children; while most three year olds rapidly acquire the ability to mentalise, this aspect of normal development is severely impaired in those with autism. Autists often respond by withdrawing from the world of social interactions, which they lack a model for understanding, and retreating into repetitive behaviours and routines that they can predict and control. However, these are responses to having never had a Theory of Mind. What would be the consequences of having the ability to mentalise but then losing it? A relatively new development in psychiatric thinking is the idea that impairments of Theory of Mind might underpin aspects of adult psycopathologies such as schizophrenia. So I wonder if, by serendipitously linking River’s madness with a metaphor for losing Theory of Mind, Joss isn’t anticipating the latest advances in psychiatric research?
ETA since writing this I came across the following quote from Niko Tinbergen
“Some people try to extrapolate from our studies to human behaviour but if you wish to learn about the behaviour of man don’t ask the ethologist; turn rather to the great writers. Read Dostoevsky, read Tolstoy.”
Which is also what I was trying to say but with less words.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I try sometimes to understand Dru's madness so I can write her, but I fear I don't know anything like enough about the subject. I do feel though that acting from the outside you can't drive someone mad, so I tend to believe Angelus only claimed for himself something that was happening anyway. Could we see it as a result or side-effect of her visions? Again, for joss, the sight and madness seem to be linked, for example River, and Cordelia on those occasions when the visions were becoming too much for her. Even Buffy - who after all has the sight too in her Slayer dreams - is tinged with madness in Normal Again.
The sight comes to Dru very easily, without her being asleep or having headaches to tell her what she is seeing is a vision and not the present reality. This means Dru is confused over when and possibly where things have happened (Spike said she never had a clue what was going on). If you imagine what that must be like it doesn't bear thinking about - it would be enough to brew up anyone's mind into something bitter.
I think 'seeing' in the Jossverse, if it is a metaphor for anything, is a metaphor for insanity - it gives power but at a terrible price. And for Joss power is always something to be feared as much as welcomed - the insane are free from responsibility, the insane have the power of that freedom, the insane have the power of seeing the truth, the powerful have to accept responsibility as the price for their power, power can send you insane. There is a circularity to it that I admire and can get lost in.
no subject
I read a discussion on LJ once where someone who seemed to have a psychiatric background was assessing the verisimilitude of different mad characters on BtVS and AtS. I think they decided that Wesley could reasonably be diagnosed as suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome but Dru’s madness owed more to literary portrayals of insanity like Ophelia. I’m not so sure that such portrayals should be completely dismissed. They may not give an accurate picture of any specific syndrome but could yet contain insights into how it feels to be mad that we analytical types would overlook. Still I’m not a psychologist and God knows pretty much any treatment of genetics in literature that I’ve ever read has been a fingernails scraping on blackboard experience for me.
About Joss and the crazy: I think you’re right about the fascination with sight-power-responsibility-insanity. Which is not so much about madness per se. I could also see that as a writer who’s main interest (he says) is in how people work emotionally, he might also want to write about how they don’t work. As a counterpoint. Alternatively there may be a personal interest. The idea that there’s a connection between various forms of insanity and creativity has been around for a long time. Is seeing stories/being possessed by them, like seeing things/being possessed at some level? Joss does seem to have a particular facility with dream sequences and mad scenes.
no subject
Thank you. I just found out you have autistic children yourself so I am so pleased you liked my portrayal of Henry. (this is probably a world record for late response to feedback.)