Talk:Sanity

Text from 2001
The exchange that takes up much of this section, mostly between LarrySanger and AyeSpy, which was uncovered from old Wikipedia database dumps and not visible on this talk page until now, is about the sanity article as it existed in February 2001; the last revision of it from this time before it was shortened was this one. Most of its text was moved to the titles "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity", "The problem of defining sanity", then "Wikipedia commentary/The problem of defining sanity", before being moved to Meta, from which it was deleted in June 2004 for being irrelevant to that site. There is a version of the essay from November 2001 on the Nostalgia Wikipedia. I have put all of the text of the talk page exchange here, including a message removed by Larry Sanger shortly after he had written it. The text from the sentence "I've deleted the exchange formerly on this page ..." onwards is newer and has always been available on this talk page. The existence of the uncovered text was discussed in this old village pump discussion, which occurred before the release of the August 2001 database dump and long before it became available in a format suitable for importation to the current database in October 2017. I've imported all the old edits from "SanIty" and "SanityTalk", to the "Sanity" and "Talk:Sanity" pages, respectively. Graham 87 12:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You people are driving me crazy! *wink* Just kidding. I couldn't resist. Keep talking... --JimboWales

This article is actually better regarded as being about insanity, a topic about which many reams have been written. Examples of encyclopedia articles about this topic for your reference: mental disorder -- insanity (topic in the law) -- mental health -- insanity (topic in the law)

""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient." Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way? Shouldn't you consider actual attempts to define the term? Shouldn't you at least say something that reflects what psychologists know and believe about sanity and insanity. -- LarrySanger

Well - hey, Dr. Sanger: I'm not even half done with the article yet. In authoritarian societies, under the imprimateur of supposed scientific soundness and by psychologists and psychiatrists educated in the best universities, we have had the political definition of sanity - ie, that which authority authorizes you to perceive, think, believe. Those who openly stray from it can be confined to mental institutions in order that their misbehaving minds might be tamed by shock "therapy,", lobotomy, and any number of other treatments. At least one public figure's wife right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. fell victim to the same definition. South Africa has a history of declaring uppity blacks insane and visiting experimental psychiatric treatments on them, some fatal. I also will be dealing with the issues of reality testing and social norming, other hallmarks of sanity, before I am done. Please be patient. All this to be described as time permits. If you don't like the article when I am done, I am willing to adjust it so that it does not a) offend or b) reflect unsupported "idiosyncratic" views.

Besides - I was unaware WikiPedia was to remain mainstream, or to repeat what other publications have already said over and over?

Bruce, you have the right on Wikipedia to write whatever you want. I reserve the right to write and change whatever I want (such as state my own opinions as to what Wikipedia should be like) as well! For one thing, Wikipedia should be unbiased. An article about sanity, in my opinion, should not be about Bruce's views about sanity, or Larry's views, or any one person's views, because that's inherently biased. It should be about what is generally known and believed about sanity, making plenty of room for a clear statement of the view of those mental health professionals who happen to believe as Bruce believes (or rather, vice-versa). Isn't that reasonable? -- LarrySanger

Of course it is. I believe once you see the finished article you will not find it biased, though it may throw a fresh light on some things. As always, I will stand ready to make adjustments if folks want. Anything I write is going to be from my point of view. Unlike anything I write for Nupedia, I am apt to rely of my storehouse of retained information and conclusions synthesized from it, and not research, re-research, buttress and pepper the text with references from others' scholarly works. All valid views are not necessarily mainstream. All mainstream views are not necessarily valid. I will, however, always attempt to rest what I write solidly upon either published research, replicable empirical observation, or both. You let me know if I mis-remember or mis-represent anything, and I'll fix it.

I'll have a look.

Not everything I write is from my point of view, Bruce. Do you find that paradoxical?

Not all valid views are mainstream, that's about as obvious as anything can be, when you think about it. Sure. But the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to convey what the mainstream views are--at least.

By the way, regardless of whether you sign the article and regard it as yours, in my opinion it belongs to the wiki, and I will make bold to change it whenever I wanna. :-) Without asking you.

-- LarrySanger

Fair enough. After all, I agree to the WikiPedia license when I dump it here. I think I at least mentioned most mainstream views in passing. I still don't like my last paragraph or so, so expect that to change. I have a well-formed concept but the words elude me at the moment. Blame it on a right-brain moment. As to your or anyone's revisions of "my" article, If I cannot get it to retain the sense of what I meant, I can always remove my name from it. For the nonce, I leave it appended so folks know upon whom to blame the drivel presented. ;^) -- AyeSpy

Hi Bruce,

I don't know how to improve this article, because I don't know enough about the topic of mental disorders in general. I do have some comments nonetheless--so, contrary to my own stated policy, I'll indent my comments and let you fix the article, if you can and want to. I am going to be blunt, because I think you will benefit from bluntness in this case. Here we go:

"SanIty" has been variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as one is authorized to believe and think" and other definitions which users find expedient.


 * Who has defined it this way? You're using passive voice.  I don't believe you.  :-)  I don't think anyone has defined "sanity" this way, other than you; and I don't care how you define it, to be blunt, I care how psychologists and psychiatrists and people who have really studied this stuff.  And who are the "users" you're talking about?  This first paragraph doesn't bode well for the rest of the article.  It sounds like you're bullshiting to me, frankly.  Are you?

The word itself comes from the root adjective "sane," which stems from Latin "sanus," or "healthy." The implication, then, is that a sane mind is a healthy mind.


 * Etymologies are notoriously bad for giving a scientific analysis of a natural phenomenon. While the etymology is interesting and should be left in the article, it shouldn't be made the basis of a thesis; it should merely be mentioned in passing.

Health, in general, denotes strength, soundness, proper functioning, especially of biological systems. As the mind is generally regarded as the seat of awareness and reasoning, its proper function might be said to entail clarity of awareness and accuracy of reasoning. One would expect to find these qualities, then, in a sane individual.


 * Frankly, although I personally strongly agree with all of this, it seems to me less than enlightening--platitudinous. If you don't know much about a subject, I'd say your task amounts to either (1) heavy research, or (2) producing a melange of platitudes, bullshittery, and simple falsehoods.  Hmmm...

It may be instructive to examine what constitutes clear and accurate awareness and reasoning and what constitutes inaccuracy in these areas. Further, it may be helpful to understand to what degree errancy must intrude into mental function before one can reasonably be determined to no longer be sane.


 * There are many things that "clear and accurate awareness and reasoning" could mean, and I wonder which of them you do mean. For example, those studying logic and critical reasoning believe they're studying the standards of good reasoning and clear thinking.  So, by your lights, does sanity amount to being logical, and insanity illogical?  Well, that might be part of it, but that's certainly not all of it.  I'd say it's a definition by inessentials, but then, what do I know?

There are a number of objective criteria whereby one may assess the workings of a mind and determine their accuracy, but the largest portion of these have been declared to be more useful in determining IntelliGence than sanity.


 * There are? Really?  Who says, you?  Why should you care, if you just declare it without proving it or giving any evidence?  "Have been declared to be"?  Who declared them thus?  You?  And are they using your concept of intelligence?  Frankly, due to unanswered questions like this, I just don't know how to assess the above sentence except in a dismissive fashion.

One's ability to perform mathematical computations, identify shapes, find the next in a series of deductive steps, identify patterns in data, all are related to mental accuracy, but may be poor indicators of sanity. The kinds of tasks which one performs accurately, then, may have an impact on the perception of one as sane or not.


 * You seem to have line of thought as follows: AyeSpy has a (rather vague) definition of sanity that amounts to "clear thinking and accurate reasoning"; someone has declared that the only (or best? who knows?) sort of clear thinking is "objectively" measured by intelligence tests (since intelligence is what intelligence tests measure, presumably, but you're not too clear on that, it seems); but, by AyeSpy's definition of sanity, this unknown theorist's view of what clear thinking is implies that "intelligence" isn't a good analysis "sanity."


 * How many problems can you identify in the above reasoning?

The most prominent aspects of accurate mental function which have been used as indicators of sanity over the centuries appear to have related to the areas of interpersonal relations and bodily safety of self and others. More recently, personal mental composure has come to be included, as well.


 * Which have been used as indicators of sanity, by whom? And what does "personal mental composure" mean?

Criteria other than accuracy of function have been employed as determinants of sanity. Conformance and agreement with societal norms have played as great a role in the determination of sanity historically as any other criteria. In some contexts, societal norms loom large. For example, in WesternCivilization, one would generally find it unsettling if a friend began to speak of voices telling him things, of demons tormenting him, or how he was cured by someone burning incense, shaking rattles, and chanting. Modern psychiatry lists such reported experiences among the symptoms of SchizoPhrenia - a serious mental disorder. In many regions of the ThirdWorld, however, shamanistic tradition accepts and reinforces such experience. One who declared to the members of such a culture that these subjective experiences were invalid might find his sanity called into question by the local chief or medicine man.


 * This is perhaps the first interesting thing you've said; but you might try citing a source or two, because it is far from original.

The impact of a culture or cultures are evident when one examines what the modern western medical (psychiatric) community uses as a measure of sanity. In a medical/psychiatric context, the most general means of identifying sanity is a definition by exclusion - that is, "absence of functional mental illness, defect or disorder." The word "functional" (denoting abnormality in function, but not in form) is important, as dysfunction which is traced to a uniformly remediable or replicable physical cause generally is reclassified as a medical problem rather than a mental one, with concomitant change in diagnosis and approach to treatment. Such medical issues are removed from the criteria for judging "sanity." The medical/psychiatric definition just stated will seldom be satisfied in the absolute, as will be seen below.


 * Why don't you quote a psychiatric source, and make an effort to explain what "the" definition is? And oh, there's only one definition in currency?  I wouldn't have expected that, but then, what do I know?


 * I've got to get a move on so I am not going to be able to comment in depth on the rest of this.

The problem of identifying a concise,positive, functional definition for sanity, a key element in the more general issue of MentalHealth, is perhaps best illustrated by comparison. In identifying "sanity" with "health," one invites comparison with known standards of health in other organs and systems. A contrast is immediately apparent between the certainty and objectivity with which one can identify physical health, as opposed to mental health. One may examine, for example, a liver. Its normal role and functions, uniform from one person to the next, can be determined through the methods of physical science. It can be x-rayed or biopsied. Liver enzymes in blood samples can be measured. Hepatitis antibodies can be tested for. In the extreme, exploratory surgery may be performed. The proper functioning of a liver can be quantatively measured. While the mind is usually associated with a body organ, the brain, science to date has been unsuccessful in attempting to develop brain testing protocols which are definitive in predicting or measuring sanity. Part of the reason for this is that "normal" mental function may vary from person to person and from one context to another. Therefore, contextual observations, tests and measurements remain the standards of choice.

The standard for mental diagnosis in psychiatry is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It has undergone a substantial evolution in the last half-century. From the few mental disorders defined in Freud's time, the number of psychiatric determinations of aberrant human behavior has expanded. When the DSM was first published in 1952, it listed 112 mental illnesses or disorders. The 1994 issue of DSM (IV) specifies more than 370 disorders. And the psychiatric community has not always agreed on how these should be classified. For example, concerning "schizophrenia," DSM-II states, "Even if it had tried, the Committee could not establish agreement about what this disorder is; it could only agree on what to call it." DSM-III says "there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder'.... For most of the DSM-III disorders... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced... not always convincing, to explain how these disorders come about." DSM-IV states that the term "mental disorder" continues to appear in the volume "because we have not found an appropriate substitute." Diagnoses which appear in the manual were developed, in part, by a majority vote of those attending DSM conferences. As a result, short attention span, questions about one's spirituality, difficulty with writing or mathematics, defiance of one's parents, fidgeting, excessive neatness, all have found a place in the manual among symptoms and diagnoses. In contrast, homosexuality or the unreasonable desire of a slave to escape, once defined as mental defects (the former in early editions of the DSM), do not appear in today's DSM.

In 1995, Dr. Rex Cowdry, then director of The National Institutes of Mental Health, stated to a U. S. House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee hearing that, regarding mental illness, "We do not know the causes. We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet." This should not be surprising. It has been without doubt a cultural process, within the fairly limited culture of psychiatry and psychology, which has taken place in an effort to define the boundaries of sanity. Diseases with cultural definitions may not respond to medical science.


 * The above has dropped into a journalistic sort of mode, and it's obvious that you're trying to set up an argument against the received view of insanity. Let me cut to the chase, then.  Bruce, I couldn't care less what your views about insanity are.  If I read an article about sanity and insanity, I want to know, in detail, what the received views are.  This can include minority views, but they are the minority views of (who else?) psychiatrists.  If there isn't a psychiatrist who hasn't promulgated your view, that's probably because your view is not very plausible.  I can say this without knowing anything about your view.  I can even say it knowing what I do know so far about your view, and agreeing (I guess?) with your general drift.  But that doesn't matter!  It's far more important to learn first from the experts, and try to convey that very clearly, and then, only then, make an attempt at building on or controverting that.


 * Anyway, I think you should rename your article BruceOnSanity. That is an accurate title.  It isn't an encyclopedia article about sanity. -- LarrySanger

I'll get back to you on this, Larry. I am inclined to rename the article something like "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity," as I am loathe to dig about for every single publication I used in support of my statements, so as to make it the definitive encyclopedia article on "Sanity." Suffice it to say that my introductory definition, minus the part in quotes, is synthesized and paraphrased from three ordinary dictionaries. The part in quotes is a tacit matter of defacto political practice, and I will move it to another part of the article. The "platitudinous" paragraph is to mention the next logical step to the reader, rather than to take it unseen, no matter how obvious it might otherwise seem.

..."it's obvious that you're trying to set up an argument against the received view of insanity." You seem to be under the impression (broadly held, BTW) that psychiatry or medicine or some consensus authority actually defines sanity. Here is the real kicker - there IS NO "received view" on the definition of "sanity" from doctors or psychiatrists. One must read tons of books by them (done, thank you), each individual author defining it differently if he defines it at all (they prefer to go on at length about abnormalities, and the obvious fact that an absence of them is the preferred condition), and then try to find points of general agreement between them. The "medical" definition I used is paraphrased from the only medical dictionary I could find which did not define it as merely "Soundness or health of mind. Normal mentality." Question is, what the heck do you mean, "Normal?" The word "normal" is not a (forgive me) normative word, unless its characteristics are either obvious by definition, or can be demonstrated (like the normal function of a liver, heart, gut, brain, what-have-you). Well, I finally found "Normal" as being "without mental disorder." What's a mental disorder? See DSM-IV. You read DSM-IV, and it says "we can't agree and don't really know what a mental disorder is, or if it should be called a disorder at all - but here is the long list of things we do agree ought not to be a part of human mentality."

Note that I did not say in the article that there was only one medical definition. I said there was a "most general" one - one than can be found in medical literature which does not conflict with other definitions found in medical literature. The only thing they agree on is "normal." Quoting Taber's, (F. A. Davis, Philadelphia, 1974): "normal - 3. In psychology, free from mental disorder, or of average development or intelligence."

Who defines sanity in terms of interpersonal relations and safety of self and others? Heck - EVERYONE! But I should prabably make clear that I'm talking about a "street" definition, not an authoritative one. Examples: Why should he be committed? He's a danger to himself or others. Is he sane enough to fly a commercial jet? No - he takes unreasonable risks. Is she sane? No - she does not relate normally with others. She talks to herself, babbles incoherently, flails her arms for no reason, whatever. Is he sane enough to assist in his own defense? No - he keeps calling his lawyer "Jesus" and accusing him of working for the CIA.

now I gotta run - but I will see if the article cannot be tuned up some. I should probably introduce my thesis more clearly, "Medicine and psychiatry have self-admitted difficulties defining sanity, and here's why. And, by the way, could a definition be developed upon which most would agree?"

OK, Larry - I think I have addressed the majority (though not all) of your concerns. I will revisit this after I have thought of other things for a while. I wonder - does anyone else have concerns or comment? The more I work on this article, the more I think I would like it to be a good and thoughtful one, though not an authoritative or definitive one.

Bruce, I'm not usually this much of an asshole, though some people know very well that I'm capable of it. :-) Your attitude, that your opinions on the subject are as important as psychiatric opinions (and thus should be put under titles such as "SanIty" and "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity"), illustrates a strange pet peeve of mine.  I'm all for developing our own ideas.  I love trying to figure things out for myself, and I have no trouble being irreverent and disrespectful to the mainstream, when warranted.  In fact, insofar as I understand it, for what it's worth (very little, of course), I think I largely agree with you.  But that doesn't matter.  My pet peeve is taking a disrespectful, dismissive attitude toward the efforts of many brilliant people who are, by nearly all accounts, experts on the subject you discuss.  CrankS are pathetic, among other reasons, because they have this attitude.  And you're taking this attitude: you are failing to do justice to what the zillions of brilliant psychiatrists who have written zillions of books on these subjects have said. Now, if the stated subject of your article were BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity, then I'd have absolutely no problem whatsoever with your article, because you're the world's greatest expert on that.

Let me try a different way of explaining. Your article is a little like my trying to write a long, definitive-sounding article on, let's see...kayaking. Why, I've been kayaking. I have helped haul kayaks around the Prince William Sound. I've met (in person!) a guy who wrote a book about kayaking in the Prince William Sound. Suppose I were to say, in the article, "There is a problem with the way that people kayak. They have their rowing patterns (or whatever) all wrong.  This article will explain why it's wrong." Then I proceed to explain the better rowing pattern. Maybe I'd do so very convincingly. Now suppose I were to put that article in an encyclopedia under the heading KayakinG. Then suppose the aforementioned author of the book on kayaking, a very experienced kayaker and I believe definitely an expert on kayaking, were to read my article. What would he think? If he cared at all, he'd think: "Who the &*@# is the bozo who wrote this &@#%*, and why was he elected to write the article summarizing what is known about this subject? Why should anybody give a flyin' &@#^ about his opinions?"

You have every right to your opinion, and every right to express it on Wikipedia. But, in my opinion (just my opinion--but I think many would agree with me), you do not have the right to treat your opinion as anywhere near to being on a par with those of actual experts; you do this by the mere act of voicing your opinion in an article under the heading "Sanity" or "TheProblemOfDefiningSanity." Keep your opinions to yourself, if you want to write on those topics. I don't care if you've read books and thought about it and are smart. Doesn't matter. You should put your article on "BruceHamiltonOnDefiningSanity" or "AyeSpyOnSanity" (that's catchy). Then no one can fault you with wanting to promulgate your totally unqualified views as being on a par, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, with totally qualified views. Jaysus, Bruce, don't you know that virtually every smart psychologist who has written on this topic has been over the conceptual ground you've covered?

I'm a trained epistemologist, and I could write a decent Nupedia article on epistemic circularity. I have thought a lot about that subject at a very advanced level--I dare say that on the very narrow question of how to define 'epistemic circularity', I'm probably one of the few experts in the world. Despite that, I wouldn't include my own theory (developed in my dissertation) in an encyclopedia article on this subject. Why not? Because it was developed by a flippin' graduate student, in his dissertation, ferchrissakes; my theory would be news to everyone except my dissertation committee. You don't put new research and idiosyncratic opinion into encyclopedia articles, because encyclopedia articles are--for better or worse--summations of "what is known" about the topic in question. I guess it's a damn shame that I'm not going to grace the world by publishing my dissertation or parts of my dissertation and thereby putting my opinions on epistemic circularity into the realm of "what is known" on the topic. Until I do, for purposes of writing an encyclopedia article, it doesn't matter if I'm right, it doesn't matter if my theory blows all the others out of the water, etc. Encyclopedia article shouldn't even mention it, until many experts or the public at large or somebody recognizes the work as important.

-- LarrySanger, stepping off his soapbox finally, now fully intending to do something productive rather than critical for Wikipedia

P.S. To be clear: I do not think that only if you're an expert on topic T should you write on topic T. That's not my point at all. My point is that one should not advance one's own opinions on topic T as though they were particularly important--unless, of course, they are important. By the way, one way in which LarrysText needs to be wikified is relevant here, i.e., we need to remove my opinion-stating. To provoke students, I sometimes stated my own opinions on the topics on which I was lecturing. (At least I was very clear that I was stating my own opinions when I did so.) But I definitely don't think that my opinions should occur in encyclopedia articles on those same topics, because I'm not anything like an important philosopher.

Hey Bruce, you didn't have to take down your article. You should post it under a different title (how about: AyeSpy/OnSanity); it's still of interest to some people, I'm sure. It was far from useless or idiotic. You know, my point wasn't that your article is wrong, badly-written, or of little value! My point was only that it isn't an encyclopedia article about sanity. The works of Sigmund Freud don't constitute an encyclopedia article about sanity, either. :-) -- LarrySanger

No kidding. In the entire body of his work, he nibbled around the edges, but never bothered to define it. My hide may not be as thick as I imagined. I am weighing whether the considerable distraction WikiPedia has been to me is worth it to me or anyone. I seem to have lost my sense of humor on the issue. Give me a bit to think it out...

I was too harsh, Bruce, needlessly so. I'm sorry about that. I'm not kidding that you irritated a big pet peeve of mine, which might explain the reaction. My other PetPeeves include tailgaters, wife-beaters, people who don't take responsibility for their children, any manner of bias in news reporting, crankishness of all sorts, calling stuff "art" just in order to try to stretch the definition of "art," self-righteous and unrepentant dishonesty, people who insist that I ought to do X whenever I strongly disagree, bad attempts (meaning, most) at achieving musical style "fusions," and probably a few other things--including biased encyclopedia articles (which is not unlike biased news reporting). My reactions to these things is, in most cases, all out of proportion to the seriousness of the actual infraction. So, you see. I am sorry. I will make an effort to restrain myself in the future. -- LarrySanger

We all have our pet peeves. With age, we hope to become temperate. How old are you, Larry? 30? 33?  New PhD, right? I may not have mentioned that I have been reading philosophy and psychology for just over 33 years. My most concentrated bout of study in the field was 13 1/2 hours a day, six days a week, from April 1976 to April 1979. I have not "dabbled" in this field.

On another note, I ask anyone here if they can help me turn up an encyclopedia article entitled "sanity" published by anyone, anywhere. I will even take an old one, if anyone can find it.

I suggest we just stop and delete this entire exchange. I very much regret that I replied rudely and in such detail.

-- LarrySanger

I've deleted the exchange formerly on this page, which had become less than helpful to anyone writing an article on sanity. In the future I'll try to keep my remarks polite and helpful. -- Larry Sanger

If anyone can help me find an encyclopedia article, even an old one, published anywhere, entitled "sanity," I would appreciate referral to same.

I've changed the wording and moved the link to


 * the problem of defining sanity

here since it didn't seem to be useful. Personally I wish that this was a topic that I knew nothing about, but tragically this is not the case.

---

What was wrong with my 'generally defined negatively by absence of insanity' - this seems to me to be one of the few things that most agree on, even if they can't agree on what sanity actually is. -- The Anome -- The problem wasn't that sanity is the lack of insanity (which I've added). The problem was that the link incorrectly implied that sanity was synonymous with mental illness, which it is not. Sanity is not a medical term. It is a legal term. You can have extreme mental illness and still be considered quite sane.

Category
Why is the article in the Psychology and Mental health categories when the article itself says it's a legal term, not a medical one? PeepP 03:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed
" One can be acting under profound mental illness and yet be sane, and one can also be ruled insane without an underlying mental illness." someone needs to find a citation for this

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkaplan42 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120310091642/http://www.vault-co.com/index.php?p=826_consensual_validation to http://www.vault-co.com/index.php?p=826_consensual_validation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Alfred Korzybski
The Psychiatry and psychology section begins by quoting Korzybski and the Law section ends by quoting him. Isn't this a case of WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE? Autarch (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140518134726/http://saki.caltech.edu/biCNS217/PDFs/Anderson1999.pdf to http://saki.caltech.edu/biCNS217/PDFs/Anderson1999.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Chesterton
it's bizarre to have a quote from Chesterton in the leading paragraph. He is more of a comedian than a thinker, and his quip about sanity (no doubt in the service of a disingenuous critique of modern secular thought) is most likely not a serious part of the history of thought about this concept. Ineffabilliken (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Impossible to Prove?
In a similar vein to the above topic by Ineffabilliken, in which the writer used a very opinionated definition of sanity, there is a statement under the 'Law' section which reads: "It remains entirely impossible to prove sanity." Says who? Certainly not the courts who sometimes are tasked with proving the sanity of the accused.

While there may be a lot of debate, particularly in law, as to whether sanity is provable, the contrary statement that it is impossible to prove is decidedly more improvable. I would consider revising the statement to something like: "There is some disagreement as to whether or not it is possible to prove sanity." Quite possibly there's even a credible article to lend evidence to the claim that there is disagreement. There may even even be a court case in which a judge ruled that sanity couldn't be adequately defined for the purposes of convicting the accused.

At any rate, this article is, ironically, lacking in sanity. Knighthsilgne (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)