I have observed that many of those who became more or less prolific writers on military affairs (other than hardware topics) and dared to oppose the mainstream or to call for more than merely cosmetic reforms have sooner or later exhibited 'weird' behaviour.
Lind, for example, (a "3GW" guy) is known to sometimes write as if he was living in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Someone else (whom I don't want to mention, but you might recognize him by his initials "C.M.") has gone all-out pro-Trump, 9/11 truther et cetera. Another one wrote weird things about cobalt bombs. Poole got obsessed about ninjas. I prefer to not mention those who seemingly went all-out crazy first and only then began writing about military art or reform. In Germany, Uhle-Wettler wrote great books in the 60's and early 80's, but being a 150% anti-communist since the 1950's, he turned out to not keep a healthy distance to neonazi publications after his retirement. Middelhoff was a fantastic author in the 50's, but produced a scandal in the late 60's when he was essentially the only general ever fired in the Federal Republic of Germany for (kind of) opposing his political master, the later Chancellor Schröder in an unethical way. There are many more examples (though also many about whom I don't know anything crazy). By my estimate about half of those who oppose the mainstream thinking with passionate proposition of reforms exhibit at least a little bit crazy sooner or later.
There may be some shared psychological trait that is both promoting outside the box thinking AND crazy thinking. Maybe it's a lacking desire to conform.
This suggests that whenever you read about non-mainstream military theory or about serious (non-think tank style) military reform proposals, you better watch out for crazy, for it's a coin toss whether there's crazy attached or not.And yes, I cannot self-diagnose. Feel free to watch out for crazy on this blog as well.