sane in a insane world

[Master of Cards]

if you are reasonably sane (I use it loosly for some of you) and put into a insane world would would you be insane in a sane world or would sane in a insane world?

[Mobiboros]

if you are reasonably sane (I use it loosly for some of you) and put into a insane world would would you be insane in a sane world or would sane in a insane world?

As a psych major this is confusing as "Sane" and "Insane" are legal terms, not mental health ones. "Insane" is the legal term to reference people who are no longer legally responsible for their actions and are not really allowed out under their own custody.

[Master of Cards]

if you are reasonably sane (I use it loosly for some of you) and put into a insane world would would you be insane in a sane world or would sane in a insane world?

As a psych major this is confusing as "Sane" and "Insane" are legal terms, not mental health ones. "Insane" is the legal term to reference people who are no longer legally responsible for their actions and are not really allowed out under their own custody.

okay mentalily balanced=sane
Mentalily unbalanced= insane

[Surlethe]

By "insane world", I shall assume you mean a world where all other people are mentally unbalanced, rather than the laws of physics being fickle and science irrational, etc. In the former case, mental balance is independent of context, so yes: you would remain sane, if put into an insane world.

[Mobiboros]

okay
mentalily balanced=sane
Mentalily unbalanced= insane

Then I'd need some background.

Is this imbalance (when compared to us) the normal biological state there? If so then it's not imbalanced, it's the norm. And if it's the normal state, then we, as the once who are imbalanced from the norm, would be the deviant.

If, however, they are normally like us and this imbalance occurs later in life (maybe due to some localized environmental agent) and isn't really the normal state then they would be imbalance. And it could just be classified as a widespread disease of some sort.

[BloodAngel]

Hmm, good question. If I were to be suddenly placed into a wacky world, such as the Slayers-verse for instance, then I guess I would be pretty shell-shocked at first, because of all the unreal and nonsensical things happening. However, in the Slayers-verse, what we who live in the real universe would consider "WTF?" would be considered "normal" by its (Slayers-verse) inhabitants, so eventually as time passes I would come to accept the new "insane" reality as a "sane" reality, provided I am stuck there for long enough...

...In short, "sane" is in the eye of the beholder.

[The Prime Necromancer]

I'm going to assume the same thing as Surlethe, that you mean that the physical laws of this new world are stable and rational, and that the incongruity is wholly in the mind of its people. In other words, we haven't been thrown down the rabbit hole or through the looking-glass.

In which case, Surlethe is indeed right when he says that they are still the insane ones. The world is a measurable, objective place. Just because the majority of people think the Emperor is wearing clothes doesn't mean he's any less naked in truth. To claim otherwise is an "Appeal to Popularity" fallacy.

Hell, here's an analogy that might resonate: the majority of the people on *this* planet are "believers" who have faith that certain unprovable (or in a disturbingly large number of cases, disproven and/or impossible) metaphysical events or beings happened or exist. If you're going to argue that because of this majority opinion it means that the skeptics and atheists are the ones who are mentally ill, I wish you the best of luck with that. Because you're not going to get very far with it around here.

Is this imbalance (when compared to us) the normal biological state there? If so then it's not imbalanced, it's the norm. And if it's the normal state, then we, as the once who are imbalanced from the norm, would be the deviant.

We'd be "deviant", yes, in the sense that our interpretation of the world is not the majority view. But it would still be the correct interpretation. There's a lot of difference between "not normal" and "mentally ill". Sometimes normality is *wrong*.

[Mobiboros]

We'd be "deviant", yes, in the sense that our interpretation of the world is not the majority view. But it would still be the correct interpretation. There's a lot of difference between "not normal" and "mentally ill". Sometimes normality is *wrong*.

Ahhh, the rest of that paragraph has a bearing on the part you quoted. I noted that if they were not imbalanced, that they state they existed in was the state they were biologically supossed to be in then we would be the one who was imbalanced and mentally ill as we'd be the one who didn't fit into the normal scope of brain functioning.

[Winston Blake]

I think there would be two ways of having 'an insane world'. First you've got everybody being psychotic, with unique delusions and hallucinations (perhaps from widespread brain damaging neurotoxins). In that case, from everybody's point of view, everyone except for themselves is irrational, including you. Perhaps in that sense you could be considered 'normal' or 'sane' in that everyone is insane to an equal degree.

However, if you were thrust into a world made up of people with exactly the same delusions, exhibiting identical irrationalities and experiencing the same hallucinations (e.g. holy apparitions in a FundieWorld[tm]), then your beliefs would be contradict what they all think of as Universal Logic and common sense. The law would declare you insane and lock you up, or worse (a la The Inquisitions).

I think everybody has had thoughts along these lines at some point, probably stemming from the idea 'If crazy people think they're not crazy but everyone else is, then what if everyone was crazy except me?'

[Darth Raptor]

This is a very bizarre hypothetical, if only because I'm not entirely sure what it's saying. Although, MoC doesn't have the best grasp of language.

If the "insanity" exhibited by the people of this new world is maladaptive, how is there a civilization at all? This insanity would have to be a relatively recent development or humanity would be a vastly different creature (or rendered extinct in ages past) than what we're familiar with. Since it's a recent development there would have to be some sort of external cause. Ergo, they're the crazy ones.

[The Prime Necromancer]

Ahhh, the rest of that paragraph has a bearing on the part you quoted. I noted that if they were not imbalanced, that they state they existed in was the state they were biologically supossed to be in then we would be the one who was imbalanced and mentally ill as we'd be the one who didn't fit into the normal scope of brain functioning.

I did read your paragraph, but I disagreed with its conclusion.

Allow me to clarify how I'm interpreting the scenario:

While you're right that insane is a legal definition, it *does* have certain medical implications. Just any mental illness will not get you declared insane; clinical depression, even antisocial personality disorder isn't enough (evidenced by the fact that few if any serial killers have managed to succeed in the insanity plea). That's because those disorders don't involve being unable to correctly perceive or interpret reality and the consequences of one's actions.

So if this were a world where the natural mental state of humanity is depression or sociopathy (although how a society of sociopaths could form is difficult to understand and frightening to contemplate), then they wouldn't be mentally ill, and people *of that world* who deviated from that norm would be (although we, being of this world where biology is thankfully different wouldn't be mentally ill either if thrust into this world, though they might perceive us as such; we'd be following our nature and they would be following theirs, so noone would be ill, just different). However, a person from such a world would not get declared insane *here* either, just mentally ill according to our standards.

I'm assuming these people are collectively suffering from a psychotic or delusional disorder, like schizophrenia. They're seeing or hearing things that aren't really there, have a tenuous grasp on reality, and/or are unaware of their surroundings (of course, Darth Raptor points out that such a society couldn't form, so maybe that's why you assumed differently). Since reality is objective, even if their entire society is seeing or hearing things, and it is biologically normal for them, their delusions are still not real and they are still insane.

Of course, if all their delusions are exactly the same, and totally all-encompasing, then it would be impossible to prove that to them. Like proving to a person in the Matrix that what their experiencing is just a big computer simulation. But I didn't see anything in the OP indicating that they all experience the exact same skewed view of reality, just that they're all insane.

[Zero]

If you're sane in an insane world, you ought to consider the strong possibility that you're simply completely disconnected from reality. These people have survived in their world. They obviously have knowledge enough about the world to live. If all of their perceptions were wrong, they wouldn't likely survive very long.

You being psychotic and having a complete disconnect with reality is much more likely then everyone else in the world being insane.