I heard this statement uttered by John Nash. Perhaps it was just a spur of the moment meaningless ‘clever’ thing to say but I thought about it, and I agree. Behaving in a sane way is not a ‘natural’ state, it is just something we do to fit in.
So, do you agree or not?
Wibble.
Sanity is a nightmare to define. Nash I believe was paranoid schizophrenic. This totally inhibited his ability to function socially. If it had not done so, I very much doubt the DSM-IV would list it as a disorder. Kind of how homosexuality was taken out when it was realized that homosexuals were totally capable of social function.
So, yeah, I guess sanity is conformity in that the majority of us are “sane.”
But I’ve seen estimates that say as many as 1/3 of the human population experiences some sort of personality disorder or other mental disorder at some point in their lives. Translation: everyone is crazy.
Sleep tight.
I would say that the definition of sanity is plastic and certainly influenced by societal norms. It reflects a capacity to function within a society. The flip side, however, is that this can say as much about a society as the individual sometimes.
I would be that people who are convinced they are an incarnation of Vishnu in India fare much better than those who are convinced they are Jesus in the US for example.
IMO simply having the occasional hallucination or holding a delusion or two does not necessarily make someone insane. They may have some sort of mental disorder, but I reserve the label insane for those who are by and large unable to operate in society due to their delusions. IOW, it’s a functional definition.
… in the sense that natural behavior, for the average human being, is whatever behavior enables us to survive. As humans evolved we had to adapt; maybe once we lived relatively individual lives, but somewhere along the way it became more sensible for us to live and move in tribes; the man who hunted alone couldn’t sustain himself.
So it makes sense that today we tend to meld into the society. I don’t think doing this requires us to rewire our normal behavior; i think cooperation-- normal participation in society-- is ingrained in us from the start.
So yeah, sanity may be conformity… but conformity (well, conformity to a certain extent) is natural in itself.
So what if we take away the society variable. If any one of us were to spend enough time completely isolated from other people, and not filmed (so that that person would know no-one is watching) I believe we would eventually revert to behaving in a way that us conformists would dismiss as ‘insane’. It might be said that isolation is ‘damaging’ to the person and causes insanity, but I would say it is just a ‘deeper’ natural state, where the person has gradually sheded their ‘sane’ behaviour.
It makes sense that we all behave ‘normaly’ to fit in. It works and is beneficial to the society as a whole. But I believe these days we conform a little too much (sometimes it seems like we are all robots or sheep. having the same habits as eachother, the same manerisms, the same type of interaction methods). ANd I also believe this conforming is un-beneficial to the individual. Maybe our brain’s fluid ability to learn and create is stifled by preasure to conform.
If I wasn’t conscious of the fact that it would be weird. I would lie down on the floor more.
To a degree. If you were to isolate a set of individuals from birth, I think that the majority of them would exhibit some overlapping behaviors that in a society would be considered sane. I believe we inherit what amounts to sociological traits and that you can’t really have a human in its “natural state”. The words sane and isane though are too broad, sanity is really a spectrum based on a number biological and sociological traits.
To clarify, I believe we inherit A FEW sociological traits. I also believe that there are some biological traits that serve no purpose to an isolated individual and that actually are a detriment to its survival - I’d call some of these as insane traits.
That’s kind of funny, Lobsang, that you would lie on the floor if it weren’t so weird… I was, just a couple days ago, sprawled out on the floor in my room when my roomate came in and told me I was weird! 
And actually, I think you’re right; we do conform a little much; there are plenty of harmless little inclinations-- skipping down the street, lying on the floor, yelling for no reason— that we surpress because it would make us seem strange.
But now I’m stuck… I think the question I would ask now is, why are these inclinations weird? Why has society progressed to a point where any action that is not a means to some end is seen as crazy?
Well, if we do those funny little inclinations because we thing we want to or they’re fun to us, that’s not insanity. Doing them because we are listening to the voices in our head as they order us to yell, or because we think it’s the only way to prevent the sky from falling is a completely 'nuther matter. If you’re dancing in the street because you’re wrestling with a fanged hairy demon only you can see, that’s insanity.
i dont agree. Things like manic depression or schizophrenia or dementia are genetic, biological illnesses not social convention. I agree that some mental illnesses vary by culture but alot are also genetically determined. There may be different reactions to them though like a schizophrenic who felt he was a religious leader would be accepted in some ancient cultures but overall i dont see it the way Nash does.
I am not necesarily saying all forms of insanity are normal. Manic depression and schizophrenia (and others) are a significant ‘difference’ in/or damage to the brain compared to ‘normal’ brains. I am saying that ‘real’ mental illness aside, people only behave in an apparently sane way so as not to be seen as insane.
Sometimes I get an impulse to do something silly - stand up and start flailing my arms about, or shout nonsense words, or just have a long conversation with myself. That impulse is very slight, bit it’s there, and it never gets acted upon (except years ago, with a certain friend, with whom behaving insanely became the norm) It is this impulse, and the habit of consciously ignoring it, that lead me to believe that insanity is a more ‘natural’ state of being than sanity.
Oh, yes, we do not chew on rocks and refrain from jumping into trains merely because we want to fit in.
The simplistic statement regarding sanity and conformity, like all simplistic statements, simply ignores reality. There have been mental “disorders” that were merely medicalizations of social customs. Likewise, from working with Alzheimer’s disease, I can say that the dementia attendant upon it is most definitely not “non-conformism”. It’s a reflection of real and severe brain and CNS tissue damage.
I don’t. I dance down supermarket aisles and sing along to the muzak. Never got carted away, although, I do refrain from doing so if people tell me it bothers them. Got nothing at all to do with being perceived as “sane” or “insane”–if they’re asking me, they already perceive me as “insane”–I just try to be a gentleman about it.
We are primates. All evidence shows that we are social primates, descended from social primates. Humans are and always have been social creatures, NOT solitary creatures. Therefore, by definition, solitude is unnatural for our species. Therefore, any result of long solitude is, likewise, by definition, unnatural for our species.
I don’t think the links above, posted by II Gyan II, were what the OP was talking about. The children in the articles did not develop language skills. This arguably questionable website states that
I think that the non-conformity = insanity argument can be put to rest by studying those of us that have normally developing brains but have not learned everything about society. Jumping on the bed, having temper tantrums, and spontaneous yelling/singing would be considered eccentric in adults but I wouldn’t call such behavior insane.
In general terms, though, isn’t sanity just conformity with reality (i.e. that which exists and works, regardless of whether we like it), rather than conformity with the majority - for example, if most people considered 2 plus 2 to equal 17, a person asserting that 2 plus 2 was actually 4 might be considered insane, but in this case, the majority definition of ‘sane’ would be objectively wrong.
Probably rather a naive statement, I expect; be gentle with me.
If you are alive you are crazy. Any desire to carry on is based in a practical delusion. Intellectual sanity is impossible in the human mind. Nash was correct. What we call “sanity” is just a practical delusion which achieves the end of conformity of behavior.
Yes, but you believe 2+2=4 to be the ultimately correct truth because of the axioms and rules of logic and deduction taught to you by society.
Eveready
Who’s to say those kids didn’t have normal brains when born. Most likely, they did but lack of exposure to civilized society caused them to exhibit “animalistic” behaviours. Problem is there are different types of insanity. Some might due to deviant brain structures and hence more objectively insane than those who simply learnt to behave differently. But ultimately, insanity is a value judgement.
I’m going to say that Ex Machina’s statement seems to hold the most truth as far as I’m concerned. But That’s just the romance in me talking.