# Difference between revisions of "Talk:1657: Insanity"

Cosmogoblin (talk | contribs) |
|||

Line 9: | Line 9: | ||

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) | 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) | ||

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) | 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) |

## Revision as of 21:24, 19 March 2016

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 ;-) --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. 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. 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? 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." Miamiclay (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

- If it had switched to Arabic numerals it wouldn't be DSM-V but DSM-٥ 162.158.91.209 21:24, 19 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 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 White Hat --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. 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? Cosmogoblin (talk) 18:45, 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.108.162.237.76 11:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)