From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Sanity Certification
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 10:20:45 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

WRT the technical issues, I'm not suggesting a single "test", I'm suggesting
a battery of tests based on existing technology.  These technologies such
as MMPI, Rorschach (or Holtzman), etc. are already used for screening in
clinical psychiatry.

Nor am I suggesting there is a sharp dividing line between the sane and
insane.  Sanity certification would merely identify the people who are
as a previous poster suggested "clearly insane".  This might for example
be the lowest quintile of sanity.  Everybody else would pass, and that will
definitely include some insane people.  This is inevitable with any screening
test.  Do you think the test required to get a driver's license completely
excludes bad drivers from the road?  Of course not, but does that mean that
the driver's test should be abandoned?  Again, of course not.  The test
serves a valuable function as an initial first-pass screen to deny access
to the worst cases.

Nor am I suggesting that sanity is permanent condition, like sex or race.
I think sanity certification would need to be renewed on a periodic basis
like a driver's license.  This should help defuse the emotional impact
of flunking the test, because it would provide hope to that individual
they could take the test and pass 6 months later (or something).  Also,
it would provide a goal toward which the subject could work, which would
be a useful motivating factor to get people to voluntarily enter treatment.

WRT the social-cultural issues, I agree that would be a problem.  Most
of our tests were normed to U.S. white people that lived decades ago.
A recent immigrant from a nation dominated by animist religions might believe
that demon spirits are responsible for common everyday misfortunes, such
as flu or spilling a pot of beans.  Even U.S. white people belonging to
certain Christian sects hold similar beliefs.  Are these people insane?
I would most definitely say no, even though their beliefs seem bizarre
and irrational.  Within their own cultural context, these are perfectly
logical.  In fact, it would be illogical for a Biblical inerrantist to
believe that a literal devil does not exist.

Rather than attempt to norm all these mini-cultures, my suggestion would
be simply to err on the side of sanity in each case.  If a person is a
homosexual or eats insects or whatever, that should have no impact on the
final sanity score.  Satanists are a different matter, because for the most
part Satanism is not a separate religion from Christianity.  It is my
understanding that most so-called Satanists are actually former Christians
who have rejected their religion in the most extreme way possible.  This
might be the sort of thing which could be considered in formulating the
sanity score.

WRT the social-political issues, any attempt to manipulate the test
politically would be just as unethical as any attempt to screw around
with any other test, like the SAT's or the Civil Service Exam.  Unlike
most other tests, I think there would be a great many experts who would
closely scrutinize the development and application of the battery of tests,
and there would be many who would be quick to criticize any real or imagined
faults in the technology.  I don't think the test could be manipulated
without a large outcry being raised, especially if the entire U.S. population
of psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychotherapists were required to be
recertified every year.  They would be about the most sensitive population
you could imagine.

Actually, I see an enormous benefit to the professional practice of psychotherapy
by the implementation of certification procedures.  It's like when medical
school accreditation was introduced in the U.S.  Immediately, a huge number
of incompetent medical schools were closed, resulting in a large increase
in the value of a medical education.