Thinking Different and Mental Illness

We all know the Apple award winning 'Think Different' commercials. It's a toast, a tip of the hat, to the misfits, the round pegs in square holes. Picasso. Coppola. Feynman, and the rest. While many have written commentaries on these ads, I think Apple is saying more, something deeper, than has been made obvious. And what it is saying has radical consequences for many areas of our life. What it says can also be abused rather easily, I will also show.

What is simple to forget: 'Think Different' is an ad campaign. I know, I know, but Mac fanatics can forget things like this. It is designed to sell computers and brand the company. It is designed to get into people's minds and develop certain beliefs and desires about and for a product. It has its roots back in the '1984' classic commercial with its theme of over throwing the status quo, a vision of non-conformity and rebellion. Thinking different is this vision stated in a new way.

Why choose this strategy? Apple is in the minority, and it has tried to put the best face on it. They took being a being a minority in market share and made it a virtue, something to be proud of. After all, the thought is, the most gifted people in our society are in the minority. Having majority market share is nothing to be proud of, in itself. So they made being a minority a virtue. They did this by promoting another minority in our culture: Geniuses. They identified with genius, something we all hope to be by the way, thus making minority status something to be proud of.

(Note: There are some, a very few in society really, to whom it applies in the intended sense of "genius." Any given culture only rarely produces geniuses. There is much that has to come together for it to happen. The conditions have to be almost perfect for one's talents to match the current problems and technologies of the day which allow us to see genius, and which make him worthwhile to the society itself. Genius is not merely about IQ range, or the books one has read, or how fast one can calculate. It's about inspiration, insight and even hard work. This is what the bona fide geniuses I know have told me anyway.)

The ad assumes and uses a distinction as old as philosophy itself; the distinction between the common man, or the masses, or however you want to say it, and the less common man, the outsider; that is, the philosopher. Heraclitus called the common man a "sleepwalker," for example. Philosophers have a nasty habit of looking down on others who do not understand their profession! But philosophers have always set up a divide between the common man who has simple beliefs and the lover of wisdom who has reflected on what is all around him. The think different ads take this and play with it, helping you think you might be one of the few.

Thinking Different or Avoiding Life? The Abuses of Thinking Different

It is easy to abuse the ad's core meaning. In one sense it lacks sufficient meaning to be meaningful, and being meaningless we attach our own meanings to it. (I think there is a core meaning, I am just not sure how to state it. I can only give it a first shot.) Some of the meanings we attach to it are not healthy though. In fact, even on the Mac Web, thinking different has been used to justify buffoonery, malevolence, absurdity, and foolishness. Whatever it is it is not any of these. And neither is it rusted radical sixties hippieism. It has nothing to do with protest, anarchy, ignoring proper authority, and tearing down all boundaries in a culture. Anyone who has given a moment's thought to the ads realizes they are about people who respected proper authority (Picasso stands out though?), worked within bounds (mostly the ones of their discipline), and possessed rational plans of action. They simply had rational plans of action others did not which pushed their disciplines forward. None are anarchists. They all represent one thing at least: They expanded the rules of a particular discipline as they pushed themselves and their discipline to new levels, as if each was in a bubble, stretching and pushing its walls to get out. Life does feel like that at times, doesn't it?

Yet, thinking different is something so elastic and so amorphous it is easy for anyone to believe at least two things about it. And these are not always good.

First, one can easily identify himself as a member of that minority thus giving himself a privileged status in his own mind, a status which may not be deserved. Sure, Susie may be falling behind in school, and she might not have many friends, but that's because she 'thinks different.' She is special. We might not have a mini van, cell phone, a townhouse in a gated community, stock holdings, and soccer game commitments. But that's because we 'think different.' We don't conform to the status quo; modern suburbia is a community of conformity as are our schools and society in general. Or so the thought goes. The point to see is this: One can abuse the core meaning of 'thinking different' by using it as an excuse for irresponsibility.

Thus, 'thinking different' can serve as a convenient excuse for not fitting in, lacking normal social etiquette, and maybe even for not living up to our own expectations and obligations, and those of others (expectations which in the end are quite reasonable). Maybe one is not successful by material standards; maybe he does not have all the trappings of success as measured in the suburbs and media. Perhaps he has few friends. Maybe his earning potential isn't what it could be given his education and location. But that's because he 'thinks different.' Yet those who depend on us suffer for it. In a phrase, 'thinking different' can serve as a rationalization for our own shortcomings and failures. But this is not thinking different. It is what Jean-Paul Sartre called "bad faith."

Yes, we can easily identify with thinking different, so it's easy to apply it to ourselves. This, as I have just said, even provides a convenient means of escape from responsibility and societal expectations. "Hey," we proclaim, "I don't work for the 'man'! I think different." Meanwhile, our families long for the better things in life, at least the simpler better things which any family needs to be comfortable. We fail to supply them because we 'think different' and don't conform to authority, like getting a job and working hard to provide for others. That was never Apple's intended meaning. But I've seen it, and so have you probably.

By making thinking different, and being a minority, a virtue, a second reaction may be elicited by those who view the ad. Perhaps one does not presently identify with the message though he desires to. One might have 2.5 kids, a mini van, a cell phone and all the suburban trappings that hide the desperation we saw in a movie like 'American Beauty.' Perhaps one looks at his life and feels trapped by conformity. Maybe he sees his parents' dream for him is not his dream, or that the dream, once realized, is not all it's cracked up to be. Maybe the path one has traveled left out one important element: Happiness. And thus, unlike the first reaction to the ads, one wishes to be identified with the 'misfits' rather than thinking he is already.

Let me state it like this. One might view himself as 'different' already, or he might seek to be so identified. But these can go wrong. In the first instance, one may identify with the ads to rationalize a lack of responsibility, or, as in the second, because he wishes to avoid responsibility. It's a mid-life thing, maybe? Anyway . . . in my dealings with students I have seen this kind of attitude. (I even see it in some adults.) They do poorly in class and say things like, "Yea, well, they are just grades, and I don't want to conform to society's standards." All the while, they just need to work harder. But in the name of non-conformity, they fail.

This is not essential to thinking different; it seems humans have a talent for using perfectly valid notions as excuses. Freud called such behavior "rationalization." A professor of mine in turn defined this as "giving a reason for an action which is not the real reason." What I am saying is that the profanation of the ad was bound to happen, given what human nature is.

Trying to Think Different in a PC Culture

On a lighter note . . . let me step back and really think about thinking different. Let me first apply it to the PC market place. I have told people, quote, "I have never found the need to use Windows." Some are flabbergasted. They just can't imagine how this could be. After all, I have a real job, in a real place, where I work with real people that use real Wintel machines. It sounds like I live in psychotic fantasy world to some. And that is the point, isn't it? They can't think what that would be like. In order to consider buying Apple products one needs to try and think in a new way. He has to think that he doesn't need Windows. It is very hard for some people to think they do not need Windows however.

My heart was warmed at the last Demo Days I did a few weeks ago. I talked to a couple who does volunteer and philanthropic work for organizations. Their dilemma was that the organizations they do work for all use Windows and they were concerned about compatibility. I reassured them that incompatibility is not as hard and fast as Bill Gates wants us to think. I explained all the options they had. I then said "I have never seen the need for Windows." I stood back to watch. Their faces lighted up, they stood taller, one reached out to take my arm, and they said in unison, "I know!!" They got it. I did my job that day. I led them to believe, without telling them to believe, that the fault was, basically, everyone else's! I know, it's not this bad, and it does not express my intent well. But you get my drift. I wanted them to see that if one says there are compatibility problems then that is not their problem but the problem of the one telling them this. Of course, there would be no compatibility problems if everyone had a Mac! They got it. I helped them feel normal again. They bought an iMac DV SE, FileMaker Pro, a printer, other software and a book on the iMac. They were thinking different. So they bought different too.

This is the point of thads. It lays a foundation for thinking that softens one up to Apple. The amazing fact is that many people still think that you need Wintels to do anything really serious on a computer. Actually, if you are really, really serious you can go work on a Sun Work Station!

This is why Linux is such a threat to Windows. It may become nothing but a programmer's hobby OS. It may work itself into some businesses and servers. We don't know. The real impact of Linux, and the threat that Bill must see is that it makes our present computing situation appear much different. Instead of the current situation looking as if Wintel is the only choice, it makes it look like, appear as though, one has a choice. The word "need" suddenly disappears and the chains of Wintel have fallen. This is the real danger of Linux, which much of the press seems to have a thing for rather than the Mac, by the way.

And if Apple does OS X right, this is the real danger of that OS, too. If people begin to think that OS X is just as good as, if not better than Windows (and we all know it is already), then the great migration may begin. I actually think that most people want and desire a way out of Windows. It's just that we need to clean the glass so they can see through those windows. Some have grown to feel it has been thrust upon them, not that they have chosen it. And if a perceived (as I have said before, perception is 3/4 of the battle) contender comes on the scene? Well then! It's like France before the French revolution: Most of the country desired something other than a Divine Monarchy. We saw the consequences once these forces were unleashed. It may not get bloody, but if Apple does it right, however that is, we could see a liberation on the scale of the Normandy invasion. Okay I'll tone it down a bit. If the Lakers become a dynasty in the NBA, we will want and desire a contender at some point. We like underdogs.

So this is the commercial import of thinking different. But if you really, really think about thinking different, it gets even more interesting.

Thinking Different, Mental Illness and Social Control

Christina Hoff Sommers is a philosopher and author. She is anti-feminist, as her book "Who Stole Feminism?" clearly shows. She is also, knowing her philosophical work as I do, a virtue ethicist and realist in some matters metaphysical. In her latest book, "The War Against Boys" she makes some very interesting points against, again, feminism. This time she shows that "pro-feminist" has turned into "anti-male." The two are very different, obviously. One thing she says, a small detail by some accounts, is that normal young male (boy) behavior is "now viewed as pathological." Get it? Do you see the deeper point she is making?

The deeper point is this: Pathology is used for social control. If we call someone "sick" then we have dealt with him sufficiently; we have in fact, done away with him. We've written him off. We can use illness, calling someone "ill," as a method for social control. That's what a pathology is: A sickness. Normally, we think of pathology as something real, that is, something we cannot make decisions about, something that is there apart from our beliefs about it. Neuroses are real we think. One cannot have a messiah complex if one is really a Messiah, after all.

But it is a sad fact of civilization that mental illness has been used as a means for social control. We use it at times to define people away. Psychopathology has and is used for social control and to make people who don't fit in to fit in, sometimes at any cost. It has not always gone by the name of "mental illness" though. At one time the different were viewed as possessed by demons; others were called "witches"; others still, and this is the hook, were called merely "mad men." Think about epilepsy here. It is called the "sacred disease." Know why? It goes back to Homer and Hippocrates of Cos in 500 BCE. An epileptic seizure was view as divine intervention by the gods in one's soul. Hippocrates tried to link it to goats, and finally linked it to brain damage. The point is that we have used various models throughout history to explain the mentally anomalous, and there are few reasons to believe we no longer do so.

We did find a way to silence to Socrates, Christ, Joan of Arch, and we tried with Fyodor Dostoevsky (thank goodness we didn't succeed!). None of them fit in. And not fitting in was explained as "ill" or "heretical" or "dangerous." This is the abuse mental illness in a society. Do we see it today still? Is pathology and thinking different still a means of social control?

Yes. Think about our culture today. We have defined a new illness called "attention deficit syndrome" and have branded many a child with the label. We are pumping our children full of Ritalin as a result. Our kids are being controlled through drugs! Why? Because they don't pay attention. Well, here's a thought if you have the attention span: I didn't have a good attention span when I was younger either! Sometimes it's normal childish behavior, yet we've defined it into an illness. Some really suffer, this is true. But some don't. Yet we medicate all.

We gave housewives their "mother's little helper" (Valium) in the 50's and 60's simply to get them through the day of normal responsbilities. I have seen how psychotropic drugs have devastated people's lives. It has not always been drugs society has used though. We have, throughout history, used electric shock therapy, chains and cages, and all manner of inhumanity on those who merely 'think different.' The history of mental illness and even punishment is brutal, to say the least. It was so last century and still is today.

A personal aside: I suffer from chronic insomnia. You see, have a delayed stress reaction, supposedly, from two dozen surgeries I have had during my life for chronic health problems. I suffer with it daily (or nightly). Yet I have managed to get up and go teach logic in the mornings, to write in a variety of venues, and earn a half way good living. Am I "sick"? If one's internal clock is not wired the way everyone else's is, we call it "insomnia" and prescribe pills and therapy. Sometimes the medication has worse effects than the mere lack of sleep. But what if, apart from me, for some perfectly sound reason, one is wired in this way? What if he does his best work in the early mornings? What if 3 AM is when he writes the great American novel? What if he remains productive even though he doesn't sleep when everyone else does? What if he still manages to live productively and does not harm himself? He just doesn't sleep when you and I do. Do we "fix" him? We could just call him a "crazy one" couldn't we? We could medicate him to sleep and zap his normal functioning while at it. We could just define him away. That is the point I am making.

It is no coincidence, by the way, that many of history's greatest people have some of the syptoms of mental illness as we view it today. I have mentioned Dostoevsky. I could mention Newton, who was looney in some respects. Ludwig Wittgenstein, the great philosopher this century, had his neuroses. Soren Kierkegaard was anti-social and paranoid. Immanuel Kant was a loner. Van Gogh was institutionalized. Nietzsche went insane (maybe from infecton though). Richard Wagner was ego-maniacal. Gustav Mahler was socially awkward and haunted by thoughts of death. There seems to be something about creativity and creative genius that makes one unstable. There are theories. One such theory is that geniuses, and creative genius in particular, are ultra-sensitive sponges which take in a society's ills, ideas, and culture and reflect them concrete ways. Absorbing a culture is enough to make anyone unstable! This is whay they are disliked: People don't like mirrors, as I have said here before. A creative genius is a mirror of culture in some ways. This is why many are considered "prophets," for having absorbed a culture they see its possible ends.

And herein lies the irony of the "Think Different" ads. In fact, they can be described as sarcastic. Instead of mere crazy ones we are to understand the narrator as saying "the so called "crazy ones."" They are so called crazy ones because as it turns out they contributed something to our society, which ain't so crazy. From relativity and quantum mechanics, the Godfather movies, to synthetic cubism and the Muppets, these crazy ones tried where others feared effort, they journeyed without maps, and they distinguished themselves when others stayed anonymous. They took chances. In buying a Mac so do we. This is part of the Mac lore.

One of the messages of the crazy ones is that the notion of crazy is itself flexible and has been used in less than honorable ways throughout history. Sometimes it's a social convention and not a science. That is to say, sometimes there is nothing crazy about being crazy other than what society decides, given its culture at some point in history. So if craziness isn't real in the usual sense, then there is nothing to fear from it. The ad is a kind of "sticks and stones may break my bones" message taken to an abstract level. For we know in buying a Mac we'll suffer such slings and arrows from some Wintel users. I do in a philosophy department at a university, so I can imagine how it is out there in the trenches! But the message of the ads is that these are just so many words, full of sound a fury, signifying nothing.

[Some mental illnesses are real. Please don't get me wrong here. Some people need to be protected from themselves and we need to protect others from them. My point is that we shouldn't stretch this concept beyond its proper bounds. In fact, I share some of Kierkegaard's thoughts on the matter. In his ironically entitled "Sickness Unto Death" he argues that what is explained in scientific terms as illness is actually spiritual and ethical illness. But this holds only in some cases. I have worked in counseling with the mentally ill, and can testify to the damage it does.]

David Schultz