This man is about to launch himself in his homemade rocket to prove the Earth is flat

[loomer]

I see no studies proving your claims and will accordingly not be replying further.

[Jub]

I see no studies proving your claims and will accordingly not be replying further.

I've asked you to define what you're picturing when I use the term adrenaline junkie because I fear our definitions are the root cause of our current difficulties. If you refuse to do so I'll be accepting your concession now.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You stepped in and declared that this guy absolutely was mentally ill, and then attempted to guilt-trip the media for encouraging his death. Burden of proof is on you my friend.

[Zaune]

Oh, and just when you thought this story couldn't get any stranger, someone who allegedly knew Hughes claims he was out on bail for some sort of fraud charges and looking at quite a long time in jail. Someone else found the relevant court documents here.

If it's the same guy (which it might not be; "Michael Hughes" is hardly an uncommon name) then that opens up the possibility that his death was a suicide.

[Jub]

You stepped in and declared that this guy absolutely was mentally ill, and then attempted to guilt-trip the media for encouraging his death. Burden of proof is on you my friend.

No shit, I'm asking for a simple definition from Loomer given that 'Adrenaline Junkie' isn't a rigorously defined term. The post he gave his ultimatum in he used the terms 'sensible adrenaline junkies' and 'at-risk adrenaline junkies' in response to a paper I cited which used neither term. I can't properly argue for a term that neither of us agree on and I'm pretty sure than any attempt I make to define the term will get me accused of moving the goalposts.

[Broomstick]

I also agree with Broomstick and make an exception for those who work jobs that are inherently risky and who take all necessary precautions in the name of doing a damned difficult job.

Well, I do feel there's a spot for educated amateurs - I mean, I did fly homebuilt experimental airplanes for the better part of a decade and no, that's NOT an entirely safe activity. On the other hand, I also went through the effort of getting a pilot's license, consulting with professional mechanics, doing a lot of personal research with reputable (i.e. mainstream) authorities, and the like. There are comparable modes of activity for things like rock climbing, scuba diving, etc. as well.

I'll note that the "serious amateur" rocket people have been going on for years about how stupid, safety-lacking, and idiotic this guy was. This is beyond the usual amateur rocketry or other form of aviation. I do believe an argument can be made that this guy's lack of regard to safety constituted a symptom of mental illness. Rather like how Lawnchair Larry's idiocy, despite his surviving flying a jury-rigged lawnchair through LAX airspace, was a symptom of a depression that eventually led him to eat a shotgun. (Suicide attempt was successful that time).

[loomer]

Oh, and just when you thought this story couldn't get any stranger, someone who allegedly knew Hughes claims he was out on bail for some sort of fraud charges and looking at quite a long time in jail. Someone else found the relevant court documents here.

If it's the same guy (which it might not be; "Michael Hughes" is hardly an uncommon name) then that opens up the possibility that his death was a suicide.

It could even be a contributory factor in an accidental death. The additional stress load wouldn't have helped with safety checks.

You stepped in and declared that this guy absolutely was mentally ill, and then attempted to guilt-trip the media for encouraging his death. Burden of proof is on you my friend.

No shit, I'm asking for a simple definition from Loomer given that 'Adrenaline Junkie' isn't a rigorously defined term. The post he gave his ultimatum in he used the terms 'sensible adrenaline junkies' and 'at-risk adrenaline junkies' in response to a paper I cited which used neither term. I can't properly argue for a term that neither of us agree on and I'm pretty sure than any attempt I make to define the term will get me accused of moving the goalposts.

Adrenaline junkie was your term, fucko, and given you dismissed a source full of numbers with 'no numbers here then', you really don't have a leg to stand on with your crybaby antics.

[Jub]

I've honestly never given much thought to how I define an adrenaline junkie so excuse me if what follows isn't rigorously defined to the nth degree. That said, my idea of an adrenaline junkie includes all of Allan, Dean, and Dan from this report. I see an adrenaline junkie as a person who routinely seeks out activities that fulfill their needs at a rate far above that of the general population regardless of the associated risks of their chosen activity. For example, a person who goes skydiving on their 21st birthday and never again wouldn't meet my requirements whereas a person who goes recreationally every weekend would. I make exceptions for those who must accept high levels due to their chosen profession, for example, a skydiving instructor or a military fighter pilot, though I allow for the likely possibility that people in these professions are also likely to be adrenaline junkies themselves. I also disclude people who do something risky for reasons other than adrenaline, such as taking a very daring selfie atop a building because it may make them famous, while also acknowledging that there may also be a crossover here as well.

As for everybody who meets my criterion being mentally ill, obviously that's impossible to prove, I'll drop that claim and rather than using the term everybody colloquially I'll state that based on the findings of the report I've cited and my own definition that I'm comfortable saying that the vast majority of people who meet my definition of an adrenaline junkie are in some way neuroatypical with a larger portion of this subset also having a diagnosable psychiatric condition.

I should also clarify that there's nothing wrong with being an adrenaline junkie or having a mental illness. My stance here is that people at risk for doing something stupid probably should be goaded on by either their peers or TV producers who know that a guy like Mad Mike is good for ratings.

Is there anything you'd like clarification on going forward?

Well, I do feel there's a spot for educated amateurs - I mean, I did fly homebuilt experimental airplanes for the better part of a decade and no, that's NOT an entirely safe activity. On the other hand, I also went through the effort of getting a pilot's license, consulting with professional mechanics, doing a lot of personal research with reputable (i.e. mainstream) authorities, and the like. There are comparable modes of activity for things like rock climbing, scuba diving, etc. as well.

I'll note that the "serious amateur" rocket people have been going on for years about how stupid, safety-lacking, and idiotic this guy was. This is beyond the usual amateur rocketry or other form of aviation. I do believe an argument can be made that this guy's lack of regard to safety constituted a symptom of mental illness. Rather like how Lawnchair Larry's idiocy, despite his surviving flying a jury-rigged lawnchair through LAX airspace, was a symptom of a depression that eventually led him to eat a shotgun. (Suicide attempt was successful that time).

If I'm honest you're probably on the edge of what I'd consider an adrenaline junkie given your former hobby. That said, being an adrenaline junkie or having a mental illness aren't inherently bad things, they just require some self-awareness and a good support team that includes some non-adrenaline junkies for the odd sanity check.

[loomer]

Grand. Now go back up points 1 and 2 with more than a single study that doesn't establish what you think it does.

[Jub]

Grand. Now go back up points 1 and 2 with more than a single study that doesn't establish what you think it does.

I never made the 1st claim you're asking me to defend, it was you that said " Show us the studies that they are a, unable to experience adrenaline rushes from ordinary experiences (and do not merely prefer higher thresholds of stimulation), that b, this is neuroatypical, and c, that this constitutes a mental illness.", my statement was "Those who can't get an adrenaline rush easily aren't neurotypical and are thus at the least mental abnormal if not actually mentally ill." So from the start you were attempting to put words into my mouth and defend a claim that I never made.

More to the point that statement was made redundant the moment I defined what I meant by an adrenaline junkie. It has been my stance for several posts now that we started off with a difference of definition which I desired to clarify precisely to prevent accusations of goalpost shifting and your attempts to put words into my mouth.

[loomer]

Grand. Now go back up points 1 and 2 with more than a single study that doesn't establish what you think it does.

I never made the 1st claim you're asking me to defend, it was you that said " Show us the studies that they are a, unable to experience adrenaline rushes from ordinary experiences (and do not merely prefer higher thresholds of stimulation), that b, this is neuroatypical, and c, that this constitutes a mental illness.", my statement was "Those who can't get an adrenaline rush easily aren't neurotypical and are thus at the least mental abnormal if not actually mentally ill." So from the start you were attempting to put words into my mouth and defend a claim that I never made.

No Jub, I'm not. As you say, you said that 'those who can't get an adrenaline rush easily aren't neurotypical' - AKA, those who are unable to experience adrenaline rushes from ordinary experiences, unless you want to dial 'easily' in so far that it excludes ordinary experiences. The word 'can't' is important there. And, as you say, you said that they 'aren't neurotypical', which is... B. Oh dear. You said exactly what I have asked you to prove. No words have been put in your mouth and I have asked you only to defend three claims that you have made, one of which you have since surrendered.

More to the point that statement was made redundant the moment I defined what I meant by an adrenaline junkie. It has been my stance for several posts now that we started off with a difference of definition which I desired to clarify precisely to prevent accusations of goalpost shifting and your attempts to put words into my mouth.

There has been no such attempt to put words into your mouth. That you are unable to recognize the arguments within your own statements is a you problem, not a me problem. Now, as for whether it was made redundant? I disagree that it was. Your definition:

I see an adrenaline junkie as a person who routinely seeks out activities that fulfill their needs at a rate far above that of the general population regardless of the associated risks of their chosen activity.

Does not render the question of whether this is in fact neuroatypical, which you have claimed, null. Your definition in fact does not speak at all as to whether this 'routine' seeking out of activities that fulfill their needs is because they are unable to experience adrenaline rushes in other ways (let alone whether this is due to habituation or not, which is necessary to establish that it is due to being neuroatypical) or the issue of neurotypicality. As such, I reject your suggestion that it renders your prior argument - that adrenaline junkies aren't neurotypical - redundant.

Concede the arguments you made or defend them. These are your choices.

[Jub]

I'm going to stand by my original point which is that 'Mad Mike' was very likely mentally at risk and shouldn't have been goaded or otherwise encouraged to attempt the launch that ended his life. Beyond that, I'm out, this has gone from something I can reply to at work to something that I'd have to spend real effort on and I'm not into that.

I officially concede to you, loomer. Happy posting.

[Broomstick]

If I'm honest you're probably on the edge of what I'd consider an adrenaline junkie given your former hobby. That said, being an adrenaline junkie or having a mental illness aren't inherently bad things, they just require some self-awareness and a good support team that includes some non-adrenaline junkies for the odd sanity check.

I view "mental illness" as something that causes impairment - financial, social, medical, legal, etc. My flying didn't really do any of that, and when I could not afford it any longer (due to losing my high paying job) I ceased to do it. Also, I am capable of getting thrills from more typical activities, as well as enjoying a quiet, non-risky life at times (such as the past couple years). I like the thrill, but I don't have to have it.

Back then I knew people who chased the thrill and damn the consequences - and I went to a fair number of funerals. I also saw people bankrupt themselves - aviation is not a cheap hobby. I'll certainly agree that I'm not typical but my pursuit of aviation had benefits to my life outside of flying. Non-typical is different than pathological.

Although I'd argue Flat-Earth Rocket Man was, in fact, suffering something pathological based on his disregard for both facts and safety.

[Jub]

I view "mental illness" as something that causes impairment - financial, social, medical, legal, etc. My flying didn't really do any of that, and when I could not afford it any longer (due to losing my high paying job) I ceased to do it. Also, I am capable of getting thrills from more typical activities, as well as enjoying a quiet, non-risky life at times (such as the past couple years). I like the thrill, but I don't have to have it.

Back then I knew people who chased the thrill and damn the consequences - and I went to a fair number of funerals. I also saw people bankrupt themselves - aviation is not a cheap hobby. I'll certainly agree that I'm not typical but my pursuit of aviation had benefits to my life outside of flying. Non-typical is different than pathological.

Although I'd argue Flat-Earth Rocket Man was, in fact, suffering something pathological based on his disregard for both facts and safety.

I think we generally agree on this one.

Also, I hope that you get your wings back again while you can still fully enjoy them. It must suck to have touched the sky and then have that taken from you.

[Broomstick]

Well... sort of. On the flip side, I'm very glad to have done it when I could instead of listening to all the people who tried to discourage me, or told me to wait until I retired. It would suck if I had never done it.

It gives me an incentive to stay healthy - oldest licensed pilot in the US was flying at the age of 102 (very much an exception of course - most people are dead at that age ) I personally knew a pilot who was at 96. As long as I'm physically capable of flying safely I'm allowed to do it in the US. So far. (Well, have to be able to pay for it, too) There have been a LOT of changes over the past couple decades.