Louis Blair wrote in message usenet.com...
Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
(much snipped)
I don't think blindfold chess drove Morphy crazy.
However, consider the view of the people at the time.
Blindfold chess was considered awesome but a potential risk.
Morphy, after astonishing the world, disappears except for a few
where-are-they-now columns, and the next thing they hear he is
apparently insane at quite a young age.

Hardly "the next thing they hear". Upon his return from England in 1858 he
made many many public appearances - appearances that were described in detail
by people who certainly did not give the impression that they thought Morphy
was having mental trouble. The reports of mental trouble were more than a
decade later.

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
People could not know that later we would find that some masters could
play far more than 8 games blindfold with no apparent harm, and could
quite rationally believe that Morphy was driven insane by blindfold chess.

If Jeremy Spinrad wants to hypothesize that a sufficiently poorly informed
individual might have "rationally" jumped to such a conclusion, I suppose
that we could allow that, but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch on the
meaning of "rational".

*Perhaps* (this is only my hypothesis) Jeremy Spinrad was only contending that
it would have been a 'quite rational belief' for people then to accept the
authority of some (though not all) medical 'experts' who may have come to
that conclusion about Paul Morphy.

*If* that's what Jeremy Spinrad was contending, then my problem with it is
that, according to the same standard of evidence, it also would have been
'quite rational' for people in the 19th century to believe the fashionable
psuedo-scientific racist theories--which were nonsense--that were being
propagated by many 'scientific experts' of that time.

Surely part of "rational" includes making some sort of proper effort
to obtain relevant information.

By that evidently rather high standard, however, many voters in modern
democracies may not be regarded as necessarily making 'rational' decisions.

The "escalating slowly" process (extended over more than a decade) that
Jeremy Spinrad has himself hypothesized does not square very well with the
notion of a mental problem caused by the strain of a blindfold demonstration.
People IN MORPHY'S TIME expressed skepticism about the strain theory and
their writings seem far more rational to me than those of the strain theory
advocates.

If those are the relevant facts, then I should agree more with
Louis Blair than with Jeremy Spinrad about what they probably mean.

--Nick

I wrote:
If Jeremy Spinrad wants to hypothesize that a sufficiently poorly
informed individual might have "rationally" jumped to such a
conclusion, I suppose that we could allow that, but it strikes me as
a bit of a stretch on the meaning of "rational".


Nick wrote:

*Perhaps* (this is only my hypothesis) Jeremy Spinrad was only
contending that it would have been a 'quite rational belief' for
people then to accept the authority of some (though not all) medical
'experts' who may have come to that conclusion about Paul Morphy.

_
So far I have seen no reference to medical experts
believing that Morphy's mental problems were caused
by blindfold playing.

I wrote:
Surely part of "rational" includes making some sort of proper effort
to obtain relevant information.


Nick wrote:

By that evidently rather high standard, however, many voters in modern
democracies may not be regarded as necessarily making 'rational'
decisions.


The phrase used by Jeremy Spinrad was "very rational".
It seems to me that if one wants to be very rational
about the idea that blindfold play caused Morphy's
mental troubles, the very first thing one should
consider is whether or not mental trouble was
apparent at any time even remotely close to the
time of the blindfold encounters. Again, people
IN MORPHY'S TIME expressed skepticism about the
strain theory.

I don't want to belabor an argument about whether it was rational to believe that
Norphy's insanity was called by his blindfold play. I could cite mdeical
statements of later doctors (from a later time than Morphy, after other tragedies
affecting chess players), but that is not my key point.

People are awed at blindfold chess displays, and some people warn that such an
awesome display is very dangerous. Predisposition: playing chess blindfold may or
may not be a dangerous activity.

Morphy dies insane.

Lends some support to the hypothesis that blindfold chess is dangerous. Do you
believe it? It is only a single example, but if you already thought it might be
dangerous, this might make your belief a bit stronger.

As to the notion that since it occurred many years later, blindfold chess could
not have contributed: how is this less believable than the notion that having
smoked years ago can greatly increase your chances of getting lung cancer?

I don't know myself what I would have thought of the risk of blindfold chess if I
lived in those days. I feel that both believing it caused insanity and believing
it did not were both well within the bounds of what a reasonable person can
believe. Although I do not believe that the Atkins diet is a healthy plan, I am
not about to say that the followers of it are being irrational (as I might say,
for example, about believers in astrology; pinning down exactly where things
become irrational is not so precise).

One of the reasons that we realize that playing 8 games blindfolded is not a
mental health risk is that we also realize that it is not such an awesome
intellectual achievement. Reading the old statements about individual blindfold
performances is amusing; they talk about how these feats of memory will be
remembered throughout human history. But if we accept that they believed that
this mental task stretched the bounds of human achievement, I think we must also
accept the notion that this also might cause such a strain that the mind might
break down in mysterious ways as a result of this.

Jerry Spinrad

Louis Blair wrote in message usenet.com...
I wrote:
If Jeremy Spinrad wants to hypothesize that a sufficiently poorly
informed individual might have "rationally" jumped to such a
conclusion, I suppose that we could allow that, but it strikes me as
a bit of a stretch on the meaning of "rational".

Nick wrote:
*Perhaps* (this is only my hypothesis) Jeremy Spinrad was only
contending that it would have been a 'quite rational belief' for
people then to accept the authority of some (though not all) medical
'experts' who may have come to that conclusion about Paul Morphy.

So far I have seen no reference to medical experts believing
that Morphy's mental problems were caused by blindfold playing.

Mr Blair, with your characteristic attention to detail, you are correct,
as far as I know, that Jeremy Spinrad has not made any specific "reference
to medical experts believing that Morphy's mental problems were caused by
blindfold playing".

I did have a reason (which I could explain in private to the extent that it
should become necessary) to suppose that Jeremy Spinrad might have been
thinking of the authority of 19th century 'medical experts'. Given that
Mr Spinrad has declared that he does "not plan to respond to (your) comments
on (his) post", I believe that it should be inappropriate now for me to
discuss this subject any further in public. (Please read my E-mail.)
I regret it if my hypothesis has led to anything negative for Jeremy Spinrad.

I wrote:
Surely part of "rational" includes making some sort of proper effort
to obtain relevant information.

Nick wrote:
By that evidently rather high standard, however, many voters in modern
democracies may not be regarded as necessarily making 'rational' decisions.

In the interest of clarity, my statement (above) was a comment on only the
immediately preceding statement by Louis Blair, *not* on any other statements
by him or Jeremy Spinrad in this thread.

The phrase used by Jeremy Spinrad was "very rational".
It seems to me that if one wants to be very rational about the idea that
blindfold play caused Morphy's mental troubles, the very first thing one
should consider is whether or not mental trouble was apparent at any time
even remotely close to the time of the blindfold encounters.

Mr Blair, I regret that there has been any misunderstanding between us here.
Actually, I already agreed with what you have expressed again in your statement
(above). My statement about 'many voters in modern democracies' was intended
only to remark (in passing) on the popular non-rationality of human decisions.

Again, people IN MORPHY'S TIME expressed skepticism about the strain theory.

Yes, Mr Blair, in my view, your comments to Jeremy Spinrad have made
several good points.

--Nick

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

People are awed at blindfold chess displays, and some
people warn that such an awesome display is very dangerous.
Predisposition: playing chess blindfold may or may not
be a dangerous activity.

Morphy dies insane.

Lends some support to the hypothesis that blindfold
chess is dangerous. Do you believe it? It is only a
single example, but if you already thought it might
be dangerous, this might make your belief a bit
stronger.

_
This does not sound "very rational" to me. Indeed
it sounds to me like one of the classic logical
fallacies. (A follows B. Therefore, A was caused
by B.)


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

As to the notion that since it occurred many years
later, blindfold chess could not have contributed:
how is this less believable than the notion that
having smoked years ago can greatly increase your
chances of getting lung cancer?

_
I seem to remember those smoking warning ads saying
that cancer risk goes down greatly if one gives it
up. But, apart from that, do the effects of smoking
typically begin well after the time the smoking has
stopped and then "escalate slowly" over a period of
time that extends for decades?

Furthermore, smoking physically introduces substances
into the body. Blindfold chess does not.

Also: Smoking is done a little bit at a time, so
it is plausible that the damage done takes place a
little bit at a time with no major effect noticed
on any one smoking occasion. This is less plausible
with an activity that took place on a small number
of special occasions.

Moreover, Paulsen did a fair amount of blindfold
play in Morphy's day without going crazy.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

I feel that both believing it caused insanity
and believing it did not were both well within
the bounds of what a reasonable person can
believe. Although I do not believe that the
Atkins diet is a healthy plan, I am not about
to say that the followers of it are being
irrational (as I might say, for example,
about believers in astrology; pinning down
exactly where things become irrational is not
so precise).

One of the reasons that we realize that playing
8 games blindfolded is not a mental health risk
is that we also realize that it is not such an
awesome intellectual achievement. Reading the
old statements about individual blindfold
performances is amusing; they talk about how
these feats of memory will be remembered
throughout human history. But if we accept that
they believed that this mental task stretched
the bounds of human achievement, I think we
must also accept the notion that this also
might cause such a strain that the mind might
break down in mysterious ways as a result of
this.

_
It's the "mysterious ways" part of this argument
that, in my opinion, is the big problem. Part of
being "very rational", in my opinion, is not
adopting beliefs for which there is no evidence
and which require "mysterious ways" in order
to make any sense at all.

Is it irrational to believe that a traumatic childhood incident can cause severe
mental problems which build up and manifest themselves fully much later?

Is it rational to believe that stress from combat can cause psychological damage
which is covered up at first but causes problems much later? Many veterans
believe it is.

Does the fact that some veterans fought in very dangerous situations with no
apparent ill effects mean that others did not suffer shell shock from less
serious exposure?

The notion that extreme stress can cause insanity, which may appear much later,
is still believed (look at accounts of holocaust survivors who committed suicide
years later). However, we no longer believe playing 8 games blindfold causes
severe stress. Many people did, and using Paulsen as a counterexample does not
make their belief illogical. The accurate statement of the belief is that playing
blindfold chess greatly increases your chance of having some form of brain
damage, not that it must always cause it.

Jerry Spinrad


In article t.com, Louis Blair writes:
| Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
|
| People are awed at blindfold chess displays, and some
| people warn that such an awesome display is very dangerous.
| Predisposition: playing chess blindfold may or may not
| be a dangerous activity.
|
| Morphy dies insane.
|
| Lends some support to the hypothesis that blindfold
| chess is dangerous. Do you believe it? It is only a
| single example, but if you already thought it might
| be dangerous, this might make your belief a bit
| stronger.
|
| _
| This does not sound "very rational" to me. Indeed
| it sounds to me like one of the classic logical
| fallacies. (A follows B. Therefore, A was caused
| by B.)

|
|
| Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
|
| As to the notion that since it occurred many years
| later, blindfold chess could not have contributed:
| how is this less believable than the notion that
| having smoked years ago can greatly increase your
| chances of getting lung cancer?
|
| _
| I seem to remember those smoking warning ads saying
| that cancer risk goes down greatly if one gives it
| up. But, apart from that, do the effects of smoking
| typically begin well after the time the smoking has
| stopped and then "escalate slowly" over a period of
| time that extends for decades?
|
| Furthermore, smoking physically introduces substances
| into the body. Blindfold chess does not.
|
| Also: Smoking is done a little bit at a time, so
| it is plausible that the damage done takes place a
| little bit at a time with no major effect noticed
| on any one smoking occasion. This is less plausible
| with an activity that took place on a small number
| of special occasions.
|
| Moreover, Paulsen did a fair amount of blindfold
| play in Morphy's day without going crazy.
|
|
| Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
|
| I feel that both believing it caused insanity
| and believing it did not were both well within
| the bounds of what a reasonable person can
| believe. Although I do not believe that the
| Atkins diet is a healthy plan, I am not about
| to say that the followers of it are being
| irrational (as I might say, for example,
| about believers in astrology; pinning down
| exactly where things become irrational is not
| so precise).
|
| One of the reasons that we realize that playing
| 8 games blindfolded is not a mental health risk
| is that we also realize that it is not such an
| awesome intellectual achievement. Reading the
| old statements about individual blindfold
| performances is amusing; they talk about how
| these feats of memory will be remembered
| throughout human history. But if we accept that
| they believed that this mental task stretched
| the bounds of human achievement, I think we
| must also accept the notion that this also
| might cause such a strain that the mind might
| break down in mysterious ways as a result of
| this.
|
| _
| It's the "mysterious ways" part of this argument
| that, in my opinion, is the big problem. Part of
| being "very rational", in my opinion, is not
| adopting beliefs for which there is no evidence
| and which require "mysterious ways" in order
| to make any sense at all.

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

Is it irrational to believe that a traumatic childhood
incident can cause severe mental problems which build
up and manifest themselves fully much later?

Is it rational to believe that stress from combat can
cause psychological damage which is covered up at first
but causes problems much later? Many veterans believe
it is.

Does the fact that some veterans fought in very
dangerous situations with no apparent ill effects
mean that others did not suffer shell shock from
less serious exposure?

The notion that extreme stress can cause insanity,
which may appear much later, is still believed
(look at accounts of holocaust survivors who
committed suicide years later).

_
A problem with all of these examples is that there
is typically some degree of upset at the time that
the event occurs. No upset was reported at or anywhere
near the time of Morphy's blindfold demonstrations.
It does not seem "very rational" to me to choose to
believe in an invisible upset in a situation where
there is a total absence of evidence for it.

Also, the examples above are examples of emotional
upset, not strain due to some sort of excessive
exertion.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

However, we no longer believe playing 8 games
blindfold causes severe stress. Many people did,
and using Paulsen as a counterexample does not
make their belief illogical. The accurate
statement of the belief is that playing blindfold
chess greatly increases your chance of having
some form of brain damage, not that it must
always cause it.

_
My idea of "very rational" is that one does not
choose to believe something unless there is
evidence for it. Labourdonnais may have had
trouble shortly after one of his blindfold
exhibitions, but Philidor didn't and Paulsen
didn't and the pattern for Morphy was nothing
like what happened to Labourdonnais. I see
no "very rational" justification for this
notion of greatly increased chances of
SOME FORM of brain damage. Looks like
fudging the data to me.

Louis Blair wrote in message usenet.com...
Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

Hartston seems to be sugar-coating the issue a
bit, doesn't it? Lawson (pg 292) also seems to
indicate that there was no evidence of any
disturbance in Morphy's mind before 1875,

_
I would agree that Hartston is somewhat careless
about chronology, but, at the moment, I can find
no Lawson quote that could reasonably be taken
as indicating that there is no evidence of any
disturbance in Morphy's mind before 1875. In
what I could find, Lawson seemed to me to be
indicating that the dating of Morphy's mental
problems is approximate. Lawson himself mentioned
the 1873 Woodbury letter.



Actually,Lawson is somewhat adamant on this point. On page 214, in his
pointing out the errors in Buck's pamphlet, he is quite emphatic

It is NOT difficult to determine the first symptoms of his malady.
Rumors of a Morphy mental condition started in 1875, not 1871 as Buck
states. Maurian says he first noticed something was wrong with Morphy
in 1875.

I don't trust Buck as a source in general, but on this point I feel he
is probably closer to the mark than Lawson. Given the description in
the Woodbury letter (including phrases such as "one of those sudden
paroxysms of passion to which I have since learned he is constantly
subject", that the Woodbury letter dates from early 1873 and refers to
these outbursts from the time of his first meeting with Morphy
sometime earlier, rumors of Morphy being unbalanced from 1871 seem
quite believable, and the emphatic statement that there were no
symptoms of illness before 1875 strikes me as unsupportable.

Jerry Spinrad

It is a matter of opinion, but I feel that emotional strain is about as good a
notion of similar attack on the brain as you can get. I can think of no mental
activity where someone is forced to maintain highest level of mental power
without any let-up (as people believed about blindfold chess) for hours, so there
is no previous data to go on. In such cases, one must judge whether something is
dangerous or not based on what you feel is reasonable, and I can see either view
(that this is or is not dangerous) as reasonable.

Then of major players known at the time, 2 of 4 suffer some form of brain
disease, a fairly uncommon though not truly rare malady. In my opinion, this
would move people towards the direction of being more fearful, and rationally so,
while hardly constituting a proof of the hypothesis.

Louis and I seem to disagree on this; other opinions, perhaps?

Jerry Spinrad

In article t.com, Louis Blair writes:
| Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
|
| Is it irrational to believe that a traumatic childhood
| incident can cause severe mental problems which build
| up and manifest themselves fully much later?
|
| Is it rational to believe that stress from combat can
| cause psychological damage which is covered up at first
| but causes problems much later? Many veterans believe
| it is.
|
| Does the fact that some veterans fought in very
| dangerous situations with no apparent ill effects
| mean that others did not suffer shell shock from
| less serious exposure?
|
| The notion that extreme stress can cause insanity,
| which may appear much later, is still believed
| (look at accounts of holocaust survivors who
| committed suicide years later).
|
| _
| A problem with all of these examples is that there
| is typically some degree of upset at the time that
| the event occurs. No upset was reported at or anywhere
| near the time of Morphy's blindfold demonstrations.
| It does not seem "very rational" to me to choose to
| believe in an invisible upset in a situation where
| there is a total absence of evidence for it.
|
| Also, the examples above are examples of emotional
| upset, not strain due to some sort of excessive
| exertion.
|
|
| Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
|
| However, we no longer believe playing 8 games
| blindfold causes severe stress. Many people did,
| and using Paulsen as a counterexample does not
| make their belief illogical. The accurate
| statement of the belief is that playing blindfold
| chess greatly increases your chance of having
| some form of brain damage, not that it must
| always cause it.
|
| _
| My idea of "very rational" is that one does not
| choose to believe something unless there is
| evidence for it. Labourdonnais may have had
| trouble shortly after one of his blindfold
| exhibitions, but Philidor didn't and Paulsen
| didn't and the pattern for Morphy was nothing
| like what happened to Labourdonnais. I see
| no "very rational" justification for this
| notion of greatly increased chances of
| SOME FORM of brain damage. Looks like
| fudging the data to me.

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

It is a matter of opinion, but I feel that emotional
strain is about as good a notion of similar attack
on the brain as you can get.

_
"as good ... as you can get" does not necessarily mean
very good. As I have pointed out before, in the examples,
such as victims of the holocaust, that Jeremy Spinrad
cited, typically some degree of emotional upset is
apparent at the time that the event occurs. There are
no reports of such emotional upset in connection with
Morphy at any time anywhere near the blindfold
demonstrations.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

I can think of no mental activity where someone is
forced to maintain highest level of mental power
without any let-up (as people believed about blindfold
chess) for hours, so there is no previous data to go on.

_
An inability to find good data does not make it "very
rational" to jump to a conclusion on the basis of bad
data.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

In such cases, one must judge whether something is
dangerous or not based on what you feel is reasonable,

_
Or one can admit that one does not know.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

and I can see either view (that this is or is not
dangerous) as reasonable.

Then of major players known at the time, 2 of 4 suffer
some form of brain disease, a fairly uncommon though
not truly rare malady. In my opinion, this would move
people towards the direction of being more fearful,
and rationally so, while hardly constituting a proof
of the hypothesis.

Louis and I seem to disagree on this; other opinions,
perhaps?

_
THIS is the opinion with which I disagree:

"given the medical knowledge of the time, it was
very rational to believe that blindfold chess
... drove Morphy crazy" - Jeremy Spinrad
(2004-03-14 23:06:27 PST)

My idea of "very rational" is that one does not
choose to believe something unless there is
evidence for it. Labourdonnais may have had
trouble shortly after one of his blindfold
exhibitions, but Philidor didn't and Paulsen
didn't and the pattern for Morphy was nothing
like what happened to Labourdonnais. Again,
people IN MORPHY'S TIME were skeptical about
this supposedly "very rational" belief.