explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1661: Podium

2016-03-28T18:05:18Z

Loki57:

Well as a non-english native, I just recently found that the term podium and lectern were used "wrong" on xkcd. Especially because the lectern is often placed on a podium. So when trying to make a description in a transcript of what the scene looks like you would have to write that ''Cueball is standing behind a podium placed on a podium'' if you did not use the correct word of lectern, or be changing both words ''Cueball is standing behind a podium placed on a scene''. So it would be so much easier if people just used lectern, but I guess this is not the way it will be going, maybe except for xkcd readers now? When I found out recently (March 1st) that there were several podiums in explain xkcd where they should have been lecterns I corrected them all. Although I think it is unlikely that Randall would notice this, it is funny for me, that he makes this joke less than a month after I made the correction. And since I did not know about this before, I was not aware that there was these discussions going on ;-) At least it seems that Randall doesn't take sides in this discussion, although he may think it is silly. (Just like using one type of [[1643: Degrees]] rather than another. What is correct and what will be understood). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

:I agree that "podium" is just wrong. Just because so-called "dictionaries" want to coddle people who use words incorrectly doesn't mean we should allow them to ruin our language. Allowing people to use "podium" to mean a stand for notes is as bad as allowing people to use "explain" to mean to describe or make intelligible. The word "explain" comes from Old French, where it meant "flatten out", as is obvious from the etymology: Latin "ex-" + "plano", or "out-" + "(I) flatten". This is easy to remember because it sounds like "esplanade", a cleared or leveled space, a noun with related etymology. English has a perfectly good verb, "irecchen", with the desired meaning. Clearly, this site is meant to level out XKCD, to make it flat and featureless, not to make it easier to understand, and I applaud it for using the word correctly. However, I would like to take issue with the misuse of the word "discuss" on this site. This word was borrowed from Norman French with the meaning "shaken apart", but is only properly used in medical history and archaeology—and, even then, it is often misused as "discussed", ignoring the fact that it is already a past participle. In the common language of the uneducated, it is nearly always used to mean "converse about", but the Latin etymology as a participle of "dis-" + "quatere", or "apart-" + "shake", should make it clear how ridiculous this is. Even if we were to allow the medieval monastic fad for using "discuss" figuratively to mean sifting the truth out of text by arguing over them vigorously, that still cannot justify the so-called modern meaning that our dictionaries promulgate. Wé mōton standen for Englisc propre! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.105|162.158.255.105]] 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have huge reference libraries personally, including science and tech, law, medicine, philosophy, arts, etc. I find it a Chinese curse, to need an online subscription for OED 3, after managing to acquire OED 2 v 3 & v4 in forms suitable for both PC and mobile carry, plus Merriam-Webster unabridged as an offline mobile app. Ullman's (industrial chemistry) dwarfs those, however. That noted, dictionaries require active public input, and are plagued by inarticulate speakers. The degradation of "unique" into a comparative is contrary to core etymology. OTOH, "yawl" and "ketch" remain difficult to define as to the basic rigs, while their comparison to each other and "sloop" has been improved as lexicographers have been called out for failing to focus on the key distinction of whether a mizzen mast is stepped fore or aft of the rudder post, not the rudder, or arbitrary relative sail sizes. Nudist and naturist are scrambled by common usage to be both ambiguous, versus to reflect philosophical or religious aspects of naturism versus outward practices or social and business based nudism, while misuse as if conflated with naturalist has decreased, and inclusion of naturist improved. Many dictionaries have recognized schadenfreude as becoming an English word, while despite circa 1981 origins well over the 20 year rule, only a few better dictionaries are yet listing compersion.

Fuck, gender, and profanity now see around 8,000 combined instances in OED 3, close to ten times their presence in OED 2 v4. Jesse Scheidlower, OED editor at large and author of a single word dictionary of "fuck" variants now up to 320 pages in its 3rd edition, gets some credit for that honesty movement over words some unethical publishers have censored or tampered pandering to crooked bigot infested school boards and legislatures. Theist, atheist, pantheist, polytheist, and similar terms are messier, as their common usage is mangled by prejudice based contexts and eastern and western history getting scrambled. Now test for theology versus thealogy, or etymology and definitions for witch (male and female in modern English) versus misrepresentation of warlock (oathbreaker), or words used by both reclaiming identity movements, and as slurs, eg slants, dyke, redskins, queer, niggers, pagan, witch, etc. Quality of both dictionaries, and society itself, can be tested by such comparisons.

By joking about politicians using word issues as evasion, Randall could help promote the values that honest understanding of the nature of language and misconceptions of dictionaries and authorities are important. [[User:Loki57|Loki57]] ([[User talk:Loki57|talk]]) 18:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

1661: Podium

2016-03-28T17:21:36Z

Loki57: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1661
| date = March 28, 2016
| title = Podium
| image = podium.png
| titletext = BREAKING: Senator's bold pro-podium stand leads to primary challenge from prescriptivist base.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|More on the info in the title text and links to dictionaries should be real links.}}
The comic is playing on a stereotypical politician, without any real beliefs, here represented by [[Cueball]] without any features, but they want to appear to stand for something.

Thus, Cueball picks up what is, in some circles, an argument: whether the standing desk used by public speakers should be called a "{{w|podium}}" or a "{{w|lectern}}." (This argument is actually common among members of {{w|Toastmasters International}}).

Technically — or at least, in original use or etymologically — a podium is the stage or raised platform, which Cueball is standing on. Those on the "anti-podium" side state - correctly - that "podium" derives from the Greek word "pous/podos" meaning "foot" and thus denotes "a small platform for the conductor of an orchestra, for a public speaker, etc." (dictionary.com). This is the prescriptivist position - mentioned in the title text - indicating that dictionaries and similar publications prescribe how words should be used. However common in teaching institutions with their power hierarchies, the very notion of dictionaries as prescriptive is wrong relative to traditional standards of lexicographers, eg to require use of a word in 12 fields of usage over 20 years before formal adoption, with certain exceptions. In effect when dictionaries are backwards looking specialized sociology history documents, such "teaching" of prescriptivist positions becomes a mix of fraud and cultural insanity to demand false authority, noting the nature of politicians themselves to often act as false authorities.

The literal distinction between podium and lectern (or the meaning of "this thing") is not obvious from context, when the meaning of ''podium'' has drifted in common use to refer to the small standing desk the speaker stands behind, puts papers on, etc. — i.e. the lectern. This is the descriptivist view that so many people "misuse" the word that "podium" now can validly refer to the small standing desk behind which speakers often stand. Dictionary.com lists "lectern" as definition #3 for "podium."

Sometimes, [http://www.platformgiant.com/podium-vs-lectern people care about this]. The fact is, though the etymological definition is clear (the lectern is the desk that stands on the podium), and the difference might be important if you were setting up an auditorium, in common usage it really doesn't matter. If a public speaker is asked to step up to the podium, very few would quibble over the usage.

The idiomatic idea of "stepping up" to the podium could remain accurate even if one then uses a lectern, when the lectern is the reading desk placed on the elevated podium. That idiom shifts to entirely metaphorical when a lectern in many classrooms or meeting rooms is at floor level. With a shift towards virtual meeting spaces, and meeting rooms with computer driven audio-visual systems, the idea of both podiums as physical platforms, and lecterns as desks for reading matter when they're increasingly AV control centers, are changing. Such change further upends the idea of dictionaries as prescriptivist, given the nature of language to develop new words or alter meanings of necessity, versus sloppy common usage.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is speaking at a lectern standing on a podium.]
:Cueball: The American people are tired of politics as usual.
:Cueball: They're tired of-
:Cueball: Okay, brief tangent: is this thing a podium or a lectern? People say "podium" is wrong, but I also see it used that way in pretty formal contexts. Is usage just changing?
:Cueball: If elected, I will get to the bottom of this for once and for all.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Language]]

1657: Insanity

2016-03-21T22:06:22Z

Loki57: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1657
| date = March 18, 2016
| title = Insanity
| image = insanity.png
| titletext = I looked up "insanity" in like 10 different dictionaries and none of them said anything like that. Neither did the DSM-4. But I'll keep looking. Maybe it's in the DSM-5!
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic [[White Hat]] quotes a famous "definition of {{w|insanity}}" (usually [https://www.quora.com/Did-Einstein-really-define-insanity-as-doing-the-same-thing-over-and-over-again-and-expecting-different-results/answer/Peter-Baskerville?srid=z3OX attributed] to {{w|Albert Einstein}}, but may be a loose paraphrasing from [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Narcotics_Anonymous Narcotics Anonymous]) adapted by Rita Mae Brown or others historically.

[[Cueball|Cueball's]] answer applies the quote to the action of quoting that quote. White Hat seems to have quoted that quote quite a few times already, expecting people to change their behavior which hasn't happened so far. So according to that definition of insanity, it is insane to keep quoting the definition of insanity, expecting people to change their behavior because of that.

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insane Merriam-Webster] defines "insane" as "mentally disabled."

The title text implies that [[Randall]] would be "insane" according to the quote he used in the comic because he has repeatedly searched for a definition of insanity that matches the one quotes in the comic and of course always gets a negative result, since this is a personal quote not a definition. Besides searching in lots of {{w|dictionary|dictionaries}}, he also looked in the {{w|Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders|DSM-4}} (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition). The DSM-5 has been available since May 18, 2013 and he plans to look into it... expecting different results. Since he won't find it, he is from the quote insane, but of course since this turns out to not be the definition of insanity then he might not be anyway.

This comic follows a pattern similar to [[1339: When You Assume]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking towards the right of the panel with White Hat walking behind him holding a finger up as to make a point.]
:White Hat: They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
:Cueball: You've been quoting that cliché for years. Has it convinced anyone to change their mind yet?

==Trivia==
*Given that xkcd revolves around pedantics and precise syntax, it appears Randall made an error by citing "DSM-4", as there's no such thing. DSM-IV (1994) and DSM-IV-tr (2000) are editions prior to DSM-5 (2013). With that error, Randall missed a chance for a secondary implicit comment about "neurotic shrinks" turning the APA policy change to switch from Roman numerals to decimal digits with DSM-5 into a huge internal controversy, as well as comparing the xkcd text about rigid doctrinal hypocrisy to the social fluidity of indirectly legally defined so-called mental illnesses, when both DSM-III and DSM-IV have had interim text revisions.
*"Insanity" does not appear as a word in DSM-5, but appears twice in DSM-IV, once in DSM-IV-tr. One of those instances is a reference in the introduction only to early 19th century attempts to classify "idiocy/insanity", as a US Census statistical category, and not a medical one per se. The other, which was removed from DSM-IV-tr, isn't a clinical definition, but descriptive of fears due to hallucinogens, of "insanity or death". OED 3rd Edition (subscription online only) discusses archaic medical, literature, and legal meanings, from the 16th to 19th centuries, and sidenotes in red the caveat that the word first included in 1900 is overdue for updates not completed for the current edition of OED. Their definition is cited as based on archaic legal usage, not medical usage.
*There are over 100 instances of "insanity" present in each of "Black's Law Dictionary" (9th Ed), and "Gale (formerly West's) Encyclopedia of American Law" (3rd Ed). The APA (American Psychiatric Association) "Goldwater Rule" that stemmed from the former Presidential candidate bars members from making public statements about the apparent sanity or disorders of public figures they haven't personally examined, even if such lawyers or politicians appear to pose a serious risk of harm to others.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1657: Insanity

2016-03-21T21:49:37Z

Loki57: clarify document page reference

And we are back to White Hat being the "fall" guy, which he was not in his last discussion with Cueball in [[1640: Super Bowl Context]]. It was so rare that it was mentioned at the bottom of the explanation for that comic ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone quotes a mathematician's definition of insanity instead of, say, a paychologist's. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.69|108.162.238.69]] 17:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
:Psychology Today it turns out has written about this (Ryan Howes PhD, ABPP, July 27, 2009 [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/200907/the-definition-insanity-is]), and calls "insanity" a legal term, where Psychologists may inform courts over some of the law criteria, but neither define nor decide if anyone so qualifies. Lawyers are demonstrably "insane" to the extent they have arbitrary process to impose binary judgments on people or society, over issues where that's often unrealistic in terms of human rights or larger models of justice. [[User:Loki57|Loki57]] ([[User talk:Loki57|talk]]) 21:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Both this Lancet DOI: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00687-5] and [other articles [http://www.paulajcaplan.net/blog.htm?post=1024155]] have recently discussed how US industrial medicine and politics are at odds with United Nations backed human rights law, as to access to medical treatment in general, and over mental health issues as medical disabilities. The US civil rights branch of HHS has actively denied being out of compliance with that human rights law, in ways where the facts show otherwise. Perhaps that reflects ways where all of Nietzsche, Ruiz, and Krishnamurti, from their respective European, South American, and Asian perspectives, have described societies as often being insane, and "it is no measure of sanity to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" (contrary to practice of many US Psychologists or social workers to claim the opposite)? [[User:Loki57|Loki57]] ([[User talk:Loki57|talk]]) 21:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think checking various sources fills the requirements for this definition of insanity, as one may find what they are looking for eventually. It is conceivable that some dictionary may include the quote as a definition sometime in the future. A person would have to look up the definition of insanity in the same book, where the text will not change, repeatedly to fulfill this definition. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.64|173.245.55.64]] 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If Randall DID find the definition of insanity in the DSM-V that correlates to the definition, or in some random dictionary, would that still make him insane, or would it enter a Catch-22 scenario in which he is both insane and sane? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.184.125|162.158.184.125]] 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Re "switch from Roman numerals to decimal digits," decimal makes more sense, but I still think of our numerals as "Arabic." [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 22:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
: If it had switched to Arabic numerals it wouldn't be DSM-V but DSM-٥ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.209|162.158.91.209]] 21:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::Roman numerals are also decimal (if you use the broader definition). While the positional number schema, and the according digits, we use are indeed referred to as Arabic numerals, Hindu-Arabic numerals or Indo-Arabic numerals. If your focus is on the font rather than the writing schema, it can be called Western-Arabic numerals or European numerals.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.101|108.162.228.101]] 06:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This comic reminds me of another recent one, though I can't figure out which. Suggestions? It was the same form where White Hat said something common, and Cueball turned it around [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 01:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
:Could it be this one: [[1592: Overthinking]]? That is the only recent comic that fit the bill. It could also be this one [[1386: People are Stupid]] but that is close to two years old. I just looked through comics with [[:Category:Comics featuring White Hat|White Hat]] --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::It's not either of those, maybe I'll figure it out. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cueball's response raises a pertinent query. The above-mentioned axiom does not take into account the fact that an action can only be so precisely measured and these micromeasures are going to differ each time. Depending on the values changed, there will be a different result that may be big enough to be noticeable.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.158|108.162.250.158]] 08:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
:My thoughts exactly. This is precisely how science works. Rare events may require the exact same experiment to be performed hundreds, even millions, of times to observe, for example at CERN. Seriously, what numpty came up with this definition? [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 18:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::It's commonly attributed to Albert Einstein. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 04:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
: Yes, this; for which I'd think of Heraclitus: "You could not step twice into the same river." [[User:Elvenivle|Elvenivle]] ([[User talk:Elvenivle|talk]]) 05:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Its worth noting that the DSM-5 has had a fairly strong negative response, and made a number of controversial changes. So in some ways you may find what you're looking for in DSM-5. Of course, the direction of movement is such that if a definition of insane had been in DSM-IV it likely wouldn't be in DSM-5. Its also worth noting that Insanity is at its heart a legal definition and not a medical one.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.76|108.162.237.76]] 11:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This attribution clearly isn't exact from Narcotics Anonymous, whose 1981 draft document old link is invalid, but is saved in Brewster's Archives [https://web.archive.org/web/20140911205220/http://amonymifoundation.org/uploads/NA_Approval_Form_Scan.pdf] pdf page 25, last sentence of paragraph 5. It does appear to be a direct quote of Rita Mae Brown's 1982 paraphrasing, or what may originate decades earlier with AA's Bill Wilson, or others. While Quora discusses the possible but iffy Einstein attribution [https://www.quora.com/Did-Einstein-really-define-insanity-as-doing-the-same-thing-over-and-over-again-and-expecting-different-results], math and science would break down if use of Monte Carlo analysis in statistical models or finance were treated as abnormal, while astronomers would lose key tools to locate planets near distant stars, and particle physicists means to detect energy wave anomalies. Randall has at least 5-10 future xkcd's to draw based on this discussion. [[User:Loki57|Loki57]] ([[User talk:Loki57|talk]]) 21:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1657: Insanity

2016-03-21T21:15:09Z

Loki57:

And we are back to White Hat being the "fall" guy, which he was not in his last discussion with Cueball in [[1640: Super Bowl Context]]. It was so rare that it was mentioned at the bottom of the explanation for that comic ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone quotes a mathematician's definition of insanity instead of, say, a paychologist's. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.69|108.162.238.69]] 17:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
:Psychology Today it turns out has written about this (Ryan Howes PhD, ABPP, July 27, 2009 [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/200907/the-definition-insanity-is]), and calls "insanity" a legal term, where Psychologists may inform courts over some of the law criteria, but neither define nor decide if anyone so qualifies. Lawyers are demonstrably "insane" to the extent they have arbitrary process to impose binary judgments on people or society, over issues where that's often unrealistic in terms of human rights or larger models of justice. [[User:Loki57|Loki57]] ([[User talk:Loki57|talk]]) 21:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Both this Lancet DOI: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00687-5] and [other articles [http://www.paulajcaplan.net/blog.htm?post=1024155]] have recently discussed how US industrial medicine and politics are at odds with United Nations backed human rights law, as to access to medical treatment in general, and over mental health issues as medical disabilities. The US civil rights branch of HHS has actively denied being out of compliance with that human rights law, in ways where the facts show otherwise. Perhaps that reflects ways where all of Nietzsche, Ruiz, and Krishnamurti, from their respective European, South American, and Asian perspectives, have described societies as often being insane, and "it is no measure of sanity to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" (contrary to practice of many US Psychologists or social workers to claim the opposite)? [[User:Loki57|Loki57]] ([[User talk:Loki57|talk]]) 21:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think checking various sources fills the requirements for this definition of insanity, as one may find what they are looking for eventually. It is conceivable that some dictionary may include the quote as a definition sometime in the future. A person would have to look up the definition of insanity in the same book, where the text will not change, repeatedly to fulfill this definition. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.64|173.245.55.64]] 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If Randall DID find the definition of insanity in the DSM-V that correlates to the definition, or in some random dictionary, would that still make him insane, or would it enter a Catch-22 scenario in which he is both insane and sane? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.184.125|162.158.184.125]] 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Re "switch from Roman numerals to decimal digits," decimal makes more sense, but I still think of our numerals as "Arabic." [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 22:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
: If it had switched to Arabic numerals it wouldn't be DSM-V but DSM-٥ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.209|162.158.91.209]] 21:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::Roman numerals are also decimal (if you use the broader definition). While the positional number schema, and the according digits, we use are indeed referred to as Arabic numerals, Hindu-Arabic numerals or Indo-Arabic numerals. If your focus is on the font rather than the writing schema, it can be called Western-Arabic numerals or European numerals.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.101|108.162.228.101]] 06:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This comic reminds me of another recent one, though I can't figure out which. Suggestions? It was the same form where White Hat said something common, and Cueball turned it around [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 01:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
:Could it be this one: [[1592: Overthinking]]? That is the only recent comic that fit the bill. It could also be this one [[1386: People are Stupid]] but that is close to two years old. I just looked through comics with [[:Category:Comics featuring White Hat|White Hat]] --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::It's not either of those, maybe I'll figure it out. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cueball's response raises a pertinent query. The above-mentioned axiom does not take into account the fact that an action can only be so precisely measured and these micromeasures are going to differ each time. Depending on the values changed, there will be a different result that may be big enough to be noticeable.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.158|108.162.250.158]] 08:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
:My thoughts exactly. This is precisely how science works. Rare events may require the exact same experiment to be performed hundreds, even millions, of times to observe, for example at CERN. Seriously, what numpty came up with this definition? [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 18:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::It's commonly attributed to Albert Einstein. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 04:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
: Yes, this; for which I'd think of Heraclitus: "You could not step twice into the same river." [[User:Elvenivle|Elvenivle]] ([[User talk:Elvenivle|talk]]) 05:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Its worth noting that the DSM-5 has had a fairly strong negative response, and made a number of controversial changes. So in some ways you may find what you're looking for in DSM-5. Of course, the direction of movement is such that if a definition of insane had been in DSM-IV it likely wouldn't be in DSM-5. Its also worth noting that Insanity is at its heart a legal definition and not a medical one.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.76|108.162.237.76]] 11:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This attribution clearly isn't exact from Narcotics Anonymous, whose 1981 draft document old link is invalid, but is saved in Brewster's Archives [https://web.archive.org/web/20140911205220/http://amonymifoundation.org/uploads/NA_Approval_Form_Scan.pdf] last sentence of paragraph 5. It does appear to be a direct quote of Rita Mae Brown's 1982 paraphrasing, or what may originate decades earlier with AA's Bill Wilson, or others. While Quora discusses the possible but iffy Einstein attribution [https://www.quora.com/Did-Einstein-really-define-insanity-as-doing-the-same-thing-over-and-over-again-and-expecting-different-results], math and science would break down if use of Monte Carlo analysis in statistical models or finance were treated as abnormal, while astronomers would lose key tools to locate planets near distant stars, and particle physicists means to detect energy wave anomalies. Randall has at least 5-10 future xkcd's to draw based on this discussion. [[User:Loki57|Loki57]] ([[User talk:Loki57|talk]]) 21:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

1657: Insanity

2016-03-21T19:40:11Z

Loki57: /* Trivia */

{{comic
| number = 1657
| date = March 18, 2016
| title = Insanity
| image = insanity.png
| titletext = I looked up "insanity" in like 10 different dictionaries and none of them said anything like that. Neither did the DSM-4. But I'll keep looking. Maybe it's in the DSM-5!
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic [[White Hat]] quotes a famous "definition of {{w|insanity}}" (usually [https://www.quora.com/Did-Einstein-really-define-insanity-as-doing-the-same-thing-over-and-over-again-and-expecting-different-results/answer/Peter-Baskerville?srid=z3OX attributed] to {{w|Albert Einstein}}, but actually from [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Narcotics_Anonymous Narcotics Anonymous])

[[Cueball|Cueball's]] answer applies the quote to the action of quoting that quote. White Hat seems to have quoted that quote quite a few times already, expecting people to change their behavior which hasn't happened so far. So according to that definition of insanity, it is insane to keep quoting the definition of insanity, expecting people to change their behavior because of that.

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insane Merriam-Webster] defines "insane" as "mentally disabled."

The title text implies that [[Randall]] would be "insane" according to the quote he used in the comic because he has repeatedly searched for a definition of insanity that matches the one quotes in the comic and of course always gets a negative result, since this is a personal quote not a definition. Besides searching in lots of {{w|dictionary|dictionaries}}, he also looked in the {{w|Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders|DSM-4}} (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition). The DSM-5 has been available since May 18, 2013 and he plans to look into it... expecting different results. Since he won't find it, he is from the quote insane, but of course since this turns out to not be the definition of insanity then he might not be anyway.

This comic follows a pattern similar to [[1339: When You Assume]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking towards the right of the panel with White Hat walking behind him holding a finger up as to make a point.]
:White Hat: They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
:Cueball: You've been quoting that cliché for years. Has it convinced anyone to change their mind yet?

==Trivia==
*Given that xkcd revolves around pedantics and precise syntax, it appears Randall made an error by citing "DSM-4", as there's no such thing. DSM-IV (1994) and DSM-IV-tr (2000) are editions prior to DSM-5 (2013). With that error, Randall missed a chance for a secondary implicit comment about "neurotic shrinks" turning the APA policy change to switch from Roman numerals to decimal digits with DSM-5 into a huge internal controversy, as well as comparing the xkcd text about rigid doctrinal hypocrisy to the social fluidity of indirectly legally defined so-called mental illnesses, when both DSM-III and DSM-IV have had interim text revisions.
*"Insanity" does not appear as a word in DSM-5, but appears twice in DSM-IV, once in DSM-IV-tr. One of those instances is a reference in the introduction only to early 19th century attempts to classify "idiocy/insanity", as a US Census statistical category, and not a medical one per se. The other, which was removed from DSM-IV-tr, isn't a clinical definition, but descriptive of fears due to hallucinogens, of "insanity or death". OED 3rd Edition (subscription online only) discusses archaic medical, literature, and legal meanings, from the 16th to 19th centuries, and sidenotes in red the caveat that the word first included in 1900 is overdue for updates not completed for the current edition of OED. Their definition is cited as based on archaic legal usage, not medical usage.
*There are over 100 instances of "insanity" present in each of "Black's Law Dictionary" (9th Ed), and "Gale (formerly West's) Encyclopedia of American Law" (3rd Ed). The APA (American Psychiatric Association) "Goldwater Rule" that stemmed from the former Presidential candidate bars members from making public statements about the apparent sanity or disorders of public figures they haven't personally examined, even if such lawyers or politicians appear to pose a serious risk of harm to others.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1657: Insanity

2016-03-18T19:09:34Z

Loki57: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1657
| date = March 18, 2016
| title = Insanity
| image = insanity.png
| titletext = I looked up "insanity" in like 10 different dictionaries and none of them said anything like that. Neither did the DSM-4. But I'll keep looking. Maybe it's in the DSM-5!
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic [[White Hat]] quotes a famous "definition of {{w|insanity}}" (usually [https://www.quora.com/Did-Einstein-really-define-insanity-as-doing-the-same-thing-over-and-over-again-and-expecting-different-results/answer/Peter-Baskerville?srid=z3OX attributed] to {{w|Albert Einstein}}). [[Cueball|Cueball's]] answer applies the quote to the action of quoting that quote. White Hat seems to have quoted that quote quite a few times already, expecting people to change their behavior which hasn't happened so far. So according to that definition of insanity, it is insane to keep quoting the definition of insanity, expecting people to change their behavior because of that.

The title text implies that [[Randall]] would be "insane" according to the quote he used in the comic because he has repeatedly searched for a definition of insanity that matches the one quotes in the comic and of course always gets a negative result, since this is a personal quote not a definition. Besides searching in lots of {{w|dictionary|dictionaries}}, he also looked in the {{w|Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders|DSM-4}} (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition). The DSM-5 has been available since May 18, 2013 and he plans to look into it... expecting different results. Since he won't find it, he is from the quote insane, but of course since this turns out to not be the definition of insanity then he might not be anyway.

Given that xkcd revolves around pedantics and precise syntax, it appears Randall made an error by citing "DSM-4", as there's no such thing. DSM-IV (1994) and DSM-IV-tr (2000) are editions prior to DSM-5 (2013). With that error, Randall missed a chance for a secondary implicit comment about "neurotic shrinks" turning the APA policy change to switch from Roman numerals to decimal digits with DSM-5 into a huge internal controversy, as well as comparing the xkcd text about rigid doctrinal hypocrisy to the social fluidity of indirectly legally defined so-called mental illnesses, when both DSM-III and DSM-IV have had interim text revisions.

"Insanity" does not appear as a word in DSM-5, but appears twice in DSM-IV, once in DSM-IV-tr. One of those instances is a reference in the introduction only to early 19th century attempts to classify "idiocy/insanity", as a US Census statistical category, and not a medical one per se. The other, which was removed from DSM-IV-tr, isn't a clinical definition, but descriptive of fears due to hallucinogens, of "insanity or death". OED 3rd Edition (subscription online only) discusses archaic medical, literature, and legal meanings, from the 16th to 19th centuries, and sidenotes in red the caveat that the word first included in 1900 is overdue for updates not completed for the current edition of OED. Their definition is cited as based on archaic legal usage, not medical usage.

For convenience, [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insane Merriam-Webster] defines "insane" as "mentally disabled."

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking towards the right of the panel with White Hat waling behind him holding a finger up as to make a point.]
:White Hat: They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
:Cueball: You've been quoting that cliché for years. Has it convinced anyone to change their mind yet?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1657: Insanity

2016-03-18T18:08:53Z

Loki57: /* Explanation */