NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/psycholo/4471

Text File | 1992-11-21 | 5.8 KB | 114 lines

Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!kth.se!lysator.liu.se!ceci
From: [e-mail] (Cecilia Henningsson)
Subject: Re: Sanity Certification
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: robin.lysator.liu.se
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Society, Linkoping University, Sweden
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:38:17 GMT
Lines: 101

[e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>It seems to me that it is possible to create a first-level screening
>test for insanity, e.g. combining elements from the MMPI, Rorschach,
>Stanford-Binet, electroencephalogram, etc.

Before we start to make such a test or even discuss its desirability,
lets define "insanity" and "sanity". From your article I get the
impression that in your definition "insanity" and "sanity" are simply
antonyms, either a person is sane, or she is insane. (I might have
gotten you wrong, of course.) Does sanity vary over time, is it
defined by attitudes or behavior, or both? Is it defined the same for
people of all cultures, ages, genders, religions etc, or should it be
defined equally for everyone living in a certain area? Remember that
these are things we should discuss before discussing if we want a
screening or not, or else we will have the equivalent of a blind date
for a discusssion.

>What use would such a test have?  It seems obvious that certain
>professions have a special need to avoid employing insane people.
>Psychiatrists, for one.  Certainly you wouldn't want insane people
>to be treating other people for their mental problems.

Certainly. People working in nuclear energy plants or missile
factories shouldn't be insane either. But is this really a problem?
How many accidents are caused by "insanity"? Specifically, how many
accidents which hurt more than just the person herself? Contrary to
popular belief, people who are insane are generally less inclined to
be violent towards others than sane people.

>By making this a government-administered suite of tests, we establish
>a baseline standard for normal minds.  By creating a standard we accomplish
>two important goals:  a)  establish an initial screening test for
>minimizing the damage done to the public by exposure to insane minds,
>and b) provide assurance to those who doubt their sanity that they are indeed
>sane.

This sounds like something of a cure-all. Let me question this on two
specific points: 1. What precisely do you imagine is the "damage done
to the public by exposure to insane minds"?
                 2. Do you really think there could be *one* test that
would tell anyone whether they are sane or insane? I keep hearing
psychiatrist warning about relying on one test alone for all kinds of
purposes, so why should sanity be an exception to the rule?

>California has a process by which the public may force a law into
>existence by public vote, completely bypassing the legislative process.
>This seems to me the ideal method to enact the first sanity certification
>laws.  As a first step, we could apply them to the most vulnerable
>populations, i.e. government employees.  Teachers and cops seem like the
>most obvious initial targets.  After all, you certainly wouldn't want
>your children to be taught by an insane teacher or yourself to be
>pulled over by an insane traffic cop, would you?

Certainly not. I'd just like to know if there is any properly reported
case of this happening, before I agree to this major burglary into
innocente people's personal integrity.

>Once people got used to the idea of sanity certification as a public
>safety measure, the obvious extension would be to apply it to elected
>public officials.  This would have an enormous effect on the evolution
>of politics in this state.  I predict it would close the loop, creating
>a self-reinforcing feedback toward higher sanity levels.  I.e., a sane
>government would have an interest in raising the sanity standards, to
>further exclude insane people from being elected to office.

>This would lead to a new society, one in which sanity is celebrated
>as a good thing.  Unlike our present system -- which celebrates
>insanity under euphemisms like "cultural diversity" -- we would have
>a society oriented toward evolutionary progress, rather than
>wallowing in degradation as we do now.

This is where it gets scary! Are you trying to build an elite society?
What if it turns out that you wouldn't pass a "sanity test"? What if
it turns out that the majority of people in your society wouldn't pass
it? How many people do you think would fail it? 5%, 10%, 25%? How many
of the people you regularly meet, do you label as "insane"? I must
question your motives!

What should happen to the people who don't hold up to standards?
Should they be discarded into institutions like the disabled children
in the former Eastern bloc of Europe? Or do you think they could just
change jobs, because being labeled insane wouldn't affect their
self-esteem?

What about people who hold beliefs or preferences which don't conform
with your beliefs and preferences? You realise that for instance
homosexuality or being a Satanist is not a mental illness, let alone
an illnes at all? If the test you are suggesting gives valid (from the
point of view of current scientific consensus) results only for people
with certain cultural background, beliefs and preferences, then
obviously it should be administered only to that kind of people. Just
because you don't like green tomatoes, you can't rule that people who
enjoy eating green tomatoes are insane. Psychology may be a fussy and
soft science, but it's not that fussy and soft.

--Ceci
--
=====[e-mail]===========================================
"When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious
faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because
these dogmas or goals are in doubt." RM Pirsig: Zen and the Art of Mc Maint.