Topic: If insanity is defined as... | |
---|---|
Awww...Y'all beat me to it...Cheers...lol
|
|
|
|
Like I said, it would be impossible to shoot the basket in EXACTLY the
same way. Same holds true for anything you attempt to do. It may appear to be doing it in the same way, but there are always at least slight variations. |
|
|
|
again, though...regardless of that, that is still not the "clinical"
definition of "insanity"...it isn't how psychiatrists make the determination of whether or not a person is "insane." |
|
|
|
missing my point... it's not exactly the same way because, after a
failed attempt, adjustments are made based on that information. these are thought out adjustments. if no adjustment was made, because it is being insisted that it must work, then it's insane! |
|
|
|
I'm not insane...My reality is just different then everybody
elses!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
missing my point...
No, I'm not; I'm disputing it. It's not exactly the same way because, after a failed attempt, adjustments are made based on that information. It's not exactly the same, because that would be an impossibilty. These are thought out adjustments. if no adjustment was made, because it is being insisted that it must work, then it's insane! It may be "illogical," but it's definitely not "insane." And, actually, the term is a legal one, not a medical one. The legal profession considers insanity to be the determination of whether or not a person is mentally capable of being held responsible for their actions. The psychiatric profession determines "insanity" based on a number of different criteria, such as various levels of psychoses, etc. |
|
|
|
and your point is?
|
|
|