Talk:Insanity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A recent discovery of "Indigo Children" has given another context to the term "insane", redeclaring the long-thought ideology that the ones deemed insane by society are truly gifted by God, and misunderstood among the unbelieving masses.

. . . Huh? What is this supposed to mean? 65.116.19.243 19:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense, I assume. I deleted it. Sietse 19:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've put it back (slighly modified) because someone objected to its deletion. Sietse 15:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think people who believe in indigo people should have to take care of these gifted people and be responsible for their actions and wellbeing. If the "insane" or the "gifted" person commits a crime under the believer's care, then the believer is liable to receive the same punishment as the offender.

Pat Robertson is linked on the page. Although I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the implication, it seems a bit...politically motivated. An abuse of Wikipedia, if you will. 11:04 a.m. Friday, Nov. 3, 2006

Contents 1 insanity 2 cleanup 3 Excuse me 4 Proposed Merge 5 Historical Perspectives 6 Any German speakers?

[edit] insanity

use any bigger words and you'll make me feel even more intellectually inferior. although mental health is a fascinating subject.

[edit] cleanup

Hey folks,

I "object" to the "multiple uses" of "quotes" in this article, and also to the use of the pronoun "you", so I've slapped the article with a cleanup. -- — I. Neschek | talk 21:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hum. I object to that cleanup tag for something so minor, so I sort of went crazy (har har) and rewrote the entire thing. Notes:

• I've removed the reference to indigo children. This theory is not based on a rejection of modern ideas about insanity, but on the rejection of what mainstream theory calls Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. A single mental disorder is not the same thing as insanity; even if the theory is broader, the discussion arguably belongs at mental illness.
• I've removed this: "some such as Aldous Huxley commented that some kinds of "insanity" are possibly alternative modes of awareness which were commonplace and respected in other times and cultures, and have a place in human nature." This should be sourced, because I can't take it on faith, and neither should the reader. Huxley certainly commented on the relativity of sanity and insanity in general (Brave New World being the defining example), but something as specific as this deserves a reference. I'm no Huxley scholar, and I'm not saying it's false, but there's no good reason to believe it's true either, so I'd like one.

This better? If not (I may have gone a little overboard), I can only say: {{sofixit}}. Cleanup tag removed. JRM · Talk 00:31, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me

maybe I missed it, but does it actually have what insanity is? the definition seemed to be pretty vague (first line) -Vellocet Malchickawick

"Insanity" is such an insanely broad and nontechnical term that it's very hard to give a definition that's not "pretty vague". Compare [1], that starts "a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)". The rest of the article tries to establish what insanity is by describing how it is perceived and reacted to, which I think is pretty much all you can hope for. I'd love to be proven wrong, of course. JRM · Talk 21:00, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge

I must oppose the proposed merge to Criminal insanity. The latter concept is deliberately more restrictive than common speech. Typically, criminal insanity is determined by a subject's ability to distinguish right conduct from wrong conduct. On this basis, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer was found not criminally insane. Notwithstanding this decision, it is common practice to consider Dahmer (as well as anyone else who stores human heads in a freezer for later elective consumption) insane. To eliminate the fundamental distinction which gave rise to the stricter legal definition is inaccurate and misleading. Xoloz 11:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I support the merge with Criminal insanity. The reason for my choice is: the term "Insanity" only exists under legal standards, and not under psychological standards. Although many people may consider individuals suffering from schizophrenia to be insane, they are not. (That is, unless they have provided clear and convincing evidence during the course of a criminal trial). ILFoxtrot 19:07 hrs, July 20, 2005.

• While the definition of common insanity is notorious difficult to ascertain (and changes with time), there can be no doubt that, all throughout history, "insane lunatics" have been subject to social stigma quite apart from any legal meaning. Insanity did not begin in the 1820's (when the first Anglo-American legal definitions were made) and to limit a discussion of insanity to "legal insanity" merely because it is a more precise meaning would be a disservice to history, and to those thousands throughout history who (rightly or wrongly) were deemed "insane" without the benefit of a legal or psychological evaluation. Insanity has an historical meaning which cannot be discounted. Xoloz 02:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That is an apt point. Based on it, I am persuaded to change my view on the merge. If the page in question did contain more of a historical perspective, I would be convinced. ILFoxtrot 23:04 hrs. July 20, 2005.

I oppose the merge. Insanity can be a civil or a criminal matter depending the nature of the person's problem. Not everyone who is deemed "insane" has committed a crime and that is why mental health legislation has separate parts to deal with people who have committed a crime, opposed to those who have not. Saying that, criminal insanity is an inappropriate and stigmatising term (as is highlighted in the article). If the article needs to go, perhaps it could be incorporated into the article on forensic psychiatry, instead--Vincej 12:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds that criminal insanity is a specific legal concept, while "insanity" is a much broader, general concept. I'll readily admit this article is hardly complete on the matter, let alone well researched, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on insanity in general just because the other articles are easier to write. The argument that "the term 'insanity' ... [does not exist] under psychological standards" is a red herring. Who says either criminal law or psychology need to be the final word on it? Insanity as a concept existed long before anything resembling modern psychology or psychiatry, and criminal insanity is specifically restricted to the question of whether a suspect is culpable. There may yet be something somewhere this article should be merged with, but I don't believe criminal insanity should be it. In fact, now that I look at the articles, I doubt whether criminal insanity (or as it currently redirects, criminally insane) should be an article at all, rather than a redirect to insanity defense, which is a lot more... sane, pardon the expression. I do not think this article should be merged with that, either. JRM · Talk 18:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. As stated before, criminal insanity is a different definition than "regular" insanity, and I'd think that this would be better merged into Mental illness vice Criminally insane. Regardless, this article has merit and needs to be Expanded, instead of merged.--Mitsukai 17:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. Criminal insanity is about the popular stereotype of violent psychosis, which is far from what insanity is about. To merge the articles would be to suggest that all insane people are also violent, something which is very clearly wrong. They talk of two different things, and one of the two might not even exist as it is portrayed. (The criminally insane article) -- Harpalus

Oppose for the reasons stated above. They are different things. i support the merge of insanity and sanity they explain each other and they both need help.

I Oppose, but perhaps the opposite should occur: Sanity should remain the title of the article and insanity should be merged into it. --216.233.171.165 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I Oppose on the pure and simple basis that Sanity =/= Insanity, and therefore their respective articles should be kept separate. Besides, Insanity/madness are antiquated terms, whereas Sanity may easily be used in a modern context.

I support merger of criminal, insanity, it may effect the length of a males penis organ,and any subsequent form of insanity as they are all within the same subject. But I oppose the merger of sanity and any subsequent form of sanity as that is the opposite term of insanity.--67.183.232.44 08:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merger of sanity into this article. LLBBooks 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I think, the final word on this has to be that sometimes the prefixes "in-" or "un-" do not signify a partition into directly opposite meanings. (Has anybody else ever wondered how many people there might be that do not exactly possess an intuition for language logic?). I will now remove the merge tag once and and for all hopefully. -- Kku 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Perspectives

One might remark in here that in Shakespeare's day people evidently thought that the correct way to cast out the demons was to torture the insane person until the demons felt like leaving. Thus in As You Like It III.ii., he has Rosalind say:

"Love is merely a madness, and, I tell you, deserves as well a dark house and a whip as madmen do; and the reason why they are not so punished and cured is that the lunacy is so ordinary that the whippers are in love too."

See also the somewhat harsh treatment that Malvolio receives in Twelfth Night because he is suspected of being insane.

See also the article on Psychiatric hospitals#History of psychiatric hospitals.

[edit] Any German speakers?

The German article on this topic is a featured article, and appears to be significantly more thorough than this one. Unfortunately my German reading is passable at best, and not up to the task of translating an article of that length and complexity. Can anyone with better German move over some of the good parts of that article that are missing here? We have pretty good articles on the more specific medical and legal topics of mental illness and criminal insanity respectively, but the cultural-historical-sociological aspects of insanity are poorly covered on the English Wikipedia. --Delirium 21:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)