there is a distinct correlation between serial killers and childhood abuse

t ultra-semantic nit Do you mean correlation or causation? t /nit

I don't know that I much see it used as an *excuse* for serial killers/abusers/etc., outside of Law and Order.

Do you mean correlation or causation?

I think I mean correlation. Not all people who are abused become serial killers, but most serial killers were abused at some point. That's correlation, right?

Correlation says, "A & B tend to occur together. A may cause B, B may cause A, or C may cause both. I don't know."

Causation says, "A causes B."

I ask because Bonny's initial statement (in all jest) implied causation, and I wanted to contend it. I don't know that anyone challenged correlation.

I'll make the opposite argument in this way:

Oftentimes the art which endures is produced by people who are able to see beyond the cultural norms of their time. Instead of merely reinforcing the conventional wisdom of their time, these artists express truths which are deeper or further outside, but less beholden to the common wisdom. Sometimes these artists are deemed eccentric in their own time because their personal vision is stronger than their socialization. Their perspective being outside of society is advantageous for their art but a disadvantage for them personally.

Without the comfort/solace/support of a community, though, these artists are more prone to becoming isolated, lonely, depressed. They are oftentimes more sensitive to both nuance and detail, but also slights and pain. Their skin is thinner so they can absorb more but they have less defenses. They may seek to self medicate with drink or drug to dull their sensitivity, the fast whirl of their brains. (Especially before the advent of ADs.)

Now eccentricity is not schizophrenia but a lot of mental illness is on a spectrum rather than a binary either/or. I think the nature of artistic endeavor requires risking some of yourself in the process. Perhaps stripping your emotional defenses, perhaps removing yourself from buoying social structures. In any event, most artists are some flavor of more sensitive and pursuing that art is often stressful and frequently with little reward or comfort except the art itself.

With that particular cocktail you will find people getting drunk, cracking up, falling apart, getting depressed and taking drugs.

It's not related to their talent, but I do think to pursue that kind of work requires making yourself more vulnerable. And you're frequently walking that tightrope without a net. (Financial, emotional...)

With that particular cocktail [stress, vulnerability, potential for little reward] you will find people getting drunk, cracking up, falling apart, getting depressed and taking drugs.

How is this different from being a high-stress computer analyst? Or a soldier? Or a single parent in a crappy neighborhood?

I think the trouble is that people expect famous people to be better people, and they're not. Famous artist people are just as prone to idiotic shenanigans as anybody else, except they get to call it something else.

How is this different from being a high-stress computer analyst? Or a soldier? Or a single parent in a crappy neighborhood?

Lots of things are stressful. But they don't self select for sensitive people with limited social support. Which, I will argue is more true of artists than computers analysts, soldiers or single parents.

Lots of things are stressful. But they don't self select for sensitive people with limited social support.

Your definition of an artist is extremely limited, then. I have a very strong sense that Michael Bay, e.g., is neither a particularly sensitive person nor lacking in social support.

(He does get points for being able to make fun of himself. But only three points.)