Talk:John Forbes Nash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] John Charles Martin Nash

Hi: I find it very confusing to have a re-direct for John Charles Martin Nash (the son) point back to John Forbes Nash (the father). It gives the impression that these are the same person. I had hoped to discover if this Dr. John C. Nash is the same person as John Charles Martin Nash.

I have read the AfD and don't disagree with it, but there should be a stub for John Charles Martin Nash with a link back to the John Forbes Nash page. If there are no objections I will do that... --Bob 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I second the confusion of having JCM Nash redirect to JF Nash. Since the fomer stub article was just AfD'd, maybe it would be better to simply not link it. Blahaccountblah 10:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juana Summers

Juana Summers was born in the late 20th century in Kansas City, Missouri. She has written many wonderful poems such as Tinfoil Angel, as well as short stories which tackle such subjects as suicide, abuse, and divorce. She also is an aspiring singer/songwriter whose work can be seen on her website, brownidgrrl.iwarp.com Through these works, Juana has helped worried adolescents get through the hard times. A friend once quoted, "Juana is the kind of person you get up to see. She's brilliant and strong. A good friend, person, and one hell of a writer."

Comments by Edward G. Nilges 2-12-2005

(1) I am certain that "attention must be paid" to Juana Summers, in the words of the late Arthur Miller. But the above paragraph has no place here.

(2) I added a few more details about the divergence of the film from reality based on my knowledge of Nash while at Princeton.

[edit] Hospitalization

In the Wikipedia article of John Nash it is written:

...He remained there (in and out of mental hospitals) until 1970, unable to work or produce meaningful scientific results...

But on the other side John wrote in his autobiography for a Nobel prize this:

...And it did happen that when I had been long enough hospitalized that I would finally renounce my delusional hypotheses and revert to thinking of myself as a human of more conventional circumstances and return to mathematical research. In these interludes of, as it were, enforced rationality, I did succeed in doing some respectable mathematical research. Thus there came about the research for "Le Probleme de Cauchy pour les E'quations Differentielles d'un Fluide Generale"; the idea that Prof. Hironaka called "the Nash blowing-up transformation"; and those of "Arc Structure of Singularities" and "Analyticity of Solutions of Implicit Function Problems with Analytic Data"...

I do belive that this particular work of him should be mentioned and somehow slightly corrected. XJam [2002.05.31.] 5 Friday (0)

210.21.221.178 12:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)I have made some corrections and added content based on my arm's length knowledge of and assistance to Nash between 1987 and 1992. It's untrue he has a still-"feeble" mind and the adjective is grossly off base; it is insulting to Nash and Alicia. Also, I add content on how interaction with Princeton's "computer center" was a part of his recovery, as was Alicia.

Most seriously, the article accepts a medical history when Nash's doctors, especially at the New Jersey public institute where he was warehoused for a time in the 1960s, may have iatrogenically worsened his condition.

I am treading on difficult terrain, but NPOV is not incompatible with critical psychiatry, and I hope my language is mild enough, to merely suggest that Nash's treatment (involving crude and primitive intervention with dangerous drugs) was far less effective than the unintended "treatment" dreamed up by a bunch of math professors and computer types, which was to let the guy mosey around Fine Hall and the computer center...a part of the Princeton COMMUNITY.

That's the POV of Sylvia's book: but for a truly neutral POV, we need to combine the traditional psychiatric view of the objectified patient (which is the tone of the unchanged article: that Nash as a patient was not interesting, and scarred into a "feeble" state) with the view of many other shrinks (like David Breggin) that psychiatry can use more humanistic methods...such as giving a person a guest account on a computer and letting him be.

[edit] Admitted Bisexual?

Jonh Nash denied being homosexual or bisexual on 60 Minutes. Whether he was or not is beside the point. How can he be an admitted bisexual if he publicly denied it?

--172.158.107.157 21:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)== 60 Minutes / Bisexual ==

The article states "Sylvia Nasar, Nash's biographer, cites evidence that Nash was bisexual. However, John and Alicia denied such on 60 Minutes in 2002.".

I haven't seen the 60 Minutes episode in question. However, Donald Capps, in his article in Pastoral Psychology titled "John Nash's Predelusional Phase: A Case of Acute Identity Confusion" (Vol 51, No 5, May 2003, specifically on page 363), says "Nash's wife Alicia has repeatedly rejected the idea that her husband is a homosexual. As she said in the '60 Minutes' interview when Mike Wallace broached the subject, 'I am his wife, and I ought to know.' ... Nash himself, however, did not answer Wallace's question directly, but made a general comment ... to the effect that we need to keep in mind that he was under the control of his delusions at the time, and that whatever may have been going on in his mind was a reflection of this obvious fact."

Thus, I find it inaccurate for the article to state that he denied his bisexuality in 60 Minutes. He seems to have wanted to convey a sense of denial, but he didn't actually deny. It's a subtle, but I think important, distinction. - Zawersh 01:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article can claim, without proof, that Nash is homosexual or bisexual because that is in accordance with the usual Wikipedia practice. Such practice is to assert that all famous or noteworthy people are homosexuals. Any opposition to this procedure is understood as being reactionary, politically incorrect, and illiberal.72.73.217.117 14:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)OmarSimpson

The article as it stands currently makes only one brief, oblique reference to Nash's putative homosexual tendencies--when it refers to "Nash's sexual adventures at RAND". Since Nasar's contention appears to be substantially speculative and since Nash appears to be critical of these speculations of Nasar, no further reference to them should be added. TheScotch 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Such practice is to assert that all famous or noteworthy people are homosexuals. Any opposition to this procedure is understood as being reactionary, politically incorrect, and illiberal" -> Conservapedia fucktard.201.50.141.123 20:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Nash is homosexual, far too much space is dedicated to the subject, mentioning minor incidents where he supposedly made passes at people complete strangers to the reader. In a small article such as this, compressing all the facts on one page, it might POSSIBLY be worth mentioning it if he is a homosexual, IF this has been a subject of discussion in the media or something like that. But dedicating a whole paragraph to it is pointless. 84.48.18.24 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


He was fired from Rand for homosexual activity and his security clearance revoked. It is relevant to his life and career that he was gay/ bisexual. It belongs in the article. Wlmg 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2002/03/20/Culture/beautiful.Mind.Crew.Allege.Smear.Campaign-219710.shtml Just read what Nasar said.

[edit] NPOV dispute of Feb. 2005

I've added an NPOV tag to the article. The writing seemed to be explicitly plugging for Nash and his wife Alicia; see, e.g., "worked courageously as a programmer" [paraphrase] or "adventures characteristic of a burnt-out genius" [paraphrase]...

Somebody who knows about Nash and his life should go over this and pick out what 's fact and what's advocacy. Meelar (talk) 03:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Edward G. Nilges 2-18-2005

I am responsible for the "non-NPOV" phrases. I was a source for the Nasar book but my engagement with Nash and Princeton may itself have "biased" my contribution. I need to examine this issue in light of the charter document re NPOV, specifically this:

"We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can."

"By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. That God exists ... this can be a troublesome one. Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value. To state as a fact that "the existence of God is an opinion", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias)."

Let me re-read the first highlighted phrase, that Alicia worked "courageously" as a programmer. The two alternative possibilities are that Mrs. Nash worked timidly, or worked neutrally, neither courageously nor timidly.

I am aware that ANY "fact" derived from the Ron Howard film alone would be likely an opinion and only randomly a fact. But Sylvia Nasar in the book, A Beautiful Mind, does say that Alicia was a pioneer, and as such, courageous, in going to work for Met Life (and later on at Princeton itself) and unlike Nasar's recount of Nash's morals bust at Rand, no serious dispute exists regards this fact.

I claim it's a fact that she worked courageously because of a background fact that is not, despite its political freight, in serious dispute. Computer programming in the 1960s was dominated by men. Merely because this is a "feminist" claim does not make it an opinion IF it is not in serious dispute that women were disadvantaged at this time (whether they are now is a completely separate issue).

The inclusion of women as a protected class in 1968 EEO legislation further makes a feminist opinion into fact. In 1968, the law recognized that women were having difficulty in entering professions. The "fact" was voted into existence and confirmed by judicial review, ergo prior to 1968 (and after, during the time in which the fact of discrimination became acknowledged) it took courage for a woman to work as a programmer.

Furthermore, independent of the questions of womens' status, it took courage for her to enter the work force to support both John and their son.

The defense of the second phrase is simpler. Only a writer COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR with Nash, who had not read A Beautiful Mind, would deny burntOut(Nash) ANDALSO genius(Nash) as a proposition.

Lively language in itself need not violate NPOV.

The writer of the charter wishes, and I wish him well, to draw a bright line between facts and values. Unfortunately, this line does not exist at the border between the natural sciences and mathematics at the one hand, and social reality on the other. Social struggles, especially when they take to the law, are themselves attempts to establish facts on the ground.

For example, it is probably (owing to the story of Abraham and Isaac common to Moslem, Jewish and Christian tradition) a fact that human sacrifice is wrong in a way that I can (with some reluctance!) admit that the destruction of Hiroshima was wrong as some sort of received opinion.

I take this position because it is mere scientism to place the border at the boundary between science and society.

Thanks for your response. I must disagree with your interpretation of the NPOV policy, however. Even writing down only facts can be non-neutral, if those facts are chosen or phrased in such a way as to influence the opinion of someone reading the article. Let's accept that "characteristic of a burnt-out genius" is factual, for argument's sake. Even though it is factual, when presented this way, it reads as a defense of Nash--thus, non-neutral. NPOV is not restricted only to allowing facts; it governs the presentation and tone of the entire article. Best, Meelar (talk) 21:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
I think the phrasing is fine. This is not the article on abortion, and some poetic justice is permitted. The fact of the matter is that many find it a touching story, and if you can't present evidence which shows Alicia was in fact not courageous, then he is simply stating a fact. --Alterego 21:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

--User:spinoza1111 Edward G. Nilges replies:

OK, Meelar says that choice of facts can be selective and NNPOV. This is true. However, to avoid giving the reader a positive opinion about Alicia, one would have to eliminate all the facts about her! One would have to make her an invisible, normed scientific wifey-poo not recognized as a moral agent.

Suppose in an alternate universe, Alicia had divorced John's ass, and ran off to Brazil with a wealthy playboy. Then, A Beautiful Mind would have been the exciting story of how a scientific saint endured not only mental illness but also a bimbo attack.

There would not be a dry eye in the house.

Seriously, I don't think these facts would have been considered NNPOV and extraneous to Nash's biography.

I lived and worked in the Princeton community for five years during Nash's crisis and recovery and while I was not closely associated with Nash, I can report that the community, as a community knows (as knowledge is socially constructed) that Nash was getting better and that Alicia was a good sport.

I do understand that in many scientific, literary, and artistic biographies, the lady of the house is invisible. But you cannot know Picasso unless you know Dora Maar, Francois Gilot and a number of other Picasso wives and concubines. Knowledge of the personal crisis occasioned by the failure of T. S. Eliot's marriage helps us to understand The Waste Land and recent scholarship shows that Vivienne Eliot may have been more of a Muse than was formerly thought and less of a pest.

I understand that the biographies of most scientists can safely exclude family matters, and many scientists even request that such material be excised for fear of harming the careers of spouses and childen (Chomsky seems to have done so). But the Nash story cannot be untangled from emotional issues which are not understood, from any POV, without understanding Alicia.

NPOV is not the neutrality of the LAPD who when they enter a low dwelling assume everyone's a gemoke or a bimbo, and maintain this stance by not listening to tales of woe. NPOV has the inescapably normative need to recognize when a community, in this case that of Princeton, recognized Alicia's contribution. Now, it can keep this recognition at arms-length in service of some sort of outdated Logical Positivism by prefixing rumors of angels consistently with "it is said that", "studies show", "nine out of ten doctors agree", or "word to yo Mama".

But such would make for an unreadable article and is refuted by the very fact WHY we are neutral in the first place.

Why be neutral in the first place? Ethics, that's why, which shows that by praising what's acknowledged by a community of knowers to be good, and by dispraising things like concentration camps, torture, and cheating at cards, acknowledged by a community to be not good we show that our NPOV is not an outdated, and completely discredited Logical Positivism.

Postscript: the thuggish append ("BFD") below is precisely the sort of crap that doesn't belong here. If the Internet is to be anything more than the triumph of the anarchism of the petty bourgeois, it needs to be erased. Hey I can do that! OK, here goes.

[edit] John Nash's body of work

This article reads like a scandal sheet. Why is his work given such short shrift? How does an academician's personal life merit a huge article? —This unsigned comment was added by Harburg (talk • contribs) .

Because the movie focused on his personal life. While I agree that the section on his work should be longer, most people are going to come here because of the movie. --Rory096 16:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nash equilibrium

"Both games demonstrate what Nash worked on for years: the concept that in a game, one must win and everyone else must lose. (See Nash equilibrium.)" This is a grossly inaccurate description of what a Nash equlibrium is. The whole reason why Nash equilibrium is of so much interest in economics and why it is considered a breakthrough and an important generalization of what von Neumann and Morgenstern did is that Nash showed how to solve games in which it is _not_ true that _one_ must win. Most economically interesting games are exactly games, in which there is a potential for everybody to win. Robert Golanski (robin@robin.info.pl)

[edit] Nash's other work

There should be more mentions of his work in differential geometry which mathematicians probaly consider to be far more important than his work on game theory.

It should also be mentioned that he won the Steele prize in mathematics for the Nash embedding theorem.

217.210.4.92 12:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual sources

I removed a "fact" that as far as I know (having twice read the book "A Beautiful Mind", once about nine months ago) is a fabrication of the film: that Nash had an imaginary Princeton roommate. People editing this article should (if adding material) be careful that they find it in the book first (or some equivalent source) since the movie was, after all, deliberately romanticized, and (if editing material) be on the lookout for claims that are substantiated only by the film. Ryan Reich 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah he didn't have imaginary room-mates. However I'm not sure if his hallucinations were entirely auditory as it says now. One thing a fair amount of what he went through were more like delusions than hallucinations. For example he'd think magazines or newspapers made coded references to him. He didn't "see different words" in them really, he just thought the words implied some alternate message they didn't. Still it seems like he did have visual hallucinations too, but I don't remember the details.--T. Anthony 13:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that a delusion is quite distinct from an hallucination (although if you take an hallucination for reality it follows that you are deluded to this extent). As I remember it, the book mentioned no visual hallucinations at all, and it specified that the aural hallucinations came fairly late. Nash apparently didn't suffer them for some time. The thing that struck me is that in the movie Nash's fantasy world was depicted as something very coherent although utterly false (and also very circumscribed: he hallucinated only three characters and some embellishment of physical surroundings over the course of forty years), whereas in the book it seemed an unintelligible and highly variable mishmash.

Anyway, although the movie is obviously to a significant extent a work of fiction, it doesn't follow that we should necessarily take the book as gospel. (I'm not going to proffer specific criticism here, but I'd like to caution the editors of this article to bear that in mind.) TheScotch 09:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

I think there was a section in the article on the facts/controversies regarding hetero/homo sexuality. I happened to notice it was removed once and I reinstated it, but I see it's gone again. Just thought I'd mention it here, don't know if it's a topic that should be covered. EverSince 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nasar's biography had some on that. Although she never really made it that clear if he had any actual homosexual relationships, so far as I recall. She had some evidence he had a couple intense friendships with closeted gay men and was accused of exposing himself to a male cop. At one point she also alleges Isaac Newton had a male lover so some caution is maybe needed. (Modern logic seems to dictate that a man is incapable of dying a virgin, so any and all historic men deemed celibate were "really gay.") Still she doesn't say anything more about this in his later life and most in his early life is speculative. She had enough to convince me he probably was attracted to men, on occasion, but at the same time I really doubt he ever saw himself as bisexual let alone gay. Educated young men in the 1950s had some notions that occasional attraction to men was not particularly unusual or meaningful unless acted on. So I think it's possible both versions could be right. If he had an occasional attraction to men the idea this makes him bisexual or LGBT could be essentially absurd or meaningless to a man of his education and generation.--T. Anthony 11:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Although she never really made it that clear if he had any actual homosexual relationships, so far as I recall." I've been reading the book for couple of days, and I'm about halfway through. If an "actual homosexual relationship" is a relationship based on mutual homosexual attraction, then I think Nasar makes it very clear that Nash had at least three. What she doesn't make clear is the extent of the physical expression beyond kissing on the mouth (sometimes in public), which brings us to the Clinton conundrum: What is the meaning of the phrase "having sex"? Properly speaking, we all have a sex: we are either male or female. Since the phrase "having sex" is slang we might suppose it intrinsically imprecise, but I think it reasonable to interpret sex in this slang sense to mean coition, which is a thing physically impossible for two members of the same sex to perform together. I don't think there is really a homosexual analogue to heterosexual consummation of an erotic relationship, which is another way of saying that the definition of "actual homosexual relationship" I tentatively propose above is probably as good as any.

Re: "At one point she also alleges Isaac Newton had a male lover so some caution is maybe needed. (Modern logic seems to dictate that a man is incapable of dying a virgin, so any and all historic men deemed celibate were 'really gay.')" I don't know anything about Newton's sexuality, but I think you're right to be wary of this sort of thing.

Re: "She had enough to convince me he probably was attracted to men, on occasion, but at the same time I really doubt he ever saw himself as bisexual let alone gay." I think Nasar clearly states that Nash did not consider himself homosexual (or hadn't before he married, at least--further reading may reveal him to have changed his mind). TheScotch 09:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I finished the book four days or so ago, and further reading had nothing more to say about the subject, as I recall. TheScotch 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I read it, I was just skimming through. I'm pretty sure though homosexuals can consummate a relationship. I don't know how graphic I should get, but am I correct in believing they can go into orgasm due to actions they do on each other? There are historical figures who clearly state they did that, I didn't think he was one. I'd forgotten about kissing and I think there were love letters. I think he was what we'd call bisexual, but how far he got with a man or whether he ever saw himself as bi I don't know.--T. Anthony 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "having sex" can easily be applied to two men, or even two women. Hence I do not see why you have to struggle with the phrase "having sex" being applied to a homosexual relationship. In common use the phrase does not specifically refer to coition, but to a number of sexual acts including anal sex, and hence the phrase can be used for two men just as easily as for a man and a woman. You are unnecessarily complicating a simple expression.-- Gagamela —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of placing your paragraph where I think it belongs chronologically. Stuck in the middle of my comments it makes it look as if some of them were unsigned. Anyway, I didn't say that homosexuals cannot necessarily consummate a union, depending how literally one interprets the term. I said there is no analogue. Probably I should have said there is no homologue, if you'll allow my little twist on the biological term: Analogous things are alike in one respect or more and different in others; homologous things are alike in all respects yet not the same thing. Two suits in a deck of playing cards, for example, are homologous. Homosexuality and heterosexuality then are analogous, but they aren't homologous. Yes, of course orgasm is possible, but there is no compelling reason to make this the definition of "actual homosexual relationship"; the line is arbitrary. (The thing that traditionally "consummates" a marriage is coition. Coition is not a synonym for orgasm, and coition is physically impossible between members of the same sex.) How "far" did Nash "get"? The book doesn't say, and much of it what it does say seems to me speculative. TheScotch 13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M.I.T.

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but these are the only references in the article I'm finding just now about M.I.T.:

1) "At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he met Alicia Lopez-Harrison de Lardé, a physics student from El Salvador, whom he married in February 1957.

2) "The film's major departures from Nash's life and the Nasar biography include:....Nash is shown to join Wheeler's lab at MIT, but there is no such lab. He was appointed as C.L.E. Moore Instructor at MIT."

That was a only a temporary appointment. Later he was given a tenure track M.I.T. appointment, which appears to have been the most significant episode in his professional teaching career and thus deserves to be mentioned in the article--and not just obliquely. TheScotch 10:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Beautiful Mind--the Movie

I don't think it's a bad thing to mention this film en passant, as it were, but it seems inappropriate to me to devote an entire section of the article to it, especially when that section is longer than any other in the entire article! TheScotch 08:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think this article need substantial expansion. I encourage you to make any additions you think relevant. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Um...Expansion? Why? So that the film section will seem shorter in comparison? I think the article is approximately long enough for a biography and that a more detailed consideration of Nash's contributions to mathematics and economics is best consigned to separate articles. Above I'm proposing a subtraction, not "additions".TheScotch 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think something should be mentioned about how the film, of all things, got game theory wrong. There was a part I believe where he was talking about competing for girls in a bar with his friends and he said the best solution would be for nobody to go for the 'best' girl. In game theory, the incentive to "cheat" and therefore go for the best girl would have been the equilibrium (where everybody would have ended up with that type of incentive). My professor mentioned this in my graduate economics class Canking 20:29, 13

April 2007 (UTC)

This article, as far as I can tell, is supposed to have to do with a real-life person, John Forbes Nash, not a fictional Hollywood movie. If we simply must talk about this movie, however, I propose we do so in a separate article. I propose we begin by casting off to sea the "A Beautiful Mind--the Movie" section of this article. I'll wait about a week to see if there is any reaction. TheScotch 04:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I believe there should be a link at the end of the article to the movie where this should be discussed Canking 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I transported this section to the movie's article (calling it "Relation to fact") and put a link there back to here. (There is already a link here to the movie's article). TheScotch 08:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger syndrome reference?

I've come across this citation: Arshad M, Fitzgerald M. (2002) John Nash: Asperger’s syndrome and schizophrenia? Irish Psychiatrist. 2002;3(3):90-94. and also an almost identical citation accessed from Prof Michael Fitzgerald's web site with the different title "Did Nobel Prize winner John Nash have Asperger's syndrome and schizophrenia?". I originally believed that this paper referred to the architect John Nash, but now it appears that Fitzgerald wrote about the mathematician. I don't have access to the journal that this is in. Could someone else read the article, and if appropriate, incorporate it into the Wikipedia article? I think the mathematician does have characteristics suggestive of AS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.212.112 (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Asperger's syndrome is very trendy nowadays, and the temptation to throw the term around willy-nilly needs to be resisted. In any case, unless Nash was officially diagnosed with the disorder (by a specialist who met with him face-to-face in a clinical setting), no mention of it should be made in this article.TheScotch 07:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I know a psychologist who met Nash ~3 years ago, she is a leading diagnostician in autism spectrum disorders. She met Nash in a corridor and spoke to him briefly. In her opinion, he is too severely affected to have AS. He appears to have autism. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was Nash really a Hippie?

At the end of one of the paragraphs discussing Nash's childhood it states:

After a trip to Duluth, MN, he turned hippie.

Should we assume that is vandalism and remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extremenachos (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't know if it's vandalism--it may be well-intentioned--, but it certainly cries out for immediate removal. The term hippie is slang, and extremely vague slang at that. Moreover, to the extent it has any concrete meaning at all, it cannot apply to anything preceding the sixties. I'm taking this passage out now. TheScotch 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fuck You Buddy"

According to the BBC (quoted cheerfully here [[1]]) John Nash developed work labelled "Fuck you Buddy". If so, where's the reference? If not, please somebody write to the BBC (and clean up the entry above). Suspicions aroused when Googling "John Nash" + "Fuck You Buddy" and only getting references to the BBC series. Testbed 16:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)TestBed

Couple of weeks later, I can answer my own question: according to page 102 of Nasar's book, "A Beautiful Mind", Nash indeed devised a game called 'So Long Sucker---Fuck Your Buddy': [[2]] Slightly devious of the BBC not to give the name most people seem to know this by. Testbed 10:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Testbed

[edit] Faked Illness?

Is it possible that Nash fooled everyone into thinking that he was mentally ill? The only reason that supports this claim is that no one has ever recovered from true schizophrenia.Lestrade 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

A Beautiful Mind, the book, discusses schizophrenia recovery rates in some detail (toward the end). Apparently recovery is rare, but not nearly as rare as once thought. My impression, by the way, is that Nash never fully recovered.TheScotch 05:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In the 1932 film, A Bill of Divorcement, a character recovers from insanity. Of course, this is a fictional film, based on a fictional play. However, life sometimes imitates art.Lestrade 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Recovery from schizophrenia happens quite frequently. Samatva (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that.Lestrade (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Lay down your doubts.. apropos. Quaeler (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to believe that it's true, but I find it to be very dubious.Lestrade (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Specific to this article do you propose to add or change something? Since it's a source of debate already maybe just propose some neutral wording and possibly a consensus can form on how best to present the information and what sources make sense. Notable people with diseases are often held up as examples to bring attention to the issues surrounding a condition so there may be some good sources on the subject in addition to the one above. Banjiboi 22:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References for Nash's sexuality

In addition to Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind there are these three books that would help reference this. Benjiboi 03:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And this matters because...? Frankly it has no influence on anything. He does not identify as bisexual - I think the man knows his own sexuality better than anyone else. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. This is an encyclopedia, we report neutrally, dispassionately and (hopefully) accurately on the subject. I think it would veer into WP:OR to suggest how this influenced his life or work but I find it hard to imagine it didn't have some influence. Regardless these were posted here for to address the concerns that the LGBT project tag should be removed as the article hasn't, as of yet, addressed his non-normative sexuality. Benjiboi 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay but can you please provide more accurate references such as page numbers then? I honestly don't care what his sexuality is - I'm Scandinavian, people's sexuality makes no difference to me - but for what it's worth his notability does not derive from his sexuality. It derives from his academic work and his fight with schizophrenia. I don't want to offend the project - some of your members are among my absolute favorite Wikipedians - but I don't see the connection at all. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
First off it's generally mistaken to remove a project tag especially if you just think it may be slandering someone. The LGBT tag goes on articles our project has an interest in including biographies of people who are deemed to be of interest, like Jerry Falwell who was an avowed homophobic preacher who regularly demonized gay people. The tag doesn't imply sexuality only the projects interest in the subject.
Unless the subject or someone close to him registers a definitive take on how his sexuality impacted his life and theories we may never know. I also wasn't asserting he was known for this although arguably he was, again we may never know. A good biography, however, would at least include passing mention of the information and these sources do assert that. I will add it to my list of things and as there is only a few refs about it shouldn't take too long. Also the google book search generally will take you directly to the page. Benjiboi 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Point taken about the project tag - I was going to restore that although I do note that the tag was removed by a member of the LGBT project before I removed it as well. As for his sexuality - whatever it may have been - it wasn't important. Since the subject has denied that he is bisexual per BLP such a claim would require extraordinary sources. His inclusion in Wikipedia derives only from his academic achievements which have nothing to do with his sexuality. I'm sorry but you need to provide specific reliable references such as the page numbers where we can verify this information. If we may never know then per BLP we should not include it. I'll consider opening a RfC so that more people can voice their opinion on this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) It certainly is your right to open an RfC although you may want to wait until something is actually written and added to the article as that may be premature. I added the sources here so the regular article editors could view the sources and add content as they saw fit. I re-added the tag after it was removed as the article itself didn't clearly answer why the tag was on the talk page and now, it seems, I need to do the remaining steps. Since you ask these are the page numbers I'm starting with:
  • The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the ... - Page 160

by David K. Johnson

  • The Fifty-Year Wound: The True Price of America's Cold War Victory - Page 117

by Derek Leebaert

  • All about Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards - Page 145

by Emanuel Levy

  • Who Wrote That Movie?: Screenwriting in Review: 2000 - 2002 - Page 40

by Chris C. Wehner

  • A Beautiful Mind: The Life of Mathematical Genius and Nobel Laureate John Nash - Page 186
I'm not sure what sources state what but I'll have a look now to see if this can quickly be settled. Benjiboi 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Update. Added content with online refs. More is available in Nasar's biography, which is not fully available in Google online so I didn't use it, it seems to have more details though for future editors. Benjiboi 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
As per usual, Benji, you are a font of knowledge and wisdom! Many thanks for your help.
A quick note, EconomicsGuy - you're right that Nash is known for his academics. But his sexuality is important not just because it's part of who he is, but because (as a persecuted minority) *others* can be inspired. It shouldn't have to be that way - his sexuality should just be a part of who he is, and that's that. But since he *is* part of a minority, it's important to (with WP:RS) note that. I appreciate your input on the subject! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, that looks good. Thank you! I have no further problems with the article now. SatyrTN I didn't think of it that way. I can see why you are right though. I saw this from a BLP point of view which is how we are told to see these things but you are absolutely right. Thanks for explaining it to me. I'll certainly be more careful next time I encounter a situation like this! Like my message above says I never wanted to offend anyone and in particular not your project since some of my best friends and favorite Wikipedians here are from your project! EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "But his sexuality is important not just because it's part of who he is, but because (as a persecuted minority) *others* can be inspired. It shouldn't have to be that way..."":
In wikipedia it isn't that way. You are clearly announcing a anti-wikipedian agenda here.
Re: "More is available in Nasar's biography, which is not fully available in Google online so I didn't use it...":
What is "available" (except for the Rand episode) in Nasar is sketchy, speculative, and not worthy of mention in this article." TheScotch (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is duly noted. If an online copy or a reliable source appears that others can verify we can all be assured of your statements. Benjiboi 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life

What currently appears in this section is predominantly a discussion of the Hollywood movie A Beautiful Mind, and as such belongs in the article devoted to the movie, not in this article. TheScotch (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution might have been simply to move this section to the article devoted to the movie, but that article already has includes a similar discussion. Thus I am cutting this section, and if anyone thinks bits of it should be retained, he can add them himself to the movie article. TheScotch (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that you've agreed with yourself but that isn't how consensus works. As noted in the section above this it was added to correctly source his sexuality to meet concerns that he not be incorrectly labeled as gay or bisexual without references. In the process of sourcing the entire section, some of the only sourcing on the article, other details came to light, were also sourced and placed into context. Indeed he personally had done all those things before the movie-related scandal occurred so your goal of expunging material you don't care for is unattainable as clearing out the section would only mean relevant material would be re-introduced and woven throughout the rest of the bio. As is, it shows why the material was considered scandalous, why it came to light when it did and the context of it being treated or mostly ignored. Benjiboi 03:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Interesting that you've agreed with yourself but that isn't how consensus works.":

Obviously, this is not an instance "agreeing with myself"; it's an explanation of an action. Consensus that a discussion of the movie does not belong in this article had been achieved long ago, as you can see for yourself if you'll merely scroll up to the section of this page that discusses it (as you ought to have done before you dumped all your movie stuff here). I've allowed that some bits might be salvaged and added to the movie article (with the implication, I hoped, that some other bits possibly might be salvaged and added to the body of this article), but your section as it stood is clearly irrelevant to this article, and this had already been resolved. TheScotch (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus can change as is evident by the section Talk:John Forbes Nash#References for Nash's sexuality which you have apparently already read. Again if you have reliable sources that Nash has never had sex with another man than post it here and we can resolve how to reconcile that with the sourced content we do have. Benjiboi 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] personal life

explain to me Qualer how who Nash is or was married to is not part of his personal life? is it relevant to his work? this article is confused. Boils (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] work?

This article has very little about the actual work of John Nash and what makes it interesting, and does not cross reference other articles about his work, such as the one on Nash Equilibrium. There should be more on his work, which is the reason that he is notable, and less about his personal life, which seems only to interest people because it was the subject of a movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericrosenfield (talk • contribs) 00:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that. The guy was a mathematician, for god's sake... Who shared a Nobel Prize... And all anybody cares about is the friggin' movie, and where he dipped his carrot when he could find a place to dip it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)