Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How 'bout if we replace the ambiguous word "sane' for "mentally healthy", which is easier to evaluate? That would also embrace a wider range of 'quirks' and 'eccentricities' that make us all different, without necessarily getting into stuff like "disorders", which I agree are seldom 'partial' conditions. IMO, the idea of "sanity" as some sort 'continuum' (from "nuts' to "not nuts") is kinda outmoded anyway, especially in light of modern research in neurobiology.
How about making each option about ten pages long and vetting it with a professional society, to cover most (but not all) of the possible nitpicking. The question is obviously for lay people in a casual forum.
Being someone that suffers from the fear of bridges and heights where it directly impacts me when driving, I rather just be sane and with out any of these PITA phobias.
Trust me when your logical and reasonable mind tells you there is nothing to worry about, but your body goes into a panic attack that you feel like you will literally die, That sucks!
How about making each option about ten pages long and vetting it with a professional society, to cover most (but not all) of the possible nitpicking. The question is obviously for lay people in a casual forum.
Well, you did post this in "Psychology" where we've had many, many threads involving mental health professionals, and discussing what is and is not accurate about the field of "psychology."
If you say "personality disorder" in this forum or the MH forum, you've got to expect that people will assume you mean actual personality disorders. Besides, lay people don't usually talk about "personality disorders"; they might talk about someone being "crazy" or "abnormal" or "quirky" or use general terms like anxiety or depression.
It may have been more useful for you to just post in 'non-romantic relationships" and ask whether people would prefer to be seen as "normal" or a little "quirky" and leave the whole psych thing out of it. But you post in psych, you're going to get psych-focused people giving psych answers.
Last edited by Tracysherm; 01-24-2014 at 03:33 PM..
Well, you did post this in "Psychology" where we've had many, many threads involving mental health professionals, and discussing what is and is not accurate about the field of "psychology."
But it is pretty obvious from the context that my question was directed not at mental health professionals, but to elicit the personal self-evaluations of the non-degreed spectators, who are included within the sweep of the sub-forum.
Well this world is pretty insane, I think people who are 'insane' might just be driven mad by it or conversely, actually be more sane than the rest of us. It's just people who label those who do not conform to this way of life as having a problem. I'd rather be as in tune with my reality, however 'insane' that makes me.
But it is pretty obvious from the context that my question was directed not at mental health professionals, but to elicit the personal self-evaluations of the non-degreed spectators, who are included within the sweep of the sub-forum.
But again, if that were the case, why mention something so specific as a "personality disorder"? It's like saying "would you rather be totally sane or have a somatoform disorder?" Like those are the only choices for the responders--totally sane or having a very specific disorder. Why not just say "would you rather be totally sane or slightly crazy" or "a little quirky"? You claim to want this to be a discussion for laypeople, but you used a very specific kind of mental health problem, which is never "mild" as your example.
Well this world is pretty insane, I think people who are 'insane' might just be driven mad by it or conversely, actually be more sane than the rest of us. It's just people who label those who do not conform to this way of life as having a problem. I'd rather be as in tune with my reality, however 'insane' that makes me.
Repped.
I think the interesting question in the spirit of the OP would relate to whether or not one would choose depressive realism or optimistic...delusion. Having (in very general terms) had a childhood characterized by the latter and around ten years worth of adulthood that've been dominated by the former, I'm not sure I wouldn't go back to happily oblivious childhood naivete/stupidity.
(I'm aware that some people are resistant to the notion of "depressive realism" even existing, but there is at least some experimental evidence that supports the existence of the phenomenon (which is to say, that [non-severely] depressed people see the world more clearly)).
Another related question that one could ask would be if one would want to be gifted creatively if it meant having to deal with manic depression.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,854 posts, read 10,408,996 times
Reputation: 6670
^ ^ compared to what; can you give an example of this "insane" behavior?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
