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".

Helpful today, harmful tomorrow

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]
It's generally accepted that there's a fine line between genius and insanity. The distinction, fortunately you might say, only applies to a fraction of humanity.

The majority of us tend to fall somewhere in the middle, for better or for worse.

'Rather than defund the police, let's just destroy them.' 'Great idea!' 

The narrow corridor

That being the case, there's another set of more pertinent opposites where the balance is also quite delicate: the line between being helpful and being harmful. 

One's life, consciously and unconsciously, mentally and physically, is, for the most part, spent traipsing the helpful/harmful middle ground.

But, you might say, being deep in helpful territory is a good place to be, so just try to manoeuvre yourself there. 

Well, the thing is, you can't be deep in it. It's a narrow corridor where you're never too far away from crossing into harmful ground. 

In other words, while you might think that being uberly helpful is nothing but good, there's a high chance you'll end up inflicting harm on not only the recipients of the "kind" act, but on yourself as well. 

It's like the old adage, 'Give a man a fish and he has food for a day, teach a man to fish and he has food for life.' (In this particular instance, the potential trouble for the giver is future resentment from the receiver — 'What?! You've no more fish to give me!' — which could result in conflict.)

Dissecting that saying further, very often it's the short-term help that, if not immediately harmful, ends up leading to even bigger problems down the line.

For a pertinent example in light of the times, take the anti-police, Black Lives Matter protests in the US. Data show that they tend to be accompanied by an increase in civilian-on-civilian homicides in the black communities from which they emanate. 

So go ahead, have less policing, but be prepared for the nasty consequences.

Considering recent events in Bogotá, Colombia would do well to take note — this is not to make little of the many problems with policing and other state law-enforcement agencies in this country.

On a macro level, despite the fact that today most of us can expect to live longer compared to our predecessors, this hasn't resulted in 'playing the long game'. On the contrary, in our on-demand society, it's a case of 'now, now, now'.

'The pandemic has only reinforced the on-demand way of life and, it can be argued, increased societal polarization, as well as inequality.'

It makes sense, in some ways. As most of our needs — from a Western world perspective in any case — can be satisfied by the mere touch of a button, many people appear to have lost the virtue of patience. If there's not an instant solution, forget about it. 

So we really only have ourselves to blame when our leaders react accordingly. Any visionaries soon learn that the real trump card (an innocent turn of phrase, honestly) is expediency. Never mind the next election, the latest opinion poll matters just as much.

In these coronavirus times, hope has been expressed that the enforced pause on our "normal" lives will see us taking the time to reflect on how we've been living. We'll identify the more malignant practices and amend them accordingly.

Cruel kindness

Alas, if anything, the pandemic has only reinforced the on-demand way of life and, it can be argued, increased societal polarization, as well as inequality. What's more, it has underscored the short-term "gain", long-term loss tendency.

In the rush to do all that could be done to help those most at risk, very little if any thought appeared to have been given to the unintended consequences. 

Only now, months later, are we seeing some of our leaders finally listening to the dissenting voices who have been at pains to highlight the problems we're creating.

Again, this isn't that shocking when seen through the myopic lens that society as a whole tends to use. 

To use football parlance, we've sacrificed a few playmakers to hold on to a questionable lead. The strategy has backfired, we've been pegged back and we need to go on the offensive. 

However, our star attackers are now out of the game. Most can, thankfully, be reintroduced. The question is, what sort of shape are they in?

When they re-enter the fray, they might be more like madmen than geniuses, more harmful than helpful. The margins, you see, are very tight indeed.

The temptation to choose, innocently perhaps, perceived kindness today, often results in a cruel tomorrow.
___________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

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