Rate your sanity

[Reluctantly]

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 3 is the middle, and increments are in .5:

1 - completely sane. You have little to no anxiety in your life and rarely, if ever, feel insecure about yourself. Any anxiety you do feel is always positive.

2 - somewhat sane. Occasionally, anxiety will surface for whatever reason, causing an uncomfortable feeling of existential insecurity.

3 - neither sane, nor insane. Dissociate from emotions to get rid of anxiety and insecurity. Relationships with people lack genuine warmth, except for those who are very close.

4 - somewhat insane. Anxiety comes from feeling tormented by the world. Attempts to dissociate painful emotions do not always work as they are triggered by circumstances out of cognitive control. Might have been diagnosed with bipolar, borderline, PTSD, or some anxiety disorder at some point.

5 - completely insane. You feel like you have almost no control over your emotions or your mental states. Most likely have some form of multiple personalities, schizophrenia, or psychosis that you have to manage.



I'm 3.5
I hope this isn't too personal. I'm just curious. I'm being honest, at least, to start.

 

[Fukyo]

Probably 4.

 

[Niclmaki]

1.

But I hold the belief that a lot of people are 4.5ish, but just don't realize how easy they could be insane.

Although, this might just be proof that I'm a 5.

 

[DrSketchpad]

2.86
Couldn't rate myself as a 1, and unless its just the insanity talking, I don't think I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm a 4 or 5.

 

[pjoa09]

4.5 unfortunately

I change my personality and desires at times unknowingly. I have a lot of nervy habits.

 

[Etheri]

2.5 to 3.5 depending on stressors. Can find myself in 2, 3 and 4, but 2 and 4 more so on occasion than as a permanent state.

 

[koan]

Why are we assuming anxiety is an indicator of sanity?

If a sane person observes disturbing behaviour amongst cohabitants would it not produce sane anxiety if no one else thought it was disturbing? Just as an example.

I consider myself fairly sane and I experience anxiety as a result. I've asked therapists if I'm sane and gotten the answer "you'll do well in any form of psychology you choose." They did not commit me at the time so I assume they meant as a professional choice. Those therapists made me anxious. I expected informed and conclusive answers.

 

[Reluctantly]

Why are we assuming anxiety is an indicator of sanity?

Cause it can be, depending on how you look at things. And I wanted to go with anxiety for this because it seems to be something instinctively understood by a person. There's less room for ambiguity and more chance to realize or find something meaningful.

If a sane person observes disturbing behaviour amongst cohabitants would it not produce sane anxiety if no one else thought it was disturbing? Just as an example.

Well, if it produces anxiety that causes some kind of negative reaction, then I'm not sure I'd call that sane. It's a form of suffering. I guess someone could have positive anxiety and still be insane. But then the line between sane and insane becomes completely blurred and one has to wonder that if insanity does not have negative personal drawbacks, then who is to say it is truly insane?

I consider myself fairly sane and I experience anxiety as a result. I've asked therapists if I'm sane and gotten the answer "you'll do well in any form of psychology you choose." They did not commit me at the time so I assume they meant as a professional choice. Those therapists made me anxious. I expected informed and conclusive answers.

I'm just using sanity to relate affective control with anxiety.
In other words, the more control someone feels they have over their mind gives them more sanity points; and the less control someone feels they have over their mind gives them more insanity points.
Anxiety is just used here to relate control with sanity, as there needs to be something to provoke a personal understanding of control to create a personal rating of sanity.

 

[Reluctantly]

4.5 unfortunately

I change my personality and desires at times unknowingly. I have a lot of nervy habits.

I didn't want to say anything because I didn't want to accidentally seem like an ass, but damn, I was kind of expecting no one would be higher than 4. 5 is bad, man, bad.

 

[koan]

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
~Krishnamurti

I realise your discussion requires a measure. I'm just not sure what that measure should be to reflect mental health.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm just using sanity to relate affective control with anxiety.
In other words, the more control someone feels they have over their mind gives them more sanity points; and the less control someone feels they have over their mind gives them more insanity points.
Anxiety is just used here to relate control with sanity, as there needs to be something to provoke a personal understanding of control to create a personal rating of sanity.

Anxiety is an indication of weakness, humanity. I would be more curious of those that seem overly controlled, with no indication at all of anxiety, than those with general anxiety. Surely those at either extremes, between highly anxious and highly controlled, are more likely the insane.

Spoiler

 

[redbaron]

1. I'm pretty self-assured and happy with my life. I enjoy the high pressure and responsibility of my work, I can't think of a situation I was anxious about in the last 2-3 years.

5 years ago I'd have considered myself around 2-2.5.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
~Krishnamurti

Being well adjusted and being anxious are not mutually exclusive. While I respect Krishnamurti and his works, you are interpreting this in the wrong way (meaning that in the context of this thread it isn't relevant, you are free to interpret it however you wish).

Not to mention, Krishnamurti himself was pretty well adjusted. Probably more so than the average person in fact.

There are people who don't fit into societal norms at all and who wouldn't be considered well adjusted to society at all, who are sane, and they don't suffer anxiety over their difference. This question isn't about how well adjusted you are to society, but how you experience and deal with anxiety. It may be true in some cases, but they do not necessarily share a causal relationship, it is correlative at best.

 

[pjoa09]

I didn't want to say anything because I didn't want to accidentally seem like an ass, but damn, I was kind of expecting no one would be higher than 4. 5 is bad, man, bad.

I know straight 5s

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

4 sounds the most like me, give or take.

 

[Reluctantly]

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
~Krishnamurti

I realise your discussion requires a measure. I'm just not sure what that measure should be to reflect mental health.

The measure is a personal one though. Anxiety is used here to be general to that measure. In other words, you know yourself more than someone who is going to generalize the truth about you into some category or disorder; it is your personal feeling of well-being here that defines a personal measure of sanity.

Now if we externalize it, so that others have a say in whether or not you or someone else is sane/insane, then it becomes a philosophical problem, sure; and we can then debate this to death looking at different perspectives, only to realize there is no easy answer, but many valid viewpoints, often contradictory.

Anxiety is an indication of weakness, humanity. I would be more curious of those that seem overly controlled, with no indication at all of anxiety, than those with general anxiety. Surely those at either extremes, between highly anxious and highly controlled, are more likely the insane.

Spoiler

Well, again, this is about rating 'yourself'. If you were very in control and only felt anxiety that was positive and helped you keep that aim, would you consider yourself insane? I bet you'd be pretty happy; maybe you'd have a large ego and be kind of an asshole to some (sometimes you can't please everyone), but to yourself, you'd be very fulfilled, maybe even self-actualized.

 

[nanook]

1.

But I hold the belief that a lot of people are 4.5ish, but just don't realize how easy they could be insane.

Although, this might just be proof that I'm a 5.

more like 8. enneagram 8. the type that would be most oblivious to his own fears. all enneagram 8 are therefore perfect examples of sanity.

ah, so many thoughts, this thread is already getting boring, let's have a war, conquer the heathen or something.

@koan: my favourite quote. (krishnamurti)

 

[snafupants]

Perhaps 1.5 or thereabouts. Sometimes I'll have too much coffee or wonder where life is going. I think I repress many unpleasant emotions, so when those inevitably come up I'm ill-equipped to fully navigate that terrain.

This likert-type scale reminds me of the neuroticism dimension of the Big 5/OCEAN. It's also interesting to note that neuroticism has been found to negatively correlate with extraversion, which is also measured on the OCEAN.

Perhaps the more introverted INTPs, therefore, express high anxiety or neuroticism in this thread. I wonder if there's a correlation between time spent online and neuroticism. If so, I would imagine that the correlation would go both ways, cause and effect.

Spoiler

Sample neuroticism items

I am easily disturbed.
I change my mood a lot.
I get irritated easily.
I get stressed out easily.
I get upset easily.
I have frequent mood swings.
I often feel blue.
I worry about things.
I am relaxed most of the time. (reversed)
I seldom feel blue. (reversed)

 

[Reluctantly]

ah, so many thoughts, this thread is already getting boring, let's have a war, conquer the heathen or something.

Okay, if you want to be stupid and miss the point of the thread entirely, I'm not going to be dumb enough to try and stop you in that case. Go ahead. I just thought this would be interesting or fun.



@EyeSeeCold

I didn't see the Patrick Bateman picture, but you think he's a 1? I remember reading that his character has some form of depersonalization that causes him all that anxiety and creates his dissociations from reality, to the point that he thinks he's killing people when he's not. From my point of view, he's a 5. That's funny, so should we then say 5s could think they are 1s, as some people have already suggested?

 

[LarsMac]

In my world, the average human seems to be somewhere between 3.5 and 4.5 on this scale.
I am probably a solid 4.

The ones who I find worrisome in the world are those that would rank themselves at 1.

 

[Vladimir]

"You have little to no anxiety in your life and rarely, if ever, feel insecure about yourself. Any anxiety you do feel is always positive."
This should be 5. This scale is reversed.


Don't get the scale

 

[snafupants]

I didn't see the Patrick Bateman picture, but you think he's a 1? I remember reading that his character has some form of depersonalization that causes him all that anxiety and creates his dissociations from reality, to the point that he thinks he's killing people when he's not. From my point of view, he's a 5. That's funny, so should we then say 5s could think they are 1s, as some people have already suggested?

Narcissists actually have low self-esteem, which they mask as supreme confidence. People give you a persona and you need to infer from that.

Too much of some trait is sometimes overcompensation.

That Bateman example is interesting. I guess it depends on whether state or trait anxiety is being discussed, or how sublimated the anxiety is.

Also, some Enneagram types, like type sevens or nines, have more anxiety than meets the eye.

 

[snafupants]

"You have little to no anxiety in your life and rarely, if ever, feel insecure about yourself. Any anxiety you do feel is always positive."
This should be 5. This scale is reversed.


Don't get the scale

Does it matter whether one is five or five is one?!

It's an odd numbered de facto likert scale, so it shouldn't matter a great deal.

 

[nanook]

you were missing my point, reluctantly, because i wasn't even replying to your thread, so i wasn't missing it's point either. you have to aim, in order to miss. i was replying to niclmakis thought about the possibility of being confused about what is what, and for the sake of being entertaining, i added a caricature-impersonation of the attitude of the selfproclaimed fearless (which you quoted)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Well, again, this is about rating 'yourself'. If you were very in control and only felt anxiety that was positive and helped you keep that aim, would you consider yourself insane? I bet you'd be pretty happy; maybe you'd have a large ego and be kind of an asshole to some (sometimes you can't please everyone), but to yourself, you'd be very fulfilled, maybe even self-actualized.

Alright I understand now, though it seems like you're allowing self-delusion. Are you trying to study how frequently people think positively/negatively of themselves?

@EyeSeeCold

I didn't see the Patrick Bateman picture, but you think he's a 1? I remember reading that his character has some form of depersonalization that causes him all that anxiety and creates his dissociations from reality, to the point that he thinks he's killing people when he's not. From my point of view, he's a 5. That's funny, so should we then say 5s could think they are 1s, as some people have already suggested?

Comes off like a 1, internally chaotic like a 5. This is the point I was trying to make before. Too much control is essentially the same as having none, both could produce insanity.

 

[snafupants]

Alright I understand now, though it seems like you're allowing self-delusion. Are you trying to study how frequently people think positively/negatively of themselves?
Comes off like a 1, internally chaotic like a 5. This is the point I was trying to make before. Too much control is essentially the same as having none, both could produce insanity.

Perhaps neuroticism, rather than insanity, is an apter description of the construct under study?

 

[nanook]

the perspective of this scale/model is obviously too partial and bound to create fallacies. i believe this was already pointed out, in rudimentary ways.

you can't measure fear, because it can be an unconscious reference, as such it won't even manifest physically, as fear.

the conqueror type is indeed consciously fearless, he isn't just lying about it, he is physically not experiencing fear (only muscular tensions preventing the occurrence of fear), but uses fear (perhaps unknowingly) as reference within his logic, worldview, personality, in order to stay away from a state of fear by maintaining aggression in judgement and instinctive superficiality in perception. (similarly some other types have their own strategies in avoiding fear)

this is often considered to be a health standard among extraverts, but it's actually just one specific ability of mental control, that says nothing about the overall state of the psyche. a type (strategy) is not sanity.

and you can not measure such a motivational reference, not with the model of this thread.

to be fearless in the manner of the conqueror requires a robust state of mind, a strong ego, as opposed to the weak borderline (psychotic) ego which is permeated by it's subconscious, which is the "5" within the model of this thread. so patric batement has not succeded within his own type strategy.


the enlightened one, the true example of sanity, does not use fear as motivational reference, he uses love, and his being is relaxed, not tense.

but to the lense of this model, he is no different from the conqueror. they are likely to have similarly strong mental stability, when in reality they are opposites on the scale that matters here:

for the scale of sanity must be a horizontal scale, ranging from integration of the soul to a disintegration of it, while this model's scale is, if anything (though its mostly ambiguous), about the vertical range of ego development, ranging from tribal consciousness (borderline, 1) over rational consciousness (neuroticism) to sensitive consciousness (happy hippie self actualisation, 5) (while being in favor of the extroverted types interpretation of these stages)

but ego development will equally unfold through any degree of insanity (disintegration of soul) or enlightenment (undividedness).

unlike bateman, darth vader, i consider him insane, isn't limited to a borderline level of self control, he is easily developed up to and beyond this scale. (6, integral)

also, anyone who explores the topic of insanity should understand, that mental health is a transpersonal phenomenon. there is no separate self. another reason, why sanity (integration of soul) and vertical structural qualities need to be separated: structures are in deed partially separate (you can physically transport them from one social context, to another one), though different substructures will be triggered through environment. but the degree of integration of soul isn't a separate(/locatable to you) factor. your soul is disintegrated by others, as much as by your self, it's not the deed of a single intentional center, but necessarily follows a common ground comprehension. also, your soul IS in part your environment, at the time. it's not something that can be integrated or disintegrated once, rather there is an ability to be open or closed to your context, which is relative to that context. you can be sane in one context, and go insane in another one.

 

[nanook]

if i were to subject myself to a broke scale, i would be "insane", like my un-thinking NiFe friend, who willingly subjects herself to psychiatrists, to their medications and their false perceptions/expectations of her, thereby creating for them the helplessly dependent sub-personality, which those psychiatrist consider to be evidence of her borderline "pathology". it's a transpersonal game. her tribal need for inclusion into society is fulfilled (a need which is inherent to her structural nature (not pathology) - and she doesn't have a family), in return she fulfills the fantasies of superiority of the rational and severely satanic psychiatrists. take away narcissistic neurotics, who are stuck in parental attitude and she won't be stuck in child attitude. if i don't subject myself to their broken scales, i am considered to be schizoid, uninvolved, avoidant.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Perhaps neuroticism, rather than insanity, is an apter description of the construct under study?

Yeah I guess, insanity is reserved for special cases. Neurotic seems more appropriate.

 

[Solitaire U.]

1. Actually I'm pretty over-sane. More like a 0.5.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Honestly, I fluctuate back and forth between 1 and 5. It's not like my life is a static 3.

 

[nexion]

3-4.

 

[Polaris]

the perspective of this scale/model is obviously too partial and bound to create fallacies. i believe this was already pointed out, in rudimentary ways.

you can't measure fear, because it can be an unconscious reference, as such it won't even manifest physically, as fear.

the conqueror type is indeed consciously fearless, he isn't just lying about it, he is physically not experiencing fear (only muscular tensions preventing the occurrence of fear), but uses fear (perhaps unknowingly) as reference within his logic, worldview, personality, in order to stay away from a state of fear by maintaining aggression in judgement and instinctive superficiality in perception. (similarly some other types have their own strategies in avoiding fear)

this is often considered to be a health standard among extraverts, but it's actually just one specific ability of mental control, that says nothing about the overall state of the psyche. a type (strategy) is not sanity.

and you can not measure such a motivational reference, not with the model of this thread.

to be fearless in the manner of the conqueror requires a robust state of mind, a strong ego, as opposed to the weak borderline (psychotic) ego which is permeated by it's subconscious, which is the "5" within the model of this thread. so patric batement has not succeded within his own type strategy.


the enlightened one, the true example of sanity, does not use fear as motivational reference, he uses love, and his being is relaxed, not tense.

but to the lense of this model, he is no different from the conqueror. they are likely to have similarly strong mental stability, when in reality they are opposites on the scale that matters here:

for the scale of sanity must be a horizontal scale, ranging from integration of the soul to a disintegration of it, while this model's scale is, if anything (though its mostly ambiguous), about the vertical range of ego development, ranging from tribal consciousness (borderline, 1) over rational consciousness (neuroticism) to sensitive consciousness (happy hippie self actualisation, 5) (while being in favor of the extroverted types interpretation of these stages)

but ego development will equally unfold through any degree of insanity (disintegration of soul) or enlightenment (undividedness).

unlike bateman, darth vader, i consider him insane, isn't limited to a borderline level of self control, he is easily developed up to and beyond this scale. (6, integral)

also, anyone who explores the topic of insanity should understand, that mental health is a transpersonal phenomenon. there is no separate self. another reason, why sanity (integration of soul) and vertical structural qualities need to be separated: structures are in deed partially separate (you can physically transport them from one social context, to another one), though different substructures will be triggered through environment. but the degree of integration of soul isn't a separate(/locatable to you) factor. your soul is disintegrated by others, as much as by your self, it's not the deed of a single intentional center, but necessarily follows a common ground comprehension. also, your soul IS in part your environment, at the time. it's not something that can be integrated or disintegrated once, rather there is an ability to be open or closed to your context, which is relative to that context. you can be sane in one context, and go insane in another one.

Excellent post nanook.

 

[INeedToPee]

insanity=/=anxiety. lack of any anxiety could be a form of insanity, i think.
but on your scale, i'd say 3 overall

 

[Reluctantly]

you were missing my point, reluctantly, because i wasn't even replying to your thread, so i wasn't missing it's point either. you have to aim, in order to miss. i was replying to niclmakis thought about the possibility of being confused about what is what, and for the sake of being entertaining, i added a caricature-impersonation of the attitude of the selfproclaimed fearless (which you quoted)

Oh, my bad. Ugh, sometimes I hate forums because it's not always clear what people mean when in person it's usually pretty clear who someone is talking to and what they mean by how they say something.

Perhaps neuroticism, rather than insanity, is an apter description of the construct under study?

Yeah, I guess it is. But that word 'neurotic' sounds pretty negative. Anxiety, to me, is more neutral because it can be positive and it can be controlled. It's like the difference between running an engine in neutral (anxiety) versus driving it in gear (a positive reaction) versus stalling when put in or changing a gear (neurotic) versus turning the engine off (no anxiety).

To put that into perspective with the thread:
1 (controlled positive anxiety) - engine is generally off, but when it is turned on, it gets put in gear and doesn't stall.
2 (controlled negative and positive anxiety) - Same as 1, except if the engine is sitting in neutral for awhile and then put in gear, it stalls. It's predictable.
3 (anxiety avoidance) - engine is kept from being turned on, so it will not have to stall.
4 (uncontrolled negative and positive anxiety) - engine is turned off and on sporadically, sometimes stalling and sometimes not. It's unpredictable.
5 (uncontrolled negative anxiety) - engine is turned off and on sporadically and almost always stalls when turned on. It's unpredictable.

The way I see it, 4 and 5 probably relate to neurotic, but 1 and 2 wouldn't have to be, at least from what I was thinking originally.

I don't know, does this seem stupid now? You guys can change it if you want to what you prefer or think is best, I just don't really want to argue about definitions. Well whatever, I was bored. If anything, it gives people something to argue about.

 

[Vrecknidj]

1.5

 

[koan]

I apologize for disturbing the thread with minutiae. I was given anxiety/panic attacks by medication given to me by purportedly sane physicians for a non medical issue. The terms of the question have a greater significance to me than the average person.

 

[A22]

Lately, 4. Working my way not to get up to 5.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

16500
--------
9000

 

[redbaron]

Well, again, this is about rating 'yourself'. If you were very in control and only felt anxiety that was positive and helped you keep that aim, would you consider yourself insane? I bet you'd be pretty happy; maybe you'd have a large ego and be kind of an asshole to some (sometimes you can't please everyone), but to yourself, you'd be very fulfilled, maybe even self-actualized.

Describes me pretty well.

I'm considered a pretty big asshole by some, but only by the type of people who I don't really care if they think I'm an asshole. The people who express issue with me are the lowest common denominators when it comes to productivity in the workplace.

I really have no time for people who produce sub-par results day in, day out and quite frankly, the fact that the people who complain are collectively stupid, unproductive and produce shitty results does nothing to cause me concern.

When people who are productive and get good results start complaining about me, I'll start caring.

Same goes for every day life as well. I really don't care much about people who think I'm an asshole. The people close to me know otherwise how much I'm willing to do and I've done things more generous in my life than probably all of their charitable efforts combined.