egafd.com

Being happy and sad is normal but bipolar and monopolar are extreme conditions, so much so that patients with those conditions often try to kill themselves and often succeed ref Kurt Cobain, Marilyn Monroe, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Nick Drake etc etc. It's more than happiness or sadness.

Many people in the entertainment world are fucked up in some way and a higher percentage have bipolar and other conditions than non-entertainers.

You're right; people do have mood swings; happy and sad days, but there are extremes where these swings are more apparent, and become more problematic to the sufferer and others. If these people need help then the people helping them need to give these extreme conditions a name of some sort, naturally.

None of us can affect how we feel, only have we act upon them. The stronger those feelings, the harder our actions are to control. Because our emotions are controlled within the amygdala, and are part of the limbic system, feeling happy or sad is as natural as breathing, or keeping our diaphragm working.

Normally, our cerebral cortex works out how to handle these feelings and emotions, but if those feelings are more pronounced then the cerebral cortex can be bypassed to varying degrees, making decisions less rational.

It's easier to think of actions caused by processing within the amygdala are natural responses, while cerebral actions are caused by further processing within the cerebral cortex (thought). This is why a court of law will give you a lesser sentence for killing someone in a bar fight/catching your wife at it with another, than a crime you took a few days/months to commit. Emotions within the amygdala are short lived and evolved for our own protection. The basic processes after critical bodily functions.

Since Archy won't answer Carac's questions, I hope I have ever so slightly. We can control our actions, and are responsible for what we do, but this all depends on the strength of the feeling, the time elapsed before actions are taken upon those feelings, and the make-up of the person involved.

I'm no psychiatrist, so it's just an amateur opinion based on my limited knowledge, but Archy won't answer because he doesn't really want to discuss bipolar disorders, just reel off countless celebrates he assumes show certain symptoms.

It is not my opinion that various people have bipolar - their condition has been extensively discussed in the media.

[quote]It is not my opinion that various people have bipolar[/quote]

So you don't think Britney has bipolar then? I'm sorry, I just assumed......

Only if i was a qualified psychiatrist and I examined her, my view would be justified. I have lost count of the number of references in the media that say that qualified psychiatrists have examined her and have decided she has bipolar and is treating her for this condition.

So the question remains: does a celebrity you believe to be bipolar have full responsibility for their actions? You seem determined to excuse their selfish, destructive behaviour with an "Oh, they're bipolar," just as a doting parent dimisses their offspring beating someone up with, "He's just a kid."

If these shining golden people you admire so much are not responsible for their actions due to their precious psychological condition, then doesn't that also mean that they can't take any credit for their success because the same thing is there? Or are they only excluded from being criticised if they are already famous?

Cheers, Sam, for attempting to answer the question. Trying to get Sigmund Stanton to nail his colours to the mast is proving difficult. One thing I will suggest: he subscribes to showbiz gossip mags.

Well, you weren't going to get an answer from sources discussed! For a person that says he's interested, and read lots of books on psychiatry, he doesn't seem to want to get involved in discussions on the subject.

Any knob-end can read a celeb mag and repeat their drivel.

Cheers, Samwise.

How's the man?