NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/psycholo/4483

Text File | 1992-11-22 | 10.1 KB | 218 lines

Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!princeton!crux!roger
From: [e-mail] (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Sanity Certification
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: news@nimaster
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: crux.princeton.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:45:31 GMT
Lines: 203

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>WRT the technical issues, I'm not suggesting a single "test", I'm suggesting
>a battery of tests based on existing technology.  These technologies such
>as MMPI, Rorschach (or Holtzman), etc. are already used for screening in
>clinical psychiatry.

Not in a general sense.  These tests are used to screen individuals
who may need hospitalization or other treatment based on some specific
complain they have (or some specific problem they've displayed).  They
are not used for the general public, and going from one to the other is
a major step.

As I pointed out earlier, it would also cause massive problems of
confidentiality.

>Nor am I suggesting there is a sharp dividing line between the sane and
>insane.  Sanity certification would merely identify the people who are
>as a previous poster suggested "clearly insane".  This might for example
>be the lowest quintile of sanity.  Everybody else would pass, and that will
>definitely include some insane people.

Not clear, because we don't have any definition of sanity.

>This is inevitable with any screening test.

More of a problem: false positives.  What of people who test insane,
but have no problems living their lives?

>Do you think the test required to get a driver's license completely
>excludes bad drivers from the road?  Of course not, but does that mean that
>the driver's test should be abandoned?  Again, of course not.  The test
>serves a valuable function as an initial first-pass screen to deny access
>to the worst cases.

Two issues:

1) The worst cases already have no access.

2) The driving test is a *specific* test of *specific* skills and
knowledge relevant to driving, not a general test of some fuzzxily-defined
"sanity" measure.  We all agree that one should know how to make
a left turn, when to signal, how to parallel park, what the flashing
yellow means if one's going to drive.  We do *not* have any agreement
on what "sanity" means, and no test that would do what you want.

>Nor am I suggesting that sanity is permanent condition, like sex or race.
>I think sanity certification would need to be renewed on a periodic basis
>like a driver's license.  This should help defuse the emotional impact
>of flunking the test, because it would provide hope to that individual
>they could take the test and pass 6 months later (or something).  Also,

Which certainly wouldn't do an elected official much good!  It would
also prove highly damaging to just about anyone, as the public knowledge
of the test result would lead to all sorts of prejudicial behavior.

And this would increase the power of this government body you suggest
even more.

>it would provide a goal toward which the subject could work, which would

You're still assuming the person is actually insane, and that the tests
will provide substantially different results at different times, and
that the tests CAN be taken often without loss of validity, and many
other things -- including the uncorruptibility of the commission, which
is a very bad assumption to make.

>be a useful motivating factor to get people to voluntarily enter treatment.

VOLUNTARILY?>???  A government body takes away your livelihood without
any justification other than a test result based on dubious theory,
publicizes your supposed "insanity," and tells you then to "voluntarily"
accept treatment for some unspecified disease?  This is totalitarianism,
plain and simple.  Nothing voluntary.

>WRT the social-cultural issues, I agree that would be a problem.  Most
>of our tests were normed to U.S. white people that lived decades ago.
>A recent immigrant from a nation dominated by animist religions might believe
>that demon spirits are responsible for common everyday misfortunes, such
>as flu or spilling a pot of beans.  Even U.S. white people belonging to
>certain Christian sects hold similar beliefs.  Are these people insane?
>I would most definitely say no, even though their beliefs seem bizarre
>and irrational.  Within their own cultural context, these are perfectly
>logical.  In fact, it would be illogical for a Biblical inerrantist to
>believe that a literal devil does not exist.

>Rather than attempt to norm all these mini-cultures, my suggestion would
>be simply to err on the side of sanity in each case.  If a person is a
>homosexual or eats insects or whatever, that should have no impact on the
>final sanity score.  Satanists are a different matter, because for the most
>part Satanism is not a separate religion from Christianity.  It is my

I had no idea that Christianity was "a religion."  Seems like about
a thousand religions to me, including the inerrantists, the "Certain sects,"
etc. you mention above.

But again, why pigeonhole people? Why not let them live their lives
as they choose, and judge them AS INDIVIDUALS in individual situations?
After all, you still haven't given us any evidence that insanity is a
problem among elected officials or teachers.

>understanding that most so-called Satanists are actually former Christians
>who have rejected their religion in the most extreme way possible.  This

Is this a proer concern of the government?  As I recall, there are TWO
passages in the Constitution (Article VI and Amendment 1) that prohibit
the government from taking such things into account -- especially for
elected officials (Article VI) but also for people in general.  One's
religion is no government commission's business, period.

>might be the sort of thing which could be considered in formulating the
>sanity score.

Again, a departure from considering the individual.  Your interpretation
of a religion that the person has stated that they belong to (what if
they're lying?) is a far cry from what the individual in question
necessarily thinks or believes.

And, one more time -- it's NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS what an
individual thinks or feels or believes.  What people *do* may be of
interest, if it's criminal or dangerous to others; but the government
has no place in my mind or yours.  That area is simply off limits.

>WRT the social-political issues, any attempt to manipulate the test
>politically would be just as unethical as any attempt to screw around
>with any other test, like the SAT's or the Civil Service Exam.  Unlike

But oh-so-much-more tempting, and far more likely and far more damaging,
considering the far higher stake one would have in it.  After all, by
being found "insane," one could lose one's entire way of life.

>most other tests, I think there would be a great many experts who would
>closely scrutinize the development and application of the battery of tests,

What makes you think that there aren't a lot of experts scrutinizing the
SAT or the MMPI?  ETS employs over 200 Ph.D.s.

>and there would be many who would be quick to criticize any real or imagined
>faults in the technology.

The technology is fine.  Its application such as you propose is disastrously
flawed: it is based on misinterpretation of the purpose of the tests,
misinterpretation of the meaning of their results, and a naive view of
the social effects of imposing such a totalitarian "sanity review board"
on the American people.  It also addresses supposed problems that you have
so far failed to demonstrate the existence of; and it comes from a
proposal (yours) that contains more than a little rhetoric that reminds one
of the eugenic nonsense of the Nazis: the "evolution-oriented society,"
our present state of "wallowing in degradation," "nonsense excused as
'cultural diversity'," classification of people by what religion they
belong to, and on and on.

Sorry, but a free people doesn't need this kind of menace.

>I don't think the test could be manipulated
>without a large outcry being raised,

Fortunately, the test could not be IMPOSED without a large outcry.

>especially if the entire U.S. population
>of psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychotherapists were required to be
>recertified every year.

a) Such certification is done by peers, i.e., other psychologists and
psychiatrists.

b) Psychotherapists aren't certified at all.  That's not a controlled
title.

c) Who's going to *pay* for all this?  Such recertification would
be fiendishly expensive, espeically the appeal process, and since you haven't
shown either the existence of lots of insane psychologists or the
evidence of damage that is/would be caused by them, or that actual
malpractice is done by those whom your test would pre-screen, you're
so far asking us to take away huge amounts of freedom and spend lots
of money on something with no demonstrable value.  Are you *sure*
you could get people to vote for this?????

>They would be about the most sensitive population
>you could imagine.

Prove it.

>Actually, I see an enormous benefit to the professional practice of psychotherapy
>by the implementation of certification procedures.

Psychiatry and psychology have them now.  What are you talking about?

>It's like when medical
>school accreditation was introduced in the U.S.  Immediately, a huge number
>of incompetent medical schools were closed, resulting in a large increase
>in the value of a medical education.

As I was saying.  Psychiatrists have to come from accredited medical schools.
And from accredited residencies.  They have to be licensed, too, as must
psychologists (who do not have to come from APA-accredited schools).
What would you be adding here?  What would a bogus test of an undefined quality
(sanity) add to professional certification and licensing?

Oh, and psychologists from the non-accredited schools are not
demonstrably worse than the others.  They have to pass the licensure
exam just the same.

Roger