From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Sanity Certification
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:20:21 GMT

In article <69944@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>It seems to me that it is possible to create a first-level screening
>test for insanity, e.g. combining elements from the MMPI, Rorschach,
>Stanford-Binet, electroencephalogram, etc.

Not the case, for several reasons.

1) Several of these tests do not measure anything to do with mental 
illness in general -- for instance the Stanford-Binet, which is
an intelligence test.  

2) As others have pointed out, it's hard to define "insanity."  There
are many different mental illnesses, and no test -- or set of tests --
can be applicable to all of them.

3) Most of these tests, insofar as they correlate with this or that
mental illness, do not do so very precisely.  That is, a person you
might consider perfectly sane could very well have exactly the same 
test result as one whom you and I would consider a raving lunatic based
on other information.

4) Some of these tests are difficult to interpret, and their validity
is in any case highly questionable.  The Rorschach is such a test; at
best it is suggestive of certain aspects of personality.

>What use would such a test have?  It seems obvious that certain
>professions have a special need to avoid employing insane people.

That's true.  Is this a problem in these professions?  Do these professions
(and those who depend on them) suffer from substantial numbers of 
insane people doing things they oughtn't to be doing?  I'd like
some examples.

>Psychiatrists, for one.  Certainly you wouldn't want insane people
>to be treating other people for their mental problems.

Why not?  This depends on your idea of what "insanity" means.  For
example, homosexuality used to be considered a kind of insanity.  Yet
even then, one of the great American psychoanalysts -- HArry Stack Sullivan --
was gay.  Did this ever hurt a single one of his patients?  We have no
evidence that it did.  

Now, what else shouldn't a psychiatrist be?  Depressive? Neurotic?  
If we make an artificial standard othe rthan the ability to do one's
job (and remember: psychiatrists have to make it through medical 
school, national examinations, residencies, fellowships, board
certification, etc. already -- how many "insane" people will be 
able to do all that?) we risk getting rid of many of the most competent
people.

>By making this a government-administered suite of tests, we establish
>a baseline standard for normal minds.  

We would be doing no such thing.  We sould be *starting* with an
artificially constructed notion of "normality," one that has no
direct bearing on the matters in question: professional competence.

It would also invalidate many of the tests.  These tests are meant
to be given in absolute confidentiality, and usually to be  taken
voluntarily.  If you're *forced* to take a Rorschach, will your answers
be the same?

>By creating a standard we accomplish
>two important goals:  a)  establish an initial screening test for
>minimizing the damage done to the public by exposure to insane minds,

Is this an important goal?  What damage is done by "insane minds" that
could be prevented by such screening?  I know of no evidence that the
tests you mention, or any superset of them, has substantial predictive
value in determining future damaging behavior by people who have otherwise
qualified for a given job.

>and b) provide assurance to those who doubt their sanity that they are indeed
>sane.

"Prove that you're sane," eh?  That's impossible, nor does "passing" any
number of tests mean anything like that.  I don't think you're very
familiar with the tests you're talking about. 

We don't define "sanity" as "passing certain tests" anyway.  We define it
by behavior, or by the absence of certain behaviors.  Who needs the 
tests when one need only observe behavior?  

And, of course, that's how screening for important jobs is done anyway.
You give the person in question some training and some less important
jobs, and observe them and see how they do.  That's *far* more reliable than
any battery of tests.

>California has a process by which the public may force a law into
>existence by public vote, completely bypassing the legislative process.
>This seems to me the ideal method to enact the first sanity certification
>laws.  

It seems like a disastrous step to me.  Who will decide what tests 
are used?  Who is competent to understand what the tests *do* measure,
and how good they are?  Who will determine what professions are to be
tested?

You kow, even some of the inventors of these tests had terrible miscon-
ceptions about their value.  Plebiscites are not a good way to determine
scientific matters.         

>As a first step, we could apply them to the most vulnerable
>populations, i.e. government employees.  

Vulnerable to what?  Insanity?  I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Or vulnerable to electoral whim?  

>Teachers and cops seem like the most obvious initial targets.  

They usually are.  Targets of prejudice, among other things.

>After all, you certainly wouldn't want
>your children to be taught by an insane teacher or yourself to be
>pulled over by an insane traffic cop, would you?

Well?  How many insane cops *are* there?  Insane teachers? Doesn't 
the supervision system (cops have sergeants and lieutenants who
evaluate them; teachers start as students, get certified, and 
continue to be supervised by principals) do its job?  

Now, suppose you were a cop with  perfect record whose test showed
some "insanity."  What would you do?  How could you prove yourself
sane? 

>Once people got used to the idea of sanity certification as a public
>safety measure, 

"Sanity certification," as I havbe pointed out, is nonsense.  No test
has nearly enough predictive value to make such a claim.

>the obvious extension would be to apply it to elected
>public officials.  

You know, I resent this.  Are you telling me I'm not capable to
choose the pople who represent me?  

Also, insanity isn't the problem with elected officials around here,
though I can't comment on your area.  Bribery, pork-barrel politics,
etc. are far more of a problem, and those are the actions of 
very, very sane people.

>This would have an enormous effect on the evolution
>of politics in this state.  

Indeed.  It would be the end of democracy as we know it.  Absolute
power -- which corrupts absolutely -- would be vested in the 
commission that decides fitness to serve.  Who would control that 
commission?

>I predict it would close the loop, creating
>a self-reinforcing feedback toward higher sanity levels.  I.e., a sane

Why?  It would merely take power out of the hands of the people and
place it in the hands of some people doing pseudo-science.  It would
not make the public officials who "Failed" go away -- it would merely
lead them to take other jobs.  

>government would have an interest in raising the sanity standards, to
>further exclude insane people from being elected to office.

Thus tyrranizing the population in the interest of maintaining a solution to
something you haven't even demonstrated is a problem.

>This would lead to a new society, one in which sanity is celebrated
>as a good thing.  

I'm afraid not.  It's been tried.  See below.

>Unlike our present system -- which celebrates
>insanity under euphemisms like "cultural diversity" -- 

Ah, there we go.  The *right* test would keep all those people with
funny skin out of office, right? 

Cultural diversity is real -- we're not all English or French in origin,
or whatever.  During WW I there was a large-scale effort to do exactly
what you have suggested in the US Army, under Yerkes.  His Army Tests
determined that Italians, Blacks, Chinese, and Jews were of low intelli-   
gence, not suited for higher jobs in the army, etc.  After the war, 
quotas on immigration were imposed based on the results of his tests.
Of course, the tests ignored cultural diversity.  They were biased.  
In fact, at the end of his life Yerkes (along with his assistant,
Brigham) stated that they had come to the conclusion that their own
work had been fatally flawed.  

Of course, it fit in very nicely with prejudices of the time, and was
quite convenient in excluding people who threatened the power 
structure of the time.  

>we would have
>a society oriented toward evolutionary progress, rather than
>wallowing in degradation as we do now.

"Degradation" -- this says it all.  Could you show evidence that 
there is some kind of "evolutionary degradation" going on, or for that
matter that your measures would lead to "positive" evolution?  

In fact, you need first to demonstrate that evolution works the
way you think it does.

Your idea is not new.  It has been around for over a century, and
is a combination of Social Darwinism and eugenics.  Both these ideas 
are deeply flawed and operate in ignorance of biology, statistics, 
and psychology.  Eugenics has led to some of the greatest
atrocities of our time -- the concentration camps of Nazi germany were
partly eugenically justified, as wer things like the government-
mandated sterilizations in this country.  

Two books for you to read -- ESSENTIAL for tyou to read, in fact: 

_The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould (Norton paperback);
Daniel Kevles' book on eugenics.  These will clear up many of your
misconceptions, as will some courses in evolutionary biology,
statistics, and psychology (not just mental testing, either).


Roger
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,rec.arts.books