NationStates Jolt Archive

In this new edition of my (hopefully) educational series for the General forum, we'll be discussing how we determine whether a person is sane or not. How do you personally define sanity? Does it involve rationality? A suppression of emotions that are socially unacceptable? Do you have to have a certain personality type? Are some cultures more sane than others? I'm rather curious as to what y'all think about this stuff. Feel free to greatly elaborate on your definition of sanity.

auch, hard one. but a good question.
I'm not able to draw the line between sanity and insanity.
I would say one has to be able to some rational and logical thinking to be sane. (which makes all babies insane...)
I have to think about this...

It all depends on who's world you live in most of the time ;)

according to this page (http://www.scientology.org/wis/wisger/gloss.htm#sanity), sanity is the ability to determine right from wrong. I don't know how else you could define it. Maybe we should be asking what makes a person crazy? What causes them to lose the ability to reason?

I believe it is the ability to make well founded decisions, and reasonably judge what is the most beneficial course of action.

I believe it is the ability to make well founded decisions, and reasonably judge what is the most beneficial course of action.
Then 90% of world's population is insane, me included

"Show me a sane man, and I will cure him for you." -Carl Jung

"Show me a sane man, and I will cure him for you." -Carl Jung

Jung was teh awesome :D

"Show me a sane man, and I will cure him for you." -Carl Jung

What the hell does that mean?

"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire

Then 90% of world's population is insane, me included

I believe that more than 90% of the world's population has a very strong sense of self-preservation, and a very clear understanding of how maintain it.

What the hell does that mean?

"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire

"I don't recall trying to prove anything." - Me

Well, I don't know the context in which it was used - I just threw it out as a quote appropriate to the thread. I've always taken it to mean that everyone has the tiniest bit of insanity, but you can interpret it (as I have) as you will.

"I don't recall trying to prove anything." - Me

Well, I don't know the context in which it was used - I just threw it out as a quote appropriate to the thread. I've always taken it to mean that everyone has the tiniest bit of insanity, but you can interpret it (as I have) as you will.

Fair enough.

My post was more a reaction to the comment about Jung being awesome when there was no true intrensic value to that quote. It was a joke, at least I would surmise.

Fair enough.

My post was more a reaction to the comment about Jung being awesome when there was no true intrensic value to that quote. It was a joke, at least I would surmise.

Part joke, part insight, and therein lies its worth. I did explain my thoughts on its meaning.

What makes someone "sane?"

The current popular definition of "sanity."

In a societal context, I think it is probably along the lines of blending in, to a large extent. People who are considered insane generally seem to be the ones flouting the conventions of their culture. I read somewhere that a large percentage of really successful corporate execs demonstrate traits that are considered consistent with psychopathy, yet they are not considered "insane" as such. Whereas someone who is (for instance) hunting and eating insects in a western country would probably be considered insane but if they were living in other countries nobody would think twice about it.

I saw a documentary once titled "Joan of Arc - Visionary or Teenage Psychotic" which went into this concept in depth. In her culture, Joan was assumed to have been in actual contact with either god or the devil, depending on who you talked to but there was no doubt in the general populace that she was indeed in contact with some supernatural agency and was both revered and shunned for that contact. These days she would probably be medicated and possibly committed to an institution.

Perceived rationality and ability to tell right from wrong would all come into it but the definitions of these concepts also vary from culture to culture...

But in reality, the definition is simple - If you do things my way, you're sane!! :D

I honestly do stand by my definition.

Sanity is viewed by what non-physical world you're in. Flat out.

I think the only way to truly be able to define sanity is within the context of any given culture. As such "insanity" would be forms of emotional process and intellectual cognition that would make a person less able/ unable to function within broadly defined norms as defined by a specific culture. Culture dictates which sets of behaviors and emotions are appropriate in given situations. For example, certain behaviors which make a person shrewd and successful in the business world could get them labelled as sociopathic or antisocial if they practiced such behaviors overmuch in their personal lives, or speaking in tongues is fine in some churches, but if the same person were to do so very often in a business setting it wouldn't be seen as "sane." The point at which something becomes "insane" and that which is defined as "insane" is mutable and changes over the years as a culture changes. It seems that insanity is just a failure of a person to be able to regulate themselves (for whatever reason) in order not to overstep too far or too often beyond the bounds of what a culture has deemed appropriate.

I've heard that insanity is defined, clinically, as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. By that, this guy :headbang: must be insane.

Personally, I think you're all nuts.

None of us are sane. We all have psychological problems. It's just a matter of whether they are deeply rooted or are affected by a disease is when you are insane.

A man walks into a therapist's office wearing cling wrap shorts. The therapist says, "I can clearly see your nuts"