Misinterpreting insanity

@wwaycorrigan

[For an audio/vlog version of this story, click here.]

'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It's an oft-quoted aphorism, sometimes attributed to Albert Einstein, although it's not at all certain that he did actually utter such words. And before I go any further here, I must confess that in a 2012 blog story, Dealing with the dealers, not only did I blatantly make that attribution, but I also said that it was a definition of stupidity rather than insanity. Oh, the irony!

Insane in the brain? Perhaps not.

Ignorantly persevering with stubbornness

That aside, and whatever about the definition's origin, it's a poor attempt at defining insanity.

Firstly, repeatedly doing the same thing could lead to different results. In fact, it likely will lead to different results. That's because conditions are constantly changing. So an action that produces a certain result in one moment will often yield quite a different one in another moment.

Take an aspiring actor — and I'm not at all referring to myself here, honestly. Casting, after casting, after casting. Rejection, followed by rejection, followed by rejection. Then, with no alteration in approach, his face fits. He lands a significant role that changes his life.

'One is more likely to be ignorant, stubborn or stupid rather than insane.'

Something similar could happen in dating. A guy sticks stubbornly to his modus operandi despite countless failures, but then meets someone who is happy to be with him.

This plays out across all walks of life, in business, politics, sport, the lot.

In all such scenarios, the protagonists may have been convinced that their way was the right way all along. Thus, they kept at it and eventually got the outcome they wanted. A case, so they may feel, of the rest of the world catching up to them, not the other way around. And that may have been their expectation, or at least hope, all along.

Thus, to label this insanity is wrong.

Indeed, the opening words are closer to describing ignorance, if it's a case where one is simply unaware of another, better approach, if one exists that is. More positively, they refer to perseverance: 'I will eventually get the result I'm looking for. Believe in the process.'

Swim as you wish — if you can

For insanity, a slightly better definition is 'doing the same unsuccessful thing over and over again whilst knowing that it's highly unlikely to deliver any positive result.'

Such behaviour can also be labelled — more accurately, perhaps — as stubbornness and/or stupidity, in the sense of doing something negative or damaging in spite of oneself.

With insanity, the idea is that inherent mental issues are driving the conduct; it's part of one's makeup and cannot really be changed. Stubbornness, in contrast, suggests that one is choosing to comport oneself in a certain manner.

What's more, insanity — like genius — is rather rare amongst the populace. The definition given at the start and my attempt to improve upon it describe behaviours that are more commonplace.

One is more likely to be ignorant, stubborn or stupid — or a blend of all three — rather than insane. This at least offers some hope for betterment through learning — if one is willing to learn and is receptive to new ways of thinking, that is.

And nobody knows it all, not even the geniuses. To substantially alter another popular but weak quote misattributed to Einstein: 'Everybody has the ability to be good at something. But some prefer to go with the flow like a dead fish rather than flex their muscles and swim as they wish.'

One major problem for some of us, however, is that we're not great swimmers.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to The Corrigan Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

A qualified, uneducated elite

OK, perhaps we’re guilty of being a little naive. Maybe this happens all over the place, not just here in Colombia. But we weren’t aware of it. Well, we never really asked questions about it to be honest.

'How much is a master's?' 'How much have you got?'

Apparently, though, a host of the country’s brightest and best obtain degrees and masters in a less than equitable way – or at least in a way that just doesn’t seem proper. 

It’s not a case of ‘what you know’ or even ‘who you know’; it’s more to do with ‘who you are and where you come from’.

You see, we have it on good authority that a number of students in Colombia’s highest-rated university – Los Andes – are ‘too big to fail’, in a sense. That is, if their exam performances would see them fall short going by the standard marking procedure, that procedure is adjusted to see them right.

We’ve been told by a very trusted professional source inside the college that if he was to grade his students by the international norm – and this is in a subject area where there should be very little room for divergence – he’d be hard pressed to pass any of them. 

Indeed, it’s got to the point now where our insider doesn’t mark the exams he sets – they’re passed on to a third party who is more willing to mark in a ‘superficial and positive way’, as it was explained to us.

This sort of practice isn’t just limited to Los Andes. In another of Bogotá’s reputable universities, we heard of a more personal case which gives an idea of the questionable standards of grading that are practised in the capital, if not Colombia in general.

Indeed.

A female student who had barely attended any of her lectures all semester turned up to sit her final exam. When handing it in at the end, she also presented a doctor’s cert saying she had been ill for the last week – just a week now, not the whole semester. 

She demanded that her expat professor grade her leniently because of this. When she was told her week of sickness was no grounds for preferential marking – especially considering she barely turned up all term – she went berserk.

The professor, though, didn’t shirk – not until, that is, he was told by his department head that the girl should be marked favourably i.e. that she shouldn’t fail, even though she should have. Lunacy. Yet such occurrences here are not as unusual as you would like to see according to those we’ve spoken to who work in this area.

It certainly lends more credence to one of our favourite sayings: ‘Qualification is a result, education a process’. 

These people – and considering their backgrounds and schooling many of them will be Colombia’s future "leading lights" – can rather easily get their qualification, their little piece of paper saying that they are knowledgeable in a certain field, yet many perhaps are far from properly educated. 

Now, this isn't to say that their professors or lecturers are not fit for purpose – on the contrary, you can find some of the finest educators around working here. It’s more about the demands put on the system by these students and their parents, coupled with the significant influence they have.

Important but worthless?

Of course, even without the shocking practices highlighted above, the previous paragraph could be aimed at many people who have degrees or masters. 

In one way getting your qualification is a bit like a placebo effect – it can make you feel that bit better about yourself but does it really better you? It can make some people more arrogant anyway.

Yes, a degree or a master’s is needed to open many doors or even just to be considered for numerous positions – a necessary evil in many ways. But like most things, practice makes perfect. It’s usually the case that you learn much more by getting down and dirty in whatever area you have your qualification in – if you have one – than what you learnt in schooling.

Bearing all that in mind, it would seem prudent for many companies, as some of the more progressive are now doing, to review what sort of qualifications they look for when hiring. 

Ruling out somebody straight away just because he/she doesn’t have a degree or a master’s could be foolish, in the same way that it may be unwise to include people just because they are well "qualified" in terms of letters after their name and pieces of paper on their walls.

After all, in the long run, it may be better to be mastered by a fool than to be fooled by an apparent master.

Dealing with the dealers

It was Albert Einstein who mused that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It seems pretty obvious, right? If your approach didn’t work the first or second time, there is a very high chance it won’t work the next time either.  

However, for something so cast-iron clear, many people fail to avoid it. Take the war on illegal drugs, for example. The strategy used here, which is virtually universal, is to tackle consumption and production to the point of elimination. 

After decades of employing such tactics, the results are paltry to say the least. Yet the fight goes on – and at quite a cost, not just financially speaking but also in terms of personnel. So is a new line of attack not long overdue? Or at the very least shouldn’t we start trialling one?

'Crime doesn't pay.' But drug dealing? Ask the Escobars.

The most obvious fresh approach is to begin a process of legalising heretofore banned drugs. By taking control of production and supply, individual nations will be in a much more powerful position to monitor and manage consumption. 

Not only that, but with such a move you would practically wipe out one of the main revenue sources for vicious criminal gangs across the globe. And what you take away from the underworld you can add to the state’s coffers (although considering how some countries are being governed at the moment, we’re not too sure how positive a move that is). 

Outside of the actual direct revenues that would be garnered from legalisation other savings would include the freeing up of prison spaces and the removal of a major burden on court time, to name just two. 

Now, while there is nothing new in such thinking, it does seem to be gathering – if only very slowly – more mainstream attention. Quite pertinently, a former drugs minister in the UK, the Labour party’s Bob Ainsworth, recently voiced such opinions. 

More significantly, though – surprisingly so, perhaps – Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos has also come out in support of the legalisation route in the effort to ‘win’ the war on drugs. Now we say surprisingly here because, despite most Westerners preconceptions about Colombia, the vast majority of locals are completely against illegal narcotics. The fact that the country has bloodily suffered more than most in the drugs war is one of the main reasons for this. 

Bearing that in mind, the thoughts on this matter of the pro-United States President Santos carry more weight than many others. He is seeing first-hand the futility of the old-school approach and has realised it’s time to change tack. He also knows that for such a policy to succeed, it has to be adopted across the world. It’s all or nothing.

Australia's Nimbin - leading the way?

In one sense it’s a case of ‘what have we got to lose’. There are those who argue that if we go down the legalisation route substance abuse will increase significantly. Such a stance seems to ignore personal choice. Just because something becomes available to all, does not mean all will take it. Indeed, for some, in such a case, the product loses a certain appeal. 

It also has to be said that right now, those who want illegal drugs, can get them relatively easy. The trouble is, as alluded to above, is that they must deal with dangerous characters in dangerous places in order to get them, keeping alive these murderous underworld empires. 

Indeed, one thing that the anti-drugs lobby and the dealers they so despise have in common is a desire to, more or less, maintain the status quo.

So after years of fighting an endless, winless war is the smart move not now to change the focus of attack - to take away one of the main raisons d’etre of the vast majority of criminal gangs. 

As Hollywood might put it, ‘it’s time to clean out the dealers’.