ozarkheretic wrote:

> I would point out that "manic depression" may very well be
> hereditary.

I agree. The phenomenon is unique to organisms with human genes.

> However, if md is a personality trait maybe it is a trait or
> behavioral tendency that is inherited.

If it is. And if it isn't? What is madness? Who is mad? Who decides what
is madness and what isn't?

> For some reason Szasz seems to be very suspicious of "genetics".

I don't know about Szasz, but I myself am quite suspicious of
"genetics". After the mass murder of 400,000 psychiatric patients,
6,000,000 Jews, and I don't know how many Roma, Sinti, homosexuals,
people with dark skins, and others in the name of genetic purity, I have
become suspicious.

> Galton's research on "genius" really led to the research on
> "intelligence".

Please define intelligence. Why do we need this research?

> And actually Modern research has shown that "intelligence" is a
> characteristic or trait that is primarily produced by heredity or
> genetics.

Really? How has Modern research shown that?

> People do not become intelligent because of the environments they
> grow up in.
> They are intelligent
> because of DNA that is transmitted to them by their parents.

Then we can stop bothering to educate them?

> A genius was a person who had made some
> remarkable discovery in science.

Who decides which discovery is remarkable? Egaz Moniz, for instance,
received a Nobel prize for "discovering" (inventing) lobotomy. Is he a
genius?

> having a high IQ does not make a person a genius.

What is IQ? How is it measured?

The point is that words like madness and genius are not delineable
facts. They are attributions and value judgments. You can be
inconspicuous. You can be conspicuous. In the second case, people who
admire you will call you a genius. People who don't will call you mad.
These concepts are like beauty -- in the eye of the beholder.

Mira