We are all InSaNe

Thanks for the response Wierdman. Unfortunately, I'm not going to respond to anything you posted in the comments section. I don't think it's fair to post arguments in comments, whether it's to avoid the character limit or the time limit. Feel free to post these arguments next round. ==Rebuttal== {{{ Definitions }}} Wierdman claims sanity is being "free of societal hindrances." I'm not sure what he means by this. People who don't wear clothes and don't obey critical social norms are generally classified as *insane,* not sane. He claims we can understand sanity as an abstract concept. I challenge him to give one example of a situation in which every human acts insanely, yet we know the sane thing to do. By definition, if we know which actions are "sane," it's because we know which actions are *rational.* If we can use our rationality in any given situation, then we are *not* insane because our frontal cortex can override the baser and more illogical urges of our lizard brains. His argument about the computer proves my point: we have a rational mind, just like wierdman's computer. Currently, we define insanity as the inability of the rational mind to function properly. If we define insanity as "having a subconscious mind that we don't have complete control over," then yes, we are all technically insane, but the word insane - in this illogical context - merely describes possessing other parts of the brain besides the frontal cortex. If we allow this strange definition of insane, then the word loses all meaning, and we would have no way to describe people whose frontal cortexes aren't working properly. Thus, weirdman fails to show how we can all be insane, given that the word loses *all* meaning if it merely describes "having a subconscious mind." {{{ Lying to yourself }}} Wierdman says we should stop lying to ourselves if we fail a test and just work harder. When we tell ourselves that our failings were exogenous, we tend to work harder because it seems like we control our own fate. If we think: "that test was hard," "the teacher didn't teach us this," or "I blew off studying, so ... whatever," then it seems like the outcome is in our control. We can remedy the situation by studying harder and studying the textbook rather than the lectures. This is called having a growth mindset. In contrast, people who have extremely low self-esteem have a fixed mindset. They think "I'm stupid, that's why I failed the test." If you're stupid, that's an intrinsic characteristic that you cannot change. Fixed mindset people tend to struggle in life because they blame all their failings on themselves. This isn't good or rational. Exogenous factors do play a role and no one is "stupid"; the brain has an incredible ability to better itself, with hard work. So I don't see how any of this proves we are all insane because 1) it shows that people have very different reactions to failing a test, so I don't understand how wierdman proves anything categorically ("we are ALL insane") and 2) the reaction I described to failing a test is perfectly rational and sane. {{{ Caveman example }}} Wierdman says this proves the brain lies to us. If the caveman looked in the water, he should be able to tell he's ugly. However, beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. As children, before society reacts to our looks, we have no idea how good-looking we are. In addition, societal standards of beauty change over time (e.g. "fat" being beautiful during the Elizabethan era). The reason "hot or not" was invented was so that people could get fair, objective ratings for their looks. Thus, since we are social creatures, it isn't irrational that we don't know our social value without getting feedback from society. It is social value that affects attracting a mate far more than looks, although looks play a factor in social value (in females more than in males). This doesn't prove wierdman's point. It proves my point: there's an evolutionary reason for our subconscious mind to help us calibrate our self-worth and social standing. {{{ Sometimes }}} Wierdman talks a lot in this round about how we are sometimes fully rational and sometimes irrational. This proves that most of us are sane, since insanity is "the state of being mentally unstable or having your mental faculties lie to you." This means an insane person *never* has moments of clarity or normal functioning. A psychopath *never* experiences a normal range of human emotions. A schizophrenic can *never* distinguish fantasy from reality with absolute certainty. If we are sometimes rational, then we have the capability of rationality. When we act irrationally, we are *ignoring* our rationality. There's a big difference between getting advice from your rational brain and ignoring it *versus* lacking a rational brain entirely. {{{ Emotion }}} If most emotional changes are precipitated by outside events, then it's not irrational to be sad when something sad happens to you. In fact, only sociopaths display atypical responses to events. Very few people let their emotions override their rational brain; if everyone did, then we'd all commit suicide the first time we became sad. But we don't. Only a few people do. {{{ Pondering the future }}} Our imagination and ability to plan for the future are key evolutionary traits. They hardly render us insane. If you have a flight tomorrow, it makes sense to back your bag the night before. Only sociopaths have an inability to plan for the future.