About insanity

Other chatter:

I’d I ever tell you the definition of insanity?

Insanity. Is. Doing the exact same fucking thing over and over again, expecting shit to change.

Me:

Well, I’ve seen working out people do that, not really insane people.

Insane people can usually be identified by reasoning with supernatural models without evidence for real life stuff.

So, for example Trump, when he makes anti-gay policies.

Other chatter:

I used a quote from some guy from far cry 3 (game) about the definition of insanity.

I’m not saying you’re insane, but it somewhat applies to you. You say you’ve joined a number of debate servers, ‘obliterated’ other debaters but kept on getting lower ranks and then got banned.

The important part is that if you repeat the action and get the same result, change the action.

Me:

Changing the action is not necessarily the correct reaction. If you grow up among cannibals, and repeatedly get criticized for being vegan, the right reaction isn’t to become a cannibal.

But you are right that I speak from experience about insanity, being schizophrenic for a long time, and a fairly deep case.

“Well, I’ve seen working out people do that, not really insane people.

Insane people can usually be identified by reasoning with supernatural models without evidence for real life stuff.

So, for example Trump, when he makes anti-gay policies.”

Should be correct…

ChatGPT

Your response has some strong points, but it also has areas that could be improved for clarity, logical consistency, and rhetorical effectiveness. Here’s a breakdown of what works well and what could be refined:

Strengths:

1. Challenging the “Insanity” Definition:
   • You rightly point out that repetition does not inherently indicate insanity, using an example (working out) that effectively challenges the broad claim.
2. Addressing Reasoning Patterns in Insanity:
   • Your attempt to define insanity as reasoning with supernatural models without evidence is an interesting take. It offers a concrete way to distinguish irrational belief systems from simple repetitive behavior.
3. Refuting the Argument Without Simply Conceding:
   • You push back against the suggestion to “just change the action” with a thought-provoking analogy (cannibals vs. vegans). This is a strong rhetorical move because it highlights that social consequences don’t necessarily determine correctness.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Logical Consistency on Insanity Definition:
   • Your definition of insanity (reasoning with supernatural models without evidence) is not universally accepted. Many mental illnesses involve distorted perceptions, emotional dysregulation, or thought disorders that don’t necessarily involve supernatural thinking. You may want to clarify that this is a specific symptom of certain kinds of delusions rather than a broad definition.
2. Bringing in Trump Weakens the Argument’s Precision:
   • While you may believe Trump’s anti-gay policies are irrational, calling them an example of insanity based on supernatural reasoning is a bit of a stretch unless you elaborate.
   • If your goal is to argue that irrational beliefs drive harmful policies, a more precise example or explanation would strengthen your point.
3. Revisiting the Debate Server Analogy:
   • Your counterargument about not conforming to the majority is solid, but it might be more compelling if you clarify the difference between adapting strategically and compromising values.
   • If the goal in a debate server is to win or avoid bans, then adapting might be a pragmatic move, whereas if the goal is to stick to the truth, then standing your ground makes sense.

Suggestions for Refinement:

• Instead of defining insanity strictly as supernatural reasoning, consider a more nuanced explanation like “insanity often involves persistent irrational beliefs despite overwhelming contradictory evidence.”
• If you keep the Trump example, provide more explanation on how supernatural reasoning led to the policy rather than assuming the connection is obvious.
• Strengthen your position by distinguishing between strategic adaptation (changing tactics) and moral compromise (giving up principles), which is the real issue in the debate server scenario.

Me:

“Your definition of insanity (reasoning with supernatural models without evidence) is not universally accepted. Many mental illnesses involve distorted perceptions, emotional dysregulation, or thought disorders that don’t necessarily involve supernatural thinking. You may want to clarify that this is a specific symptom of certain kinds of delusions rather than a broad definition.”

The whole issue of distorted perceptions is, regarding sanity, just that those lead to unrealistic reasoning models, whether you call those unrealistic reasoning models “supernatural” or not.

ChatGPT

That’s a fair point. Distorted perceptions—whether they involve supernatural elements or not—lead to unrealistic reasoning models, which can be a hallmark of insanity. If that’s the essence of your argument, you might refine your statement to emphasize that insanity often involves persistent reasoning models that fail to align with reality, despite evidence to the contrary.

That way, you’re not limiting insanity strictly to supernatural thinking but rather include all forms of detached-from-reality reasoning, whether they involve religion, conspiracy theories, delusions, or just persistent cognitive distortions.

If your goal is to make the distinction clearer, you could say something like:

“Insanity isn’t just about supernatural beliefs but about adhering to deeply flawed reasoning models that are demonstrably disconnected from reality, despite evidence to the contrary.”

Discuss this posting here:

https://discord.com/channels/1161844765168508958/1337121318520361041/1337121318520361041