He had to. They were a major breach with reality. He lost touch with reality and could not function. The element of paranoia was very strong and he couldn't shake the feeling that the Russians were going to kill him. The dramatic tension was astonishing in the movie when he realized his situation. Of course he had already painfully realized it when locked up in a psychiatric hospital and they gave horrible treatment to shake him out of his schizophrenic world. But he couldn't stand the effects of the medication. He couldn't do mathematics, he couldn't make love to his wife and he felt aimless and listless. So he quit using the pills and the problems all came back. The same total break with reality. But Nash was one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century and he was determined that he could beat it without medication. It's a true story Ludi and it ends well with Nash giving his acceptance speech at the 1994 Stockholm Nobel Prize ceremony which he addressed entirely to his wife who stood by him through the worst.Ludi wrote:Do you know why Nash decided to ignore his hallucinations?
that's a good quote, plants. hmm, why don't those pigeons scatter? And where is Boris anyway? I think the criticisms of Ron Howard's movie are unwarranted except perhaps for that line you noted which is quite suspicious and unfair to the truth that Nash refused anti-psychotic medicine at all, period.I_Like_Plants wrote:I mean after a while a guy's just gotta realize that he's been right around the campus where the boogiemen could find him, but they've not killed him in say 20 years..... hmm ... that and the girl not scaring the pigeons....
The movie was very loosely based on the real John Nash and Ron Howard admitted as much. For instance, he was actually a non-functional schizophrenic for 30 years. The last 18 of those years without anti-psychotic medicine. The movie shows him learning to cope while his son was a baby, when he was in fact a raving lunatic for all of his son's youth and early adulthood. The manner in which the movie portrayed his illness had two very sweet hallucinated companions, not unlike your "happy dancing fairies." Plus, Crowe played him as kind of an endearing nerd who dressed funny, but the real Nash was arrogant and rude with a hot Central American wife. The audience has sympathy for Crowe-as-Nash, but the real Nash wouldn't have appealed to many. His only real appeal was intellectual where he truly did shine. I imagine his illness was very ugly from what I've read, so it's not really pertinent to discuss genuine mental illness from this Hollywood perspective. The real mystery of John Nash is how he just got better for no known reason at the age of 60, with no treatment. He got his mind and soul back which probably never would have happened if he had kept taking medicine. Having said all that, it is still a great movie and definitely worth watching. (plus, if you watch it carefully, you'll see that they put in hints of all these things while carefully preserving the crafted Hollywood version that audiences can accept, just leaving out the essence and some of the unpalatable aspects in all their sordid truth. Ron Howard wanted to do a movie about mental illness because he saw a traumatic thing happen on the set of The Andy Griffith Show when he was a boy-actor playing Opie)Ludi wrote:PMS, see that's what I mean about the illusions being "dangerous." If they made him paranoid if he listened to them, then they were clearly dangerous. But if they had been for instance happy dancing fairies, they might not have been dangerous and there may have been no need to ignore them.
What I read was that on the set of The Andy Griffith Show somebody had a mental collapse and curled up into a fetal position. The young Ron Howard was frightened by it and that's why he wanted to make a movie about mental illness. Mental illness is frightening to be sure. Anyone exposed to it knows. Anyone subject to it knows even more.Eli wrote:Ok, what was the traumatic thing that Opie saw Pen?
That concept turned most of economics on its head. Before Nash, the dominant idea of “equilibrium” in economics was the Walrasian equilibrium. It was sort of a Panglossian idea-- everything that people want to sell gets bought, and markets are efficient -- no money gets left on the table, so to speak. But in Nash equilibrium, you can get outcomes that are far darker -- for example, in the Prisoners’ Dilemma, where two rational prisoners will always betray each other, leading to a worse outcome for both than if they had both kept silent.
When you go from Walrasian equilibrium to Nash equilibrium, you get all kinds of non-optimal economic outcomes. You can get markets that break down completely, because no one can trust their counterparties. You can get companies hurting the economy by competing with each other too much. Suddenly, you go from a perfect free-market paradise to an uncertain, confusing thicket of potentially destructive competition. Economists before Nash had created a few isolated models of strategic interaction, but Nash created a system.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests