Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak

You can’t keep doing the same things in life and expect to get different results. Honestly, results are all that matter. Results are the barometer for how well you are doing in any given area. Doing the same things while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Do you want to live a life of torment? Then keep doing what you’re doing, and you’ll keep getting what you’re getting. If you want something different to happen, then you have to do things differently going forward.

(Location 200 - Kindle version)

Do you agree with this idea of insanity by the author? I agree that results matter, but is it always fair or ethical achieving results by any mean?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” —Albert Einstein

(Location 73 - Kindle version)

A small extension to the topic; will change of one's thinking pattern solve that one's problems?

[stevie]

If one asks three persons to define "insanity" one might even receive more than three definitions.
Merriam webster has 3-4 definitions.

Instead of affirming the author's definition I'd prefer to differentiate different types of behavior:
deliberate behavior (based on weighing pros and cons and alternatives and analysis whether it may lead to the wanted result)
habitual behavior (spontaneous and acquired through conditioning, not thought about)
accidential behavior (spontaneous but neither acquired through conditioning nor thought about)
obsessive behavior (mental fixation on a certain kind of behavior lacking the ability to critically think about its possible results etc)

[Sushan]

If one asks three persons to define "insanity" one might even receive more than three definitions.
Merriam webster has 3-4 definitions.

Instead of affirming the author's definition I'd prefer to differentiate different types of behavior:
deliberate behavior (based on weighing pros and cons and alternatives and analysis whether it may lead to the wanted result)
habitual behavior (spontaneous and acquired through conditioning, not thought about)
accidential behavior (spontaneous but neither acquired through conditioning nor thought about)
obsessive behavior (mental fixation on a certain kind of behavior lacking the ability to critically think about its possible results etc)

Thank you for the information. I searched through google for more information related to behaviour types and found the below-mentioned details too.

1. Molecular and Moral Behavior

Molecular Behavior: It is an unexpected behavior that occurs without thinking. One example is suddenly closing eyes when something is about to this the eyes.

Moler Behavior: Unlike molecular behavior, this type of behavior occurs after thinking. For example, a person changes the way when she or he sees a harmful thing.

2. Overt & Covert Behavior

Overt Behavior: It is a visible type of behavior that can occur outside of human beings. Eating food, riding on a bicycle, and playing football are some examples.

Covert Behavior: Unlike overt behavior, this type of behavior is not visible. Thinking is a good example of covert behavior because no one can see us thinking.

3. Voluntary and Involuntary Behavior

Voluntary Behavior: It is a type of behavior that depends on human want. We can characterize walking, speaking, and writing as voluntary behaviors.

Involuntary Behavior: Unlike voluntary behavior, this type occurs naturally and without thinking. Breathing air is a perfect example of involuntary behavior.

From, https://www.bioscience.com.pk/topics/ps ... psychology .

I think what you mentioned too can be more or less classified into these groups. So where does insanity belong to?

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak

You can’t keep doing the same things in life and expect to get different results. Honestly, results are all that matter. Results are the barometer for how well you are doing in any given area. Doing the same things while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Do you want to live a life of torment? Then keep doing what you’re doing, and you’ll keep getting what you’re getting. If you want something different to happen, then you have to do things differently going forward.

(Location 200 - Kindle version)

Do you agree with this idea of insanity by the author? I agree that results matter, but is it always fair or ethical achieving results by any mean?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” —Albert Einstein

(Location 73 - Kindle version)

A small extension to the topic; will change of one's thinking pattern solve that one's problems?

A very popular bumpersticker "definition", but quite over simplistic. It is more life coach advice than definition of terms.

If you have spent time with the insane, this would be very clear.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak

You can’t keep doing the same things in life and expect to get different results. Honestly, results are all that matter. Results are the barometer for how well you are doing in any given area. Doing the same things while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Do you want to live a life of torment? Then keep doing what you’re doing, and you’ll keep getting what you’re getting. If you want something different to happen, then you have to do things differently going forward.

(Location 200 - Kindle version)

Do you agree with this idea of insanity by the author? I agree that results matter, but is it always fair or ethical achieving results by any mean?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” —Albert Einstein

(Location 73 - Kindle version)

A small extension to the topic; will change of one's thinking pattern solve that one's problems?

A very popular bumpersticker "definition", but quite over simplistic. It is more life coach advice than definition of terms.

If you have spent time with the insane, this would be very clear.

Still I think an agreeable definition for the term is required to see whether we have spent enough time with the insanes. Who are they? The psychiatric patients, the ignorant ones, the politicians, or their voters, or the ones who never try to change but expect different results? Which ones can be actually named as insanes?

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak

You can’t keep doing the same things in life and expect to get different results. Honestly, results are all that matter. Results are the barometer for how well you are doing in any given area. Doing the same things while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Do you want to live a life of torment? Then keep doing what you’re doing, and you’ll keep getting what you’re getting. If you want something different to happen, then you have to do things differently going forward.

(Location 200 - Kindle version)

Do you agree with this idea of insanity by the author? I agree that results matter, but is it always fair or ethical achieving results by any mean?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” —Albert Einstein

(Location 73 - Kindle version)

A small extension to the topic; will change of one's thinking pattern solve that one's problems?

A very popular bumpersticker "definition", but quite over simplistic. It is more life coach advice than definition of terms.

If you have spent time with the insane, this would be very clear.

Still I think an agreeable definition for the term is required to see whether we have spent enough time with the insanes. Who are they? The psychiatric patients, the ignorant ones, the politicians, or their voters, or the ones who never try to change but expect different results? Which ones can be actually named as insanes?

Sorry for being vague, I meant the clinically insane.

[stevie]

...
I think what you mentioned too can be more or less classified into these groups. So where does insanity belong to?

I have not taken my classification from any authoritative scientific source. It just came to my mind when thinking about the topic.

To me "insanity" appears to be a colloquial term that people use depending on contexts and individual judgements. Therefore I would refrain from using it seriously in a philosophical forum. The behavior the author refers to might be better characterized by scientific measures taken from sources like behavior analysis, psychotherapy and the like. It always depends on the harm caused by a certain type of behavior (for self or other) whether a behavior needs to be modified therapeutically. E.g. if someone is caught up in a behavior loop and therefore does not reach a desired goal then this may cause suffering which then may be a case for therapy.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak


(Location 200 - Kindle version)

Do you agree with this idea of insanity by the author? I agree that results matter, but is it always fair or ethical achieving results by any mean?

(Location 73 - Kindle version)

A small extension to the topic; will change of one's thinking pattern solve that one's problems?

A very popular bumpersticker "definition", but quite over simplistic. It is more life coach advice than definition of terms.

If you have spent time with the insane, this would be very clear.

Still I think an agreeable definition for the term is required to see whether we have spent enough time with the insanes. Who are they? The psychiatric patients, the ignorant ones, the politicians, or their voters, or the ones who never try to change but expect different results? Which ones can be actually named as insanes?

Sorry for being vague, I meant the clinically insane.

Well, I have spent time with clinically insane ones as a clinician for some time. Though we commonly name them as insanes there are different kinds and different severity levels of their insanity. The severe ones have no idea of what they do. But some milder forms are actually good for their personal development; i.e. Hypomaniacs with no other associated psychiatric illness.

As per the question of 'changing the thinking pattern', yes, that is simply applicable to them. As they have a problem with the chemical work of their brains their thinking patterns are deranged. So when we treat their brains their thinking patterns are corrected and that will solve the main problem, their insanity.

[Sushan]

...
I think what you mentioned too can be more or less classified into these groups. So where does insanity belong to?

I have not taken my classification from any authoritative scientific source. It just came to my mind when thinking about the topic.

To me "insanity" appears to be a colloquial term that people use depending on contexts and individual judgements. Therefore I would refrain from using it seriously in a philosophical forum. The behavior the author refers to might be better characterized by scientific measures taken from sources like behavior analysis, psychotherapy and the like. It always depends on the harm caused by a certain type of behavior (for self or other) whether a behavior needs to be modified therapeutically. E.g. if someone is caught up in a behavior loop and therefore does not reach a desired goal then this may cause suffering which then may be a case for therapy.

People can be caught up in behaviour loops for many reasons. Maybe they are actually obsessive in that behaviour and that will definitely need therapeutic interventions. But what about those who are afraid of change? There are many who do the same thing over and over again without much success simply because that is well known to them and they are afraid of taking the leap of faith. Seemingly the author has referred to them as insanes. What can be done for such people to help them to get out of their behaviour loops?

[stevie]

...
I think what you mentioned too can be more or less classified into these groups. So where does insanity belong to?

I have not taken my classification from any authoritative scientific source. It just came to my mind when thinking about the topic.

To me "insanity" appears to be a colloquial term that people use depending on contexts and individual judgements. Therefore I would refrain from using it seriously in a philosophical forum. The behavior the author refers to might be better characterized by scientific measures taken from sources like behavior analysis, psychotherapy and the like. It always depends on the harm caused by a certain type of behavior (for self or other) whether a behavior needs to be modified therapeutically. E.g. if someone is caught up in a behavior loop and therefore does not reach a desired goal then this may cause suffering which then may be a case for therapy.

People can be caught up in behaviour loops for many reasons. Maybe they are actually obsessive in that behaviour and that will definitely need therapeutic interventions. But what about those who are afraid of change? There are many who do the same thing over and over again without much success simply because that is well known to them and they are afraid of taking the leap of faith. Seemingly the author has referred to them as insanes. What can be done for such people to help them to get out of their behaviour loops?

'Being afraid of change' refers to fear and fear may be grounded or ungrounded. If ungrounded it's a case for therapy, too. Obsessive behaviour may also be caused by such fear.
The problematic point is that in most cases it is the individual trapped in a behaviour loop that has to reach the insight that help is needed. So a certain level of suffering and critical self observation seems to be necessary.

[Sushan]

...
I think what you mentioned too can be more or less classified into these groups. So where does insanity belong to?

I have not taken my classification from any authoritative scientific source. It just came to my mind when thinking about the topic.

To me "insanity" appears to be a colloquial term that people use depending on contexts and individual judgements. Therefore I would refrain from using it seriously in a philosophical forum. The behavior the author refers to might be better characterized by scientific measures taken from sources like behavior analysis, psychotherapy and the like. It always depends on the harm caused by a certain type of behavior (for self or other) whether a behavior needs to be modified therapeutically. E.g. if someone is caught up in a behavior loop and therefore does not reach a desired goal then this may cause suffering which then may be a case for therapy.

People can be caught up in behaviour loops for many reasons. Maybe they are actually obsessive in that behaviour and that will definitely need therapeutic interventions. But what about those who are afraid of change? There are many who do the same thing over and over again without much success simply because that is well known to them and they are afraid of taking the leap of faith. Seemingly the author has referred to them as insanes. What can be done for such people to help them to get out of their behaviour loops?

'Being afraid of change' refers to fear and fear may be grounded or ungrounded. If ungrounded it's a case for therapy, too. Obsessive behaviour may also be caused by such fear.
The problematic point is that in most cases it is the individual trapped in a behaviour loop that has to reach the insight that help is needed. So a certain level of suffering and critical self observation seems to be necessary.

I can fully agree with the obsessive nature, which comes as an illness. A simple obsession of a person to constantly keep his hands clean come with the fear of contamination. So after assessing how distress he gets when his hands are dirty, he is gradually subjected to his fears and let him train himself to control his fears and associated aanxiety.

For the fear that occurs with reasoning is quite difficult to tackle with. If they have wrong reasons we can provide insight to them. But what if his reasons are true and practical? If a person is refusing to go to a highly profitable investment because of the risks that are associated with, how can we provide insight and change his mind to accept the risk?

[FranknBerry]

The more I read excerpts of this book, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's, the more it sounds like literally every other book already written on such subject material. It's amazing how most books all just say the same thing. That aside, the often pushed perception of how insanity is defined has always been quite off to me. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is a sane expectation when accounting for a constantly changing environment. In that same vein if expecting the same result is insanity than wouldn't the entire concept of emperical evidence in science be a demonstration of insanity? I'm just arguing perception of course.

Argument of insanity aside every excerpt of this book seems to argue the same exact thing. Repetition begets repetition. You are what you think. Not a new concept by any measure. Although it is accurate what's lacking is a book explaining why things are that way.

[stevie]

If a person is refusing to go to a highly profitable investment because of the risks that are associated with, how can we provide insight and change his mind to accept the risk?

Why should one want to persuade anybody of anything?

[FranknBerry]

If a person is refusing to go to a highly profitable investment because of the risks that are associated with, how can we provide insight and change his mind to accept the risk?

Why should one want to persuade anybody of anything?

We all have our own unique perception of the world that we are forever attempting to persuade others to align with. The act of questioning the want of persuading others is indicative of attempting to persuade. My response to that question is another attempt at persuading. We "want" things to align with how they exist in our "minds". Perceptually, the "why" of it is dependent on the perception held. In regards to business the why is often to acquire more money. In law enforcement the why is to protect and serve. In war the why is to bolster your forces to better your odds of winning. An infinite number of possible whys in perception. A single reason as to why in "nature". Magnets "persuade" other objects to alter their directions/states to align with their particular direction/state.

[Sushan]

The more I read excerpts of this book, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's, the more it sounds like literally every other book already written on such subject material. It's amazing how most books all just say the same thing. That aside, the often pushed perception of how insanity is defined has always been quite off to me. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is a sane expectation when accounting for a constantly changing environment. In that same vein if expecting the same result is insanity than wouldn't the entire concept of emperical evidence in science be a demonstration of insanity? I'm just arguing perception of course.

Argument of insanity aside every excerpt of this book seems to argue the same exact thing. Repetition begets repetition. You are what you think. Not a new concept by any measure. Although it is accurate what's lacking is a book explaining why things are that way.

This book is not perfect. But it has raised several important topics for discussion.

Repetition is useful sometimes. It says 'Try and try and one day you can fly'. So continous attempts are necessary for success. But if the chosen path for success is leading you often towards failure due to a flaw in that method, then will that repetition be useful or a mere waste of time? This can be applied to scientific experiments as well. If the expected result is not produced (this applies for experiments for making something new, but not for research type experiments) you have to try by changing your methods.