About book A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering The Links Between Leadership And Mental Illness (2011)
History has proven time and time again that in times of crisis the so called insane have come to our rescue but evidence aside we still refuse to accept it. Why do we spent a ton of time looking for "normal" leaders? Because we are conditioned to think people who suffered from mental illness are too damaged to be useful to society. Am I advocating for delusional NPD leadership? No, I'm advocating for a honest approach to personality traits, trauma/hardship, and coping skills. Do I agree with everything Ghaemi has to say about depression and bipolar disorder? No but there is enough evidence out there to support that middle of the road leadership gets us by during prosperous times but in times of crisis we need more. Biggest take away - learn to avoid pitfalls of mentally healthy / homoclite people - hubris, positive illusion, bias against new ideas, exaggerated fears of uncommon risks. Second take away - learn positives that mentally abnormal / ill can bring to leadership - creativity, realism, empathy resilience. Of course there are lots of areas to find fault beyond that. The author cherry picks his examples - Sherman, Turner, Churchill, Ghandi, MLK, JFK, FDR. He doesn't go into details about their historical roles or medical charts. There is always a tendency to exaggerate a figures role in history in brief sketches like this. As a huge Caro fan no where did I find fault more then in his piece on Kennedy. JFK didn't pass Civil Rights. LBJ did. LBJ executed on JFK's aspirations, but those aspirations weren't only JFK's. JFK's rise to power was paid for in large part by his daddy. Moreover, LBJ would have been a better study. He did more and doesn't have the hagiography. He exhibited many of the symptoms, genetics, and course of illness that the other figures did. He was hypersexual, a pathological liar, manic, and depression too. However, his record is mixed and he's not popular. He came from nothing, but a crazy family, and became President, passed civil rights, expanded the social safety net. He also was the Master of the Senate. Can't be said for JFK. Of course liberals hate LBJ over Vietnam (JFK started it) and conservatives have no affinity. The flip side example would be the first Bush. In a crisis he was good, but in normal times he was bad - like Churchill. Except the first Bush was a homoclite. Nothing wrong with him. The author argues that mentally abnormal are good in crisis bad in normal times and homoclites are the opposite. H.W. Bush refutes that.Looking at more recent examples like LBJ and HWB, I disagree that mentally abnormal people can lead in times of crisis in a role like President now because their is too much media, too much bureaucracy, too much complexity. Its better for homiclites to learn from them and thier own pitfalls.
Do You like book A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering The Links Between Leadership And Mental Illness (2011)?
I think the preface and introduction were enough. Didn't have to read the book
—zadavid
This is a fascinating premise and makes sense.
—sachin
Brilliant and fun, but written like an essay.
—fee
