Take the 2-minute tour ×
Cognitive Sciences Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for practitioners, researchers, and students in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In my experience the definition of insanity is thus:

Insanity: The state of being seriously mentally ill, mad, and/or irrational.

Is there a proper scientific definition of this term? While mentally ill is relatively easily to pin down, the others criteria seem subjective.

Is there any test or method that can be used to prove a subject to be either sane or insane? How can any such test give objectively accurate results for this or another similar definition of insanity?

share|improve this question
The first paragraph of Wikipedia on insanity mentions how the term is not generally used in scientific and medical discourse. However, you seem to be seeking a scientific or medical definition and measure. –  Jeromy Anglim Jan 24 '12 at 3:28
If you are concerned about diagnosis of a particular mental disorder (e.g., as perhaps listed in the DSM-IV), then ask about the specific disorder. –  Jeromy Anglim Jan 24 '12 at 3:31
Welcome @CrazyJugglerDrummer to the site. After seeing Ben's quality answer to your question, I thought I'd open up a meta discussion about this and similar questions: meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/73/… –  Jeromy Anglim Jan 24 '12 at 3:48
-1 First: you ask two questions at the same time. Second, for definitions please ask Google or Wikipedia. It's time to ask only after they don't satisfy you (e.g. "What is the definition of XXX in the context of YYY. I checked it in Wikipedia but it seems to contradict with ZZZ"). –  Piotr Migdal Jan 24 '12 at 19:17
I think it is a very good question, even if not one that is easy to answer. As others have said, it is not a psychological definition as much as a legal one and a popular culture one. In the series "I Claudius", Nero asked one of his people if they thought he was mad. The response was "Caeser, you set the standard for sanity" ( roughly ). In many respects, this is the only clear definition - can a person function successfully in the society that they are in? Which, of course, means that it is a flexible and inprecise definition. –  Schroedingers Cat Jan 26 '12 at 9:13

3 Answers 3

Sanity is an explicit legal definition. It is generally not a psychological term. This is Wikipedia's definition of Sanity which aligns perfectly to my understanding of abnormal psychology. (emphasis mine):

In criminal and mental health law, sanity is a legal term denoting that an individual is of sound mind and therefore can bear legal responsibility for his or her actions. The official legal term is compos mentis. It is generally defined in terms of the absence of insanity (non compos mentis). It is not a medical term, although the opinions of medical experts are often important in making a legal decision as to whether someone is sane or insane.

Psychologists are often called in to determine "sanity" but they deduce whether one fits the legal definition based on any psychological disorders the individual might have. "Insanity" in this sense could be considered to be one of many psychological disorders that would cause one to be unable to function in a court room and understand their rights.

"Temporary Insanity" was a previously common but largely ill regarded legal excuse in the earlier days of psychology. It is not a psychological term nor does it have a psychological definition.

You'll note the DSM does not include diagnostic criteria for sanity. It is not a term commonly used in research or psychiatry because as you suggest it is much too broad of a concept.

Research on "insane" people is as uselessly broad as it would be on "silly" or "dumb" people. Instead research is conducted on specific conditions or measures.

Wikipedia has some information on Sanity in Psychiatry and Psychology but note these are very outdated ideas and I'm not aware of any current researchers who respect these theories as valid.

share|improve this answer

Ben Brocka makes many fine points. Insanity is a legal definition and what constitutes insanity will vary state to state, even jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What makes sanity so hard to quantify is the fact that so often, in a forensic setting, it comes down to the discretion of a jury of one's peers or the Court to accept or deny insanity as an explanation for a specific instance of behaviors. Laypeople (persons who are not mental health professionals) bring their personal understanding and definition of insanity to the determination process, at least minimally on an unconscious level, and these are strong biases on which to predicate an untarnished, comprehensive determination of sanity, or lack thereof.

Almost always, the establishment of sanity focuses on this general question: Did the individual understand at the time he/she was committing a crime that what he/she was doing was wrong under the law? This may seem basic and obvious, but it's not.

You wanted to know which specific tests or evaluation criteria might be used in determining sanity. I can speak only from a forensic point-of-view, based on my experiences in my state.

The determination of sanity will almost always start with a comprehensive psychological or psychiatric assessment. It is at this level that the presence of underlying Axis I criteria -- mental illness, substance use disorders, learning disorders -- and Axis II -- typically personality and intellectual/learning symptoms (and note that learning disorders and intellectual dysfunctions are not the same thing) -- disorders are determined.

During this process, a person's General Assessment of Functioning, or GAF, score is determined. This score is used as a general indicator of a person's ability to function in society and maintain self-efficacy. The lower the score, the lower a person's abilities are seen; however, note that this is not an intelligence assessment.

Intelligence testing may be part of the process of determining sanity. Tests frequently used are the Woodcock-Johnson, the Weschler (adult and child versions), and the Stanford-Binet.

A substance abuse evaluation often occurs at this point; there are tons of testing instruments for substance abuse assessment, and the criteria examined from a forensic point-of-view is less focused on the individual than on community safety.

Psychological assessment is similar to psychological testing but usually involves a more comprehensive assessment of the individual. Psychological assessment is a process that involves the integration of information from multiple sources, such as tests of normal and abnormal personality, tests of ability or intelligence, tests of interests or attitudes, as well as information from personal interviews. Collateral information is also collected about personal, occupational, or medical history, such as from records or from interviews with parents, spouses, teachers, or previous therapists or physicians. A psychological test is one of the sources of data used within the process of assessment; usually more than one test is used.* (CITATION)

Before diagnosing a psychological disorder, Clinicians must study the themes, also known as abnormalities, within psychological disorders. The most prominent themes consist of: deviance, distress, dysfunction and danger. These themes are known as the 4 D's, which define abnormality. (CITATION)

Other specific tests used might include the MMPI or the MMPI-II, the PCL-R (Hare). How can psychology be measured objectively? First, I think it's important to understand that a thorough psych assessment is like a snapshot of the big picture. You cannot measure the properties of a person as you might a rock, but the testing instruments are highly highly specialized, and should take into account an individual's willingness to report their symptoms and history accurately and honestly (which is different than being unable to self-report due to mental illness or another factor). In other words, psychological and forensic tests have 'lie scales,' which gives the assessor a comparison point -- how open is the subject being in relation to the overall picture put together from not only test scores and information, but also collateral information?

It is extraordinarily difficult to successfully malinger to the trained eye. For example, I had an individual under my supervision who had successfully avoided offender accountability for years because he maintained he was illiterate. He made the mistake of emptying his pockets on my desk; there was a Lotto card among his items -- it was a crossword puzzle Lotto card, where a person had to write the words in (as opposed to scratching the letters out from a pre-printed card). A person who is not genuinely mentally ill, learning disabled, or intellectually challenged cannot continuously keep up the ruse, because they don't know what it really feels like to have any of those conditions, and eventually they make a mistake.

share|improve this answer

I suggest there is a primary species insanity, namely the conviction that it is possible for anyone at any time to be responsible for himself or herself.

Personal responsibility would only be possible if a species member could select his own genetic inheritance before conception and simultaneously his post conception lifetime environment (which nurtures all aspects of its genetic character). I.e. a man can only be responsible for himself if he creates himself.

Clearly he does not. Nothing creates itself, nothing is author of itself, nothing is responsible for itself. Everything has evolved, and continues to evolve by an eternal process of mutual nurture.

For good reason, there is no dispassionately secular rationale for law that states "A man of sound mind is responsible for his actions". Lacking (preferably conclusive) evidence, you might agree the law in this respect is potentially insane.

Horrified? Fear not, you can resort to thinking a god created you and gave you free will so that you could be responsible for yourself ... if you can ignore the god's responsibility for what you do with his gift of free will.

I regret the passion I express here, but forever I have lived with our routine neglect of each other on the deluded understanding that each is responsible for himself. It is thoroughly divisive, justifies our aggressive behaviours and has done nothing to solve our social problems.

If you can adjust to this reality, everything changes.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.