Someone, somewhere, has taken an average of human behavior and declared a median range sane and normal. Was this person qualified to make such a judgement? What are things which define sanity and normality, besides simply conforming to societal stereotyping?

The way you treat your pets, the way you treat yourself, the way you treat your family are but a few ways to judge whether or not you have problems.

Can you give some specifics?

If you are cruel to your pets or mistreat them.

If you hurt your family by physical abuse or mental abuse daily.

If you do things to yourself like cutting or trying to hurt yourself in any way.

If you do not seek professional help whenever you do any of these things.

So, these things are all that define sanity and normality?

So, these things are all that define sanity and normality?

These things would be SOME of the things that people would think as to define a person that needs professional help. There are many more that would be ways to tell if a person is mentaly unbalanced like drug abuse or alcohol abuse.

Can you draw me a picture with description of a normal person acting normally? Perhaps on a neighborhood street? What are the thoughts of the normal and sane?

Oh you know, people that do the same shit everyday and never complain much about anything. Peopl;e who put up with insane people as well for it takes quite a bit of tolerance to have insane people running amuck in society.

Ok, let's put aside one thing. I am not sane and I know it. It's ok. I've embraced the madness, and it has become my friendly companion. Therefore, sane thoughts and thinking may be floating around in my head, but I can't tag them properly. My wife is not always available to run my plans past, so I'm seeking some sense of "sane" and "normal" and "appropriate". I'm not trying to be obtuse, or tax your patience, CT.

Good , I don't mind if I can be of any help.

Am I asking the wrong question here? I'm just trying to figure out some things the sane mind dwells upon. I'm just looking for an exact, nailed down version of what normal is. Have you given that to me and I missed it?

Of course you can't honestly and truly define "normal".
"Normal" is nothing more than attempted hegemonic domination of behavior to fit people into predefined holes and roles - pretty much like the purpose of the public school system.

Sane, on the other hand, you will have to be more specific.
Psychosis, for example, is essentially defined as performing the same action over and over again while expecing different results.
It can manifest itself in many different ways, but they all conform to that same basic definition.
If, for example, you jump off the roof, and break your leg, then do it again expecting to fly - you very well may be psychotic.

So, are you implying that to know sane, we must know not sane? That feels odd, having to know what something isn't to define what it is. Are lottery ticket purchasers psychotic, then?

More accurately, I think, to know insane one must know sane.
It is sane to learn from experiences in life.
If you touch the hot stove, you get burned.
If you keep touching it and keep getting burned (and you are surprised because you expected something else to happen each subsequent time) that is a sign of psychosis.

People toss around "crazy" far too often and loosely, but it is fairly clear what is psychotic - that which is not sane.

Ok, I have read definitions of paranoid delusion, bipolar 2, auditory hallucination, and borderline personality. Those things don't seem so clear cut, yet a person diagnosed with these things is considered disablingly mentally unhealthy, and thus not sane. What is sane is all those things are not? Sane people don't ponder?

What is sane is all those things are not? Sane people don't ponder?

Sorry.
You're going to have to try and reword that.
I'm not catching you.

Do sane people wonder if gravity is going to suddenly let go? Do they puzzle about what death feels like in the last moment? Do they become convinced that the car behind them is following them, and focus on trying to act natural?

Sane is not high energy and low energy? Sane is not hearing things that aren't verifiable? Sane is not unstable relationships? Sane is not making yourself feel better?

Do sane people wonder if gravity is going to suddenly let go? Do they puzzle about what death feels like in the last moment? Do they become convinced that the car behind them is following them, and focus on trying to act natural?
Sane people can do all those things.
If these things, however, disrupt their life to the point of making them unhappy and pulls them away from their goals in life, they should seek help.

Sane is not high energy and low energy? Sane is not hearing things that aren't verifiable? Sane is not unstable relationships? Sane is not making yourself feel better?
Are these even questions?
Please speak more plainly.

They are statements, the implied question is, are they correct statements?

I imagine sane people can do all those things and more, but do they do those things?

Perhaps, then, you should be more specific.
Being vague on this topic will not get you very far.

For example: Sane is not making yourself feel better?
This could mean a thousand different things.

Specifics. Vagueness. I'm trying to deliberately leave the definition open ended, but if that won't be successful, here's an example.

Joebob is an average US citizen who lives in the country. Monday through Friday he travels to a nearby town about 30 minutes away from his residence by car. Each day he works an average of eight hours, with an additional hour for a meal break. For entertainment, he gathers with like minded people in a venue he finds appealing. During the time that he is not working or socializing, he thinks random things. He wonders what it would feel like to let his hand soak in battery acid. This is his most frequent thought and daydream. Is Joebob sane? He conforms to societal views of "normal" behavior. Is Joebob insane? He is very curious about something that can be very harmful to himself.

He tells one of his friends about his curiosity. His friend thinks,"He's insane." His friend is Willie. Willie leads a duplicate life to Joebob. Willie is attracted to Joebob sexually. He thinks about how erotic it would be to knock Joebob unconscious and sodomize him with a baseball bat. Willie hugs Joebob. Joebob thinks,"He's insane." Is Willie sane? He has not acted outside of societal norms, despite making Joebob think he is insane by showing something more than friendly affection between outwardly Heterosexual men. Is he Insane? He has erotic thoughts about violently raping someone close to him.

People toss around "crazy" far too often and loosely, but it is fairly clear what is psychotic - that which is not sane.

I disagree. I think crazy is almost underused in describing human behaviour.
Crazy to varying degreees seems to be the norm and sane is quite rare.

Whatever applies to most people is normal. If most people are sane, sanity is normal. If most people are insane, insanity is normal. Normal isn't necessarily sane.

I disagree. I think crazy is almost underused in describing human behaviour.
Crazy to varying degreees seems to be the norm and sane is quite rare.

So most people using the word crazy are crazy?

Normal isn't necessarily sane.

We sure seem to agree on that.
Stupid is not necessarily insane either but there are so many stupid people doing stupid, stupid things for their whole lives, you have to wonder how sane they can be called.

So most people using the word crazy are crazy?

Yep. I think so.

I suspect stupidity & insanity are related.

A cop in Georgia arrested someone for giving him a burger with too much salt.

Yes, I've known some completely insane cops ( quite well, in fact), some stupid also, some not, but very, very fruity.

Is behavior what decides one is insane, or is it thoughts? If you consider yourself sane and normal, and every one who is different to be insane and abnormal, who is right, you or everyone else?

Someone, somewhere, has taken an average of human behavior and declared a median range sane and normal. Was this person qualified to make such a judgement? What are things which define sanity and normality, besides simply conforming to societal stereotyping?

The most important thing to note about the way sanity is generally defined is that it is NOT ABOUT BELIEFS.

You can go to church on sunday and eat the body of God.
You can think Nike sneakers make you cool
You can think that Republicans are more patriotic (or democrats)
and so on.

IOW you can have all sort of beliefs that have little to do with reality.

But you must be high functioning. You can hold down a job - or manage your retirement. You do not mention, much, your strange beliefs, in contexts that would fuck up your high functioning. You have some sort of social life or contacts. Again, your beliefs can be mentioned, and more here, but they must not interfere. You can't hurt yourself in ways that get notice, because that upsets people and then interferes with high functioning. To some degree you can hurt other people - for example, be a bully - and still be seen as sane. As long as people understand your motives. If they don't - and even being 'a raging asshole' counts as being understood - then you may have sanity issues.

But in your own mind you can belief whatever the hell you want.

That is generally how sanity is looked at, and you will not end up being forced to take drugs and put on 24 hour watches, etc., if you keep to that line.

None of this is my definition of sanity. I think many high functioning people are loopy. Because of what they do - that is considered normal - what they believe
and MOST OF ALL
in how they DO NOT REACT.

Sanity, it seems to me, as generally defined, means NOT REACTING NATURALLY to a whole host of shit.

You want to be considered sane?

Get a good poker face and tune out all the shit.

IOW: deny much of reality.

Deny much of reality- I deny all of it. I'm waiting for the shut down sequence to start, or the credits to roll. The problem is that I deny it, the same way a kleptomaniac denies thievery. The stuff IN my head, plus the stuff that I ABSORB into my head, influences my actions. At times I feel like I'm just watching myself do or say things from outside myself. The whole time telling myself that I am in control of myself.

IOW: Is there any good shit, because it all looks like shit to me?

Is behavior what decides one is insane, or is it thoughts? If you consider yourself sane and normal, and every one who is different to be insane and abnormal, who is right, you or everyone else?

If Joe Smith is insane & everyone else is sane, Joe is abnormal & everyone else is normal. If Joe thinks he's sane, he's wrong & everyone else is right.
If Joe regains his sanity & everyone else goes insane, Joe is then abnormal & everyone else is normal. If Joe thinks he's sane, he's right & everyone else is wrong.

Deny much of reality- I deny all of it. I'm waiting for the shut down sequence to start, or the credits to roll.

That might happen at any time.

IOW: Is there any good shit, because it all looks like shit to me?

It mostly looks like piss to me.

Stranger-As always, you have misunderstood me perfectly, oh favorite malefactor of mine.

Stranger-As always, you have misunderstood me perfectly, oh favorite malefactor of mine.

You misunderstand not only me but yourself.
I thought I was playing it safe & civil & trying to help. If I'm no help to you, too bad but you have no reason for that crap. Except your insanity. Which you admit to.
I think I know better now.
You obviously think you can say anything in any thread, be goofy in a serious discussion, doesn't matter whether YOU misunderstand someone, claim things without any evidence, spout nonsense, bring BS kneejerk assumptions into threads I start but if I tell the truth, you can't handle it.
I certainly learned starting a thread doesn't mean 1 has any control over it.
So stuff your malefactor & all your other insanity.

Whoa, there me bucko!

You were being serious in post 31? Is that what spawned this violence of thought?

:bugeye: I said you were my favorite. What do I have to do, coddle you? How old are you, anyway? 13? 14?

I'm opening the PM only so there won't be a 1 at the top of this page & I won't get absentminded thinking it's a new 1. Don't PM me again.

Whoa. I've never met anyone who would refuse to talk rationally about something in private. Ok. Shall I start a new thread just for us to discuss what has caused this towering fury? Or would you prefer to muddy up some other innocent threads. I'll even start by apologizing for offending you by not agreeing with you on so many points. I apologize for exchanging insulting remarks with you and your sidekick. Feel all warm and gushy now?

See here we have lunacy, not hamtastic but Stranger.

Hmmm! calls himself Stranger, lives in L.A. what are the chances of sanity? Very slim, I would suggest.

Crazies, they're everywhere.

I personally think I am very, very sane. I have lots of insane thoughts and certainly do some insane things but I think I recognise the differences and know when to apply sanity to a situation. I think I identify well when a little contrived insanity ( or otherwise) is a perfect way to ensure one's overall sanity.

It seems easy to me but, Fuck! A lot of people fall off the edges.

Normal.

First you have to see what sets the standard for what's normal. My answer would be that society and culture shapes this definition. So, essentially, as long as it's in your culture it would be considered normal in that culture. Conversely, normal for your culture could be entirely alien to another.

Saneness is hard to define in one sentence. Though, I would consider those who are rational and logical are the most sane. So, as you may have guessed, I wouldn't consider a religious individual a very sane one.

First you have to see what sets the standard for what's normal. My answer would be that society and culture shapes this definition.
I'd say society and culture USED to shape this, but that power has been usurped by hegemonic domination over media and mass communication.
If culture shapes normal, who shapes culture?

Saneness is hard to define in one sentence. Though, I would consider those who are rational and logical are the most sane. So, as you may have guessed, I wouldn't consider a religious individual a very sane one.
I disagree.
Sanity has much less to do with beliefs than with actions.

compatancy would be a better descriptor, if we look at it with both a legal and mental health view point compatancy is assumed unless proven to be absent (in an adult).

The first and most important indicator of mental illness is the question "is this person in distress". Now obviously this is subjective and purposely so. If a person can lead a functional life without distress then they are judged to be competent. What is a functional life? a life they wish to lead with in the best of there abilities which has purpose for them and doesnt lead them to distress. Again we see this is subjective.

Now it is possable to look at the effects of mental health on those around us and it is done (especially pediphila as an example) but for most mental health issues the important thing is how the pt feels about there situation.

If we take depression one of the two major critiria for diognosis is "a feeling of sadness or emptyness which lasts more than 2 weeks". Now this is highly subjective, no one can run a blood test for this (though i did have an interesting discussion about running a seritonin levels blood or CSF test as a diognositic tool for depression)

Insanity/sanity is just the sin/redemption of psychology.

It doesn't really mean anything yet you are made sure you need professional help with it.

I'd say society and culture USED to shape this, but that power has been usurped by hegemonic domination over media and mass communication.
If culture shapes normal, who shapes culture?

Media and mass communication are part of our culture.

Who creates culture? It's simple, people do, I don't think it goes far beyond that. Art, Religion, Government, and all other facets of culture are all human creations. It's simply the system we've created for ourselves. What's normal is simply the consensus within these cultures.


I disagree.
Sanity has much less to do with beliefs than with actions.

In the legal sense maybe, but I'm speaking from more of a psychological perspective.

Telepathically communicating with ghosts, spirits, and extra terrestrials, while simultaneously claiming that you actually hearing things in return would make you insane or mentally instable. Many religious people claim to have conversations, even relationships with an invisible deity.

Media and mass communication are part of our culture.

Who creates culture? It's simple, people do, I don't think it goes far beyond that. Art, Religion, Government, and all other facets of culture are all human creations. It's simply the system we've created for ourselves. What's normal is simply the consensus within these cultures.
You don't think people are grossly and purposefully manipulated by politicians, media, advertizing etc.
Purposeful manipulation shapes our "culture" more than we do.
Most people are led around by a leash by those with money and influence.
When a small minority of the population controls the beliefs of the rest of the population, you don't have the people controlling the culture, you have hegemonic domination.

In the legal sense maybe, but I'm speaking from more of a psychological perspective. Telepathically communicating with ghosts, spirits, and extra terrestrials, while simultaneously claiming that you actually hearing things in return would make you insane or mentally instable. Many religious people claim to have conversations, even relationships with an invisible deity.
How can you be so sure they aren't talking to them?
How can you be so sure what is "real"?
Because what you beleive?
What makes what you believe more important, relevant or real than what they believe?
Why does it even matter?

If they are not acting in a way that will harm themselves or others, they are not insane.

You don't think people are grossly and purposefully manipulated by politicians, media, advertizing etc.
Purposeful manipulation shapes our "culture" more than we do.
Most people are led around by a leash by those with money and influence.
When a small minority of the population controls the beliefs of the rest of the population, you don't have the people controlling the culture, you have hegemonic domination.

I see what you're saying, I think we're debating semantics more than anything.


How can you be so sure they aren't talking to them?
How can you be so sure what is "real"?
Because what you beleive?


From my perspective it is insane. The people I find insane, as a naturalist, are the ones who indulge in supernatural phenomena as intimately as saying they have relationships with supernatural beings. From your perspective you may feel differently, but that's your personal perspective and I would debate that with you. I would rather not hijack the thread though.

What makes what you believe more important, relevant or real than what they believe?

This is an argument for another thread and another time.
Why does it even matter?

Well, I don't remember ever saying it mattered, but since I happen to think it does I'll tell you why. I live in a Country that's governed by a Democratic system. Democracy is simply fascism by consensus and the majority who make up this Democracy are Jesus sycophants who want to mold our Country into one that conforms to the will of a creature in a fiction novel (The holy babble). These people are voting based on their religious beliefs, some who believe the end of the world is coming in their life time. This, is obviously a problem which something worth protesting and I don't think anyone can say it doesn't matter.

If they are not acting in a way that will harm themselves or others, they are not insane.

Again, you're resorting to the legal definition.

Peace all, good night.

Again, you're resorting to the legal definition.

No, a practical one.
If someone's actions do not injure me, who I am to judge them as insane - even if I disagree with them?

one_raven
i disagree with your last statement, even if they do you no harm if they cause distress and loss of funtioning to the person involved then they are important

No, a practical one.
If someone's actions do not injure me, who I am to judge them as insane - even if I disagree with them?

As demonstrated their actions do affect me.