Talk:1657: Insanity - Revision history

Trogdor147 at 23:34, 18 May 2023

2023-05-18T23:34:48Z

162.158.126.82: Link suggestion.

2018-08-05T20:27:18Z

Link suggestion.

162.158.222.221: close similarity to earlier Buttersafe comic

2016-04-01T00:26:02Z

close similarity to earlier Buttersafe comic

108.162.216.46 at 17:25, 22 March 2016

2016-03-22T17:25:00Z

Loki57: clarify document page reference

2016-03-21T21:49:37Z

clarify document page reference

Loki57 at 21:15, 21 March 2016

2016-03-21T21:15:09Z

Mikemk at 04:34, 21 March 2016

2016-03-21T04:34:43Z

Mikemk: /* Testing */

2016-03-21T04:31:39Z

‎Testing

Mikemk: /* Testing */ new section

2016-03-21T04:31:01Z

‎Testing: new section

Mikemk at 04:15, 21 March 2016

2016-03-21T04:15:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 18 May 2023
Line 34:		Line 34:

	The origins of the saying were discussed with some detail in a March 2017 article on the [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/ Quote Investigator] website. I suggest that the link be added in the Explanation section, alongside (or in replacement of) the Quora link.		The origins of the saying were discussed with some detail in a March 2017 article on the [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/ Quote Investigator] website. I suggest that the link be added in the Explanation section, alongside (or in replacement of) the Quora link.
		+
		+	"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." Wow, that's six words starting with 'q' in 1 and a half sentences. Quite a quirky and quaky quest, if a quiet, qualified quorum qua a quartet (or quintet) of quizzers were to query, question, and quote me after a quick queue. [[User:Trogdor147\|Trogdor147]] ([[User talk:Trogdor147\|talk]]) 23:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 5 August 2018
Line 32:		Line 32:

	It seems that after Reginald and Beartato [http://nedroid.com/2013/02/scandal-of-the-century/ got into trouble once], it's now happening the other way round with [http://buttersafe.com/2015/07/09/definition-of-insanity-comics/ one of the comics Randall says he enjoys]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.221\|162.158.222.221]] 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)		It seems that after Reginald and Beartato [http://nedroid.com/2013/02/scandal-of-the-century/ got into trouble once], it's now happening the other way round with [http://buttersafe.com/2015/07/09/definition-of-insanity-comics/ one of the comics Randall says he enjoys]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.221\|162.158.222.221]] 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	The origins of the saying were discussed with some detail in a March 2017 article on the [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/ Quote Investigator] website. I suggest that the link be added in the Explanation section, alongside (or in replacement of) the Quora link.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:26, 1 April 2016
Line 30:		Line 30:

	Yes, it is not the definition of the word. But doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is still pretty insane, no? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46\|108.162.216.46]] 17:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)		Yes, it is not the definition of the word. But doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is still pretty insane, no? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46\|108.162.216.46]] 17:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	It seems that after Reginald and Beartato [http://nedroid.com/2013/02/scandal-of-the-century/ got into trouble once], it's now happening the other way round with [http://buttersafe.com/2015/07/09/definition-of-insanity-comics/ one of the comics Randall says he enjoys]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.221\|162.158.222.221]] 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, 22 March 2016
Line 28:		Line 28:

	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)		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)
		+
		+	Yes, it is not the definition of the word. But doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is still pretty insane, no? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46\|108.162.216.46]] 17:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 21 March 2016
Line 27:		Line 27:
	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)		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)	+	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)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 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)
 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)
@@ Line 23: / Line 26: @@
 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)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 [[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)
 : 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:31, 21 March 2016
Line 25:		Line 25:
	== Testing ==		== Testing ==

−	Sorry for being off-topic, testing a new feature I just added.	+	Sorry for being off-topic, testing a new feature I just added. [[User:Mikemk\|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk\|talk]]) 04:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:31, 21 March 2016
Line 22:		Line 22:

	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)		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)
		+
		+	== Testing ==
		+
		+	Sorry for being off-topic, testing a new feature I just added.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 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)
 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.