“Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing and Expecting Different Results”(quoteinvestigator.com)
quoteinvestigator.com
“Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing and Expecting Different Results”
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/
112 comments
It's still insanity, unless you know what has changed or at least that something relevant is different this time.
That's not to say that insanity doesn't work sometimes.
That's not to say that insanity doesn't work sometimes.
It's not insanity. Since time invariance is more of an abstract construct than a natural occurrence, I think you all but but guarantees that the same action will eventually yield a different result.
If you expect things to turn out differently you will often be disappointed though.
That's a function of your expectations. People get sad when they don't win the lotto but they don't celebrate every day they don't get hit by a car. It's not the odds, it's the expectations that are off.
[deleted]
This saying is spammed all over rehab and recovery (AA/NA) groups. If you hear someone saying it, odds are high that is where they picked it up, especially if they say it a lot like it conveys some deep wisdom or something.
In the context of substance abuse, it's not hard to see the original implication of the now-largely meaningless aphorism: People trying to beat an addiction have to work very hard to keep from falling back into the habit. An addicted person will often find him or herself doing the same things (hanging out with the same enablers, doing the same activities that surround substance abuse) and expecting things will be "different this time."
Thus the admonition that someone is "insane" if they expect change when they are doing the very same things they did when they were dependent.
Thus the admonition that someone is "insane" if they expect change when they are doing the very same things they did when they were dependent.
Interesting. I always saw the meaning as directly related to relapse, which is a huge theme in recovery groups. That is, people get sober for a few months, think they have "fixed" their addiction and get drunk again, thinking that they won't become the same awful drunk they were before recovery.
Sometimes, but rarely, that happens though. Remember, they may have created more contacts or added rules to prevent abuse.
Never been to any rehab and recovery groups, but I used to hear this all the time in real estate training, and self-help seminars. These days, it's life coaches who love this quote.
The intersection of all five of those sets is surprisingly high
I'm starting a self-help seminar for real-estate agents on ice. I hope you're right.
That's called NA.
My experiments on myself in reprogramming my brain as part of my recovery from addiction have led to a surprising conclusion: an addict can perform the same behavior with a different mindset and get different results. The problem is when the addictive behavior is performed in order to escape/numb their emotions (or whatever problematic motivation was driving them in their addiction).
Also, the phrase requires predicting the future of a complex adaptive system, aka. a human. If 12-step groups besides Codependents Anonymous actually spent time looking at codependency, they'd be able to catch the glaring future-tripping nonsense in the idea.
Also, the phrase requires predicting the future of a complex adaptive system, aka. a human. If 12-step groups besides Codependents Anonymous actually spent time looking at codependency, they'd be able to catch the glaring future-tripping nonsense in the idea.
Is this your justification for why it's safe for you to drink?
While your "complex adaptive system" may have escaped addiction, others usually don't, and that statement is useful for them.
While your "complex adaptive system" may have escaped addiction, others usually don't, and that statement is useful for them.
For addicts, religion or saying and thinking about life in religious ways and mantras, work surprisingly well for beating the addiction. It's difficult for me to say it being a "hard-core atheist", but this is something I've seen from my close ones. Of course, now in my eyes they have another problem, but it's not substance addiction anymore.
Indeed, in the article, the first verbatim use in print is in NA material from 1981.
I used to hear this from my dad. He wasn't involved in rehab/recover, though he is a doctor (pathologist) so... maybe he heard it from other doctors who are involved in rehab/recovery?
Well, whom ever coined the phrase, they obviously never got a disc read error on a PS2.
Nor worked with modern computers.
I've had many experiences where doing "the same thing" results in a different outcome each time. Of course, that ignores the whole ton of context that isn't immediately obvious - the state of the program, the state of things running in the OS, the state of the data in the database, etc.
I've had many experiences where doing "the same thing" results in a different outcome each time. Of course, that ignores the whole ton of context that isn't immediately obvious - the state of the program, the state of things running in the OS, the state of the data in the database, etc.
Multi threaded programming man. I've lots of times had a bug which just sometimes occurs, and the easiest way to reproduce it is to just run the exact same program with the same inputs over and over until it randomly decides to not work.
I wonder if it comes down to humans actually believing they can control what is basically an electric signal for its life time, if that makes sense.
01001101 01100001 01111001 01100010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110011 01100001 01101110 01100101
01001101 01100001 01111001 01100010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110011 01100001 01101110 01100101
I decoded this by pasting it into http://www.roubaixinteractive.com/PlayGround/Binary_Conversi... (I won't spoil the answer)
I'd expect someone who went through the trouble of decoding it to share the meaning but maybe that's insane.
I often keep doing the same thing and pray for the same result. My computer usually tells me to get bent. Which in a way fits the original quote.
That's where this aphorism falls short - defining what is the "same" actions or results is complex, when meaning is dependent upon context and context is constantly changing unpredictably.
Beautiful. Or a tape load error on a ZX Spectrum!
..or blown on a Nintendo game cartridge.
Windows 98 regularly produced different results from what appeared to be the same input.
Or trained for a marathon, or practiced playing chess to improve their skills.
Or plugged in a USB cable.
This the sort of thing Einstein might have believed when was going through his quantum mechanics denialist phase.
Suffice to say the universe proved him, and fans of the quote, very wrong.
Suffice to say the universe proved him, and fans of the quote, very wrong.
The actual quote from the time is "God does not play dice" with a good rebuttal by Bohr.
Experimentation and practice both consist of repeating the same behavior.
If you beat your head against the wall enough times sometimes the wall gives way.
It's not useful to expect to be successful on the first try.
If you beat your head against the wall enough times sometimes the wall gives way.
It's not useful to expect to be successful on the first try.
But the circumstances having changed (the wall gets progressively weaker with each attempt) can be taken to mean that you aren't quite "doing the same thing" and so this terrible quote sadly lives on in the minds of the pedantic.
By that definition, in the real world you never do the same thing twice. Your environment always changes (in fact there are several natural laws dictating that it does).
From the pedantic viewpoint the quote may be true, but then it doesn't say anything useful anymore.
From the pedantic viewpoint the quote may be true, but then it doesn't say anything useful anymore.
“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”
― Heraclitus
(I thought this quote was Xeno, but the internet says I'm wrong)
― Heraclitus
(I thought this quote was Xeno, but the internet says I'm wrong)
We're in agreement on that, and that's why this quote is terrible and amounts to nothing.
fair point -- we are subtly varying our practice attempts and the world is subtly changing, and sometimes those trends intersect in such a way that the clouds part.
In case you don't wish to click through:
In conclusion, based on current evidence the saying originated in one of the twelve-step communities. Anonymity is greatly valued in these communities, and no specific author has been identified by the many researchers who have explored the provenance of this adage. The linkage to Albert Einstein occurred many years after his death and is unsupported.
In conclusion, based on current evidence the saying originated in one of the twelve-step communities. Anonymity is greatly valued in these communities, and no specific author has been identified by the many researchers who have explored the provenance of this adage. The linkage to Albert Einstein occurred many years after his death and is unsupported.
Stochastic processes by definition behave differently while doing the same thing.
Stochastic processes are basically the definition of insanity though right?
But if you repeat the same stochastic process over and over, your expectation of what happens the next time should reflect what happened all the times before. If it doesn't, you are not applying probability theory correctly. Like a gambler who keeps betting, although he keeps losing more than he wins. Whether it is actually insane is another matter, but it definitely isn't smart.
Hmm. They're missing a Dilbert citation from 2004, which is where I first heard this saying.
http://dilbert.com/strip/2004-02-01
Of course, he doesn't attempt to claim that it's his creation, so perhaps it's not a good citation. Still, a good comic strip (and far too relevant to our field).
http://dilbert.com/strip/2004-02-01
Of course, he doesn't attempt to claim that it's his creation, so perhaps it's not a good citation. Still, a good comic strip (and far too relevant to our field).
I think Scott Adams, of all people, would argue that the context under which something is done twice is more important to its outcome.
Pre-suade someone one way, then tell them A, and you will get B. Pre-suade them another way, tell them A, and you will get C.
Pre-suade someone one way, then tell them A, and you will get B. Pre-suade them another way, tell them A, and you will get C.
While debugging an application I often repeat the same thing three or more times, because I'm not 100% sure I'm doing it exactly the same way. And I think that it's often very hard to define "the same thing". And that's the magic behind problem-solving for non-technical friends: they already tried the same thing, "why does it always work when you try it"?
I think the quote is actually the definition of training. Insanity is actually continuing doing a thing despite it being detrimental or not bringing desired results.
(Disregarding the cause though.)
One time I hit a vending machine three times and on the third time my snack came out. Am I insane?
If I'm making a step forward, and keep doing the same thing, it will lead me to different places.
I dislike this quote under the best of circumstances anyhow, regardless of its provenance, because it is also true that it is insane, or at least, irrational, to do the same thing over and over again and expect the same results, if anything about the relevant parts of the world are changing. People are usually using this quote in complicated contexts for things embedded in the real world where this is always the case.
(If you're about to leap up and start going on about the scientific method, bear in mind that the difficulty in doing this properly and the rather extreme efforts that must often be undertaken to conduct the "same" experiment precisely because it is not a thing that happens automatically is itself testimony to how correct I am here, not a contradiction.)
There's a distortion introduced by English here which implicitly draws a dichotomy between "doing the same thing" and "doing the different thing" as if this is drawn from a set of two possibilities, but in fact there's a whole universe of possibilities of which "the thing you just did" is a tiny particular point. Both these formulations are actually correct because if you are doing a thing that is failing and has failed several times, there is quite likely no particular reason to believe that the world around you is going to change in the probably-very-precise way necessary to make it work. But as the world changes, the "same" thing you've been doing is also likely to go out of date because over time, it isn't the same thing. You may be performing the same action, but the context has shifted and the world is no longer what it was back when your action worked.
Anyhow, I just avoid the saying entirely. It is very rarely usefully applicable.
(If you're about to leap up and start going on about the scientific method, bear in mind that the difficulty in doing this properly and the rather extreme efforts that must often be undertaken to conduct the "same" experiment precisely because it is not a thing that happens automatically is itself testimony to how correct I am here, not a contradiction.)
There's a distortion introduced by English here which implicitly draws a dichotomy between "doing the same thing" and "doing the different thing" as if this is drawn from a set of two possibilities, but in fact there's a whole universe of possibilities of which "the thing you just did" is a tiny particular point. Both these formulations are actually correct because if you are doing a thing that is failing and has failed several times, there is quite likely no particular reason to believe that the world around you is going to change in the probably-very-precise way necessary to make it work. But as the world changes, the "same" thing you've been doing is also likely to go out of date because over time, it isn't the same thing. You may be performing the same action, but the context has shifted and the world is no longer what it was back when your action worked.
Anyhow, I just avoid the saying entirely. It is very rarely usefully applicable.
>I dislike this quote under the best of circumstances anyhow
I came here to post the same sentiment. The form I dislike most is "The definition of insanity is..." because it further compounds the fallacy by reinforcing the unearned appearance of rigorousness.
It really is a specious quote.
I came here to post the same sentiment. The form I dislike most is "The definition of insanity is..." because it further compounds the fallacy by reinforcing the unearned appearance of rigorousness.
It really is a specious quote.
Isn't practice repeating the same thing over and over again, and getting slightly better results every time?
Practice is doing something ever so slightly different each time until you perfect it. Once you get to a point of perfection (which you never really do), you do the same thing over and over again expecting the same result... that muscle memory will now take over and you do whatever it is without conscious thought.
So no, it's not quite doing the same thing over and over again. If that were the case, you'd suck just as much after 10,000 hours as you did at the start and be far more frustrated because you expected to get better, but you were doing the same wrong things with every iteration.
So no, it's not quite doing the same thing over and over again. If that were the case, you'd suck just as much after 10,000 hours as you did at the start and be far more frustrated because you expected to get better, but you were doing the same wrong things with every iteration.
Depends. Doing the exact same thing may make you faster at performance. Up to a limit of course.
Or it may cause mistakes elsewhere. Determinism of this kind is for children.
Or it may cause mistakes elsewhere. Determinism of this kind is for children.
Doesn't doing something faster count as slightly different?
This is what I was thinking, but I didn't pursue the argument because "determinism is for children" struck me as an ad hominem argument and I have better things to do than argue with that.
Also, from the "scientific method" perspective, if the quote were true there would be no reason to keep e.g. the Large Hadron Collider running for years on end; the Higgs (and other particles) would have been detected on the first run, and that would be it. In this case, we are quite literally doing the exact same thing over and over, under extremely precise control and mitigation of external influences.
This is actually quite a good rebuttal. I'll have to remember this one.
Tossing a coin repeatedly should result in a random distribution of events over time.
First of all, the quote begins by invoking authority, in this case a dictionary: "The definition of insanity"--and of course the prototypical authority Einstein has been attached to it as well.
So the quote is trying to "nail down" insanity rather than irrationality which is a much more challenging task. And you have to admit that there is a certain unchanging sameness that accompanies a typically insane person, who refuses to update his understanding of reality, his strategy of action, in response to external feedback. Thus, you tend to get the same sorts of actions repeatedly from insane people. For instance, a person who compulsively washes his hands might expect to achieve health or some other tangible benefit, when the fact is that by and large he is just wasting his time.
By invoking the quote, one is able to root out insanity in himself and others by finding examples of unchanging behavior which is often connected to an unchanging viewpoint.
Your complaint seems to be that this bit of wisdom misses the failure of people to update their world views, but 1) that is exactly what the quote tries to do, and 2) your examples of "same thing"/"same results" are tangential to the point of this quote. Sure, we need a proverb to encourage people to update their worldviews, even when things are working for them, but we don't need a proverb that covers all the bases. Might I suggest "The only constant is change", another wonderfully misattributed quote?
So the quote is trying to "nail down" insanity rather than irrationality which is a much more challenging task. And you have to admit that there is a certain unchanging sameness that accompanies a typically insane person, who refuses to update his understanding of reality, his strategy of action, in response to external feedback. Thus, you tend to get the same sorts of actions repeatedly from insane people. For instance, a person who compulsively washes his hands might expect to achieve health or some other tangible benefit, when the fact is that by and large he is just wasting his time.
By invoking the quote, one is able to root out insanity in himself and others by finding examples of unchanging behavior which is often connected to an unchanging viewpoint.
Your complaint seems to be that this bit of wisdom misses the failure of people to update their world views, but 1) that is exactly what the quote tries to do, and 2) your examples of "same thing"/"same results" are tangential to the point of this quote. Sure, we need a proverb to encourage people to update their worldviews, even when things are working for them, but we don't need a proverb that covers all the bases. Might I suggest "The only constant is change", another wonderfully misattributed quote?
In short, the world is not deterministic and you're far from insane for thinking "the same action" can lead to a different result.
There's another part of it that's bothersome to me though - it's the "Insanity is..." part. It implies there's no other definition, cause or characteristic of insanity other than the one that's a-comin' later in the sentence. Here it comes everybody, THE definition of insanity: "Insanity is... blablabla." Oh THAT'S what insanity is, huh? Okay yeah, I mistakenly thought it might've been some kind of nuanced complicated thing psychiatry has been trying hard to understand. Good news, psychiatrists! We finally know what "insanity is!"
And now that I write that, I find myself thinking, is "insanity" even a valid concept? And ignoring that question, is insanity really that bad? Sanity doesn't seem to be all it's cracked up to be. I think they just talked me into doing drugs.
There's another part of it that's bothersome to me though - it's the "Insanity is..." part. It implies there's no other definition, cause or characteristic of insanity other than the one that's a-comin' later in the sentence. Here it comes everybody, THE definition of insanity: "Insanity is... blablabla." Oh THAT'S what insanity is, huh? Okay yeah, I mistakenly thought it might've been some kind of nuanced complicated thing psychiatry has been trying hard to understand. Good news, psychiatrists! We finally know what "insanity is!"
And now that I write that, I find myself thinking, is "insanity" even a valid concept? And ignoring that question, is insanity really that bad? Sanity doesn't seem to be all it's cracked up to be. I think they just talked me into doing drugs.
I agree, that line is widely misused, and it clearly doesn't cover every type of insanity. Like you say, too, sometimes conditions change and the "same thing" does, in fact, have different results. Actions in society, after all, only have meaning in context. Economically, for example, if you spent 50 years as an artist, your sales are likely to vary a great deal over that time based as much on economic conditions entirely beyond your control as any action of yours.
This quote, though, I like: "From the standpoint of the psychology of personal constructs we may define a disorder as any personal construction which is used repeatedly in spite of consistent invalidation." It seems like the broader, common quote could have been derived from that, imprecisely, losing most useful meaning in the process.
This quote, though, I like: "From the standpoint of the psychology of personal constructs we may define a disorder as any personal construction which is used repeatedly in spite of consistent invalidation." It seems like the broader, common quote could have been derived from that, imprecisely, losing most useful meaning in the process.
> You may be performing the same action, but the context has shifted and the world is no longer what it was back when your action worked.
this has always been my annoyance with this quote. context matters.
this has always been my annoyance with this quote. context matters.
I think what they are trying to say is that programming with mutable state, as opposed to pure functional programming, is insanity.
You get different results because your not actually doing the same thing. Walking and walking off a cliff may involve the same muscle motions, but they are most definitely different.
I think it would infrequently involve mollusks. But even if it did -- it's hard to imagine said mollusks would be moving.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for a moment that tidal forces below the cliffs were strong enough to dislodge the anchors of a few otherwise stationary shellfish, I don't think said motions would represent an act of defiance.
ps: I am not in possession of anything called a "not actually", so I don't believe it could possibly be doing the "same thing". Or anything for that matter.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for a moment that tidal forces below the cliffs were strong enough to dislodge the anchors of a few otherwise stationary shellfish, I don't think said motions would represent an act of defiance.
ps: I am not in possession of anything called a "not actually", so I don't believe it could possibly be doing the "same thing". Or anything for that matter.
I agree with you completely, but if you want a bit of insight as to why this quote has become absolutely inescapable: Farcry 3. The antagonist in that game was pretty laughably overwrought, but people loved him, and that was one of his favorite lines.
The truth is that beyond the linguistics of the matter, it's just a wrong definition anyway. Insanity is defined by an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy, but that's too arcane a concept for most people to grasp it seems.
The truth is that beyond the linguistics of the matter, it's just a wrong definition anyway. Insanity is defined by an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy, but that's too arcane a concept for most people to grasp it seems.
TL;DR:
od -An -N1 -x /dev/urandom
TBH I think most quotes can be over analyzed like this to the point that the quote seems ridiculous.
IMO quotes are just ways to remind you of lessons learned; you take them at face value and move on.
A literary analysis of quotes seems out of scope of day to day life.
Of course this doesn't mean you shouldn't analyze things, but this quote does have an obvious face value meaning that is..well valuable.
IMO quotes are just ways to remind you of lessons learned; you take them at face value and move on.
A literary analysis of quotes seems out of scope of day to day life.
Of course this doesn't mean you shouldn't analyze things, but this quote does have an obvious face value meaning that is..well valuable.
"TBH I think most quotes can be over analyzed like this to the point that the quote seems ridiculous."
But I think this one is special that way, which is why I call it out. It is not "sane" to do the same thing over and over and expect the same results, either. The implicit dichotomy the English creates is simply false.
I'm actually rather big into "wisdom", to a degree that the average HN reader would probably find rather quaint and old-fashioned. This is not a wise saying. The "kernel" in its center is not true. The truth that it sorta-kinda points out is not in its center.
But I think this one is special that way, which is why I call it out. It is not "sane" to do the same thing over and over and expect the same results, either. The implicit dichotomy the English creates is simply false.
I'm actually rather big into "wisdom", to a degree that the average HN reader would probably find rather quaint and old-fashioned. This is not a wise saying. The "kernel" in its center is not true. The truth that it sorta-kinda points out is not in its center.
Can you give an example or two where it is not sane to expect the same results over and over?
It is a common idea that we can just "go back" to the past and if we just, say, rekajiggered union laws back to what they were at the height of unions, or rekajiggered immigration laws back to what they were in 1950, or reset the healthcare system back to what worked in whatever time, that we could recover the same results of that time. It won't work, because the world has changed too much. (Which is not to say that they are good or bad ideas, or that they wouldn't have some kind of effect of some sort. But they certainly would not simply recreate the past.)
Politically, it is difficult to convince people of the oncoming disaster of guaranteed-benefit entitlement programs, because they've worked up to this point so why can't we just keep doing the same thing and expecting the same result? But if you've got changing ratios of number of people on the programs vs. the number of people supporting them, you can't expect the same results to obtain.
You can't expect to just keep using the same antibiotics over and over indefinitely and getting the same results.
As we creep closer and closer to the possibility of being able to recreate extinct species and re-introduce them back into their original ecosystems, there's an interesting debate occurring about whether that's even a good idea. Once a species is removed from a niche, is it possible the ecosystem rearranges itself such that reintroduction would be a net negative? (This gets into its own tricky issues about how one can actually define "net positive result to an ecosystem" which so far we've been able to sort of skirt around with various heuristics, but with this sort of power becomes an unavoidable issue.)
In your personal life, there's really quite a bit that over the span of decades you can't expect to keep doing the same thing and getting the same result. Getting drunk and staying out all night doesn't have the same result at 22 as it does at 52. Exercise programs have to change. Careers have to change. Children change everything. Your own political opinions will have to change (is it really sane for a 55-year-old to have the same opinions about everything that they did at 15? what a weird world that would have to be). Your financial practices will probably have to change.
Change is the only constant in life.
Politically, it is difficult to convince people of the oncoming disaster of guaranteed-benefit entitlement programs, because they've worked up to this point so why can't we just keep doing the same thing and expecting the same result? But if you've got changing ratios of number of people on the programs vs. the number of people supporting them, you can't expect the same results to obtain.
You can't expect to just keep using the same antibiotics over and over indefinitely and getting the same results.
As we creep closer and closer to the possibility of being able to recreate extinct species and re-introduce them back into their original ecosystems, there's an interesting debate occurring about whether that's even a good idea. Once a species is removed from a niche, is it possible the ecosystem rearranges itself such that reintroduction would be a net negative? (This gets into its own tricky issues about how one can actually define "net positive result to an ecosystem" which so far we've been able to sort of skirt around with various heuristics, but with this sort of power becomes an unavoidable issue.)
In your personal life, there's really quite a bit that over the span of decades you can't expect to keep doing the same thing and getting the same result. Getting drunk and staying out all night doesn't have the same result at 22 as it does at 52. Exercise programs have to change. Careers have to change. Children change everything. Your own political opinions will have to change (is it really sane for a 55-year-old to have the same opinions about everything that they did at 15? what a weird world that would have to be). Your financial practices will probably have to change.
Change is the only constant in life.
Generally when you do the same thing over and over, you expect to improve over time; we call that "practice."
I don't follow. If you get better each time, then you aren't "doing it the same" each time when you practice. Each practice is naturally unique and fine tuned to the level you are at.
If you are saying that every time I practice, I get a little better, then this is in accord with repeating consistent results.
If you are saying that every time I practice, I get a little better, then this is in accord with repeating consistent results.
Flipping a coin?
Edit:
(except of course you generalize the result to "the coin falls down").
Edit:
(except of course you generalize the result to "the coin falls down").
Or "you get heads or tails" or "it spins through the air before bouncing around a bit".
I think most of the examples one could give can be mitigated by rewording your expectations. Which, incidentally, is the reason for the quote in the first place.
I think most of the examples one could give can be mitigated by rewording your expectations. Which, incidentally, is the reason for the quote in the first place.
Well, by that logic, everything could be reduced to "stuff might happen".
Right, and if you reduce a quote to a tautology, you miss the point.
It's like complaining that a metaphor isn't literal.
It's like complaining that a metaphor isn't literal.
Not entirely. I don't really have a quarrel with the quotes message (I wouldn't really care, TBH), but with how it's used. And sadly, it usually is used to dismiss someone's efforts by misinterpreting the other person's motives (or "expectations") - which coincides with exactly this pattern.
So basically, whenever I read the phrase so far (luckily, I never had to hear it in a personal discussion yet), someone uses it to belittle someone else without taking his/her perspective into account. Or any changes to the world as a whole for that matter.
So basically, whenever I read the phrase so far (luckily, I never had to hear it in a personal discussion yet), someone uses it to belittle someone else without taking his/her perspective into account. Or any changes to the world as a whole for that matter.
I can see that, thanks for sticking with me :)
>TBH I think most quotes can be over analyzed like this to the point that the quote seems ridiculous.
>IMO quotes are just ways to remind you of lessons learned; you take them at face value and move on.
If that were how they're used, I'd agree. But a lot of people will "misapply" the quote, as well as present it as fact. The reason GP felt compelled to complain about it is that this is one of those quotes that is often presented as fact when it isn't.
Also, people often say these things as an excuse not to go in depth or justify their stance. When discussing an issue, they provide this as a reason. One of the most common examples is "Well, where there's smoke there's fire". This one really bothers me as it's almost always wrong whenever it is invoked (i.e. allegations were usually false). Not only that, the literal statement is plain wrong.
>IMO quotes are just ways to remind you of lessons learned; you take them at face value and move on.
If that were how they're used, I'd agree. But a lot of people will "misapply" the quote, as well as present it as fact. The reason GP felt compelled to complain about it is that this is one of those quotes that is often presented as fact when it isn't.
Also, people often say these things as an excuse not to go in depth or justify their stance. When discussing an issue, they provide this as a reason. One of the most common examples is "Well, where there's smoke there's fire". This one really bothers me as it's almost always wrong whenever it is invoked (i.e. allegations were usually false). Not only that, the literal statement is plain wrong.
I agree the quote disregards the why. Why did your approach fail to get the results desired and would your chances of the desired outcome improve with a change. Some analysis must be done of the situation.
There's a rather nice parallel here between the real world, and coding. Pure vs impure functions, specifically. Yes, if you have a pure function, passing in the same arguments and expecting a different return value is insane. However, if there are any side effects whatsoever, any reliance on state external to the function, it's perfectly sane, and in fact, expected, for the function to behave differently.
This is a pretty neat perspective.
Maybe insanity is repeating the same quote over and over again, expecting different results ;)
Maybe insanity is repeating the same quote over and over again, expecting different results ;)
I can't help but think of this quote every time I hit refresh on my dev environment after getting a 500 Internal Server Error.
Except when it comes to inserting USB drives. All hail USB-C!
This statement is about a specific type of behavior conducted often by a specific type of person. It's the person that believes they are not stupid, that they are right, and that the world is at fault, when actually they're just doing it wrong. But it's their own ego and arrogance that would have them repeating themselves only to repeat the same mistake over and over and over and over.
It's the person who feels entitled to the world correcting itself, over them correcting themselves.
As with any blanket statement, it does not apply always. But this one is profound and true when it does.
I know such people. And I've also caught myself in the act more than once. In those instances, it's absolutely true.
This quote has saved me more than once.
It's the person who feels entitled to the world correcting itself, over them correcting themselves.
As with any blanket statement, it does not apply always. But this one is profound and true when it does.
I know such people. And I've also caught myself in the act more than once. In those instances, it's absolutely true.
This quote has saved me more than once.
This quote presupposes insanity is worth defining. In my experience, judgment plagues addicts & they need less of it, not more.
Injecting judgment at the beginning of a recovery slogan seems like the author's continuing to apply judgments and expecting different results.
Injecting judgment at the beginning of a recovery slogan seems like the author's continuing to apply judgments and expecting different results.
I agree, but we are also slaves of habit. It takes conscious effort to break out of bad habit, and in context of insanity, or some milder variations of it, one will surely lack clear, focused and non self-defeating frame of mind needed for such effort.
While in some constrained circumstances, expecting the same actions to result in different outcomes may be outcomes, it has always seemed a terrible way to define insanity. The quotation has always rubbed me wrong for that reason.
> Has anyone anywhere in the poetry of the two worlds ever seen such complete idiocy? These ‘Ahs’ and ‘Ohs,’ this want of comprehension of the simplest remarks, this repetition four or five times of the same imbecile expressions, gives the truest conceivable clinical picture of incurable cretinism. These parts precisely those most extolled by Maeterlinck’s admirers.
Even though he was publishing in 1890's, it's clear that Max Nordau would have been right at home here on HN.
Even though he was publishing in 1890's, it's clear that Max Nordau would have been right at home here on HN.
He missed a reference to Far Cry 3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKMMCPeiQoc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKMMCPeiQoc
This link is more about the meaning of the quote rather than its attribution:
http://blogs.oreilly.com/digitalmedia/2006/10/the-definition...
That saying has always grated on me as fundamentally wrong, and that link provides some insight into it.
http://blogs.oreilly.com/digitalmedia/2006/10/the-definition...
That saying has always grated on me as fundamentally wrong, and that link provides some insight into it.
No, it's most likely a threading issue.
My memory of L. Ron Hubbard's recorded lectures has faded but I recall him saying these words many years before they entered the NA canon. Too bad the transcripts are as well guarded as they are. It might appear in similar form in Dianetics or Science of Survival, both published early 1950's.
Insanity is training NN on social network data, and let the generated Personas with the highest Person binding factor loose on people in danger to quit, hidden behind "annonymous faces".
Insanity is repeating the same thing - expecting the same results on what usually fails the turing test.
It was in Big Bang Theory:
"Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By that definition, Penny is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs."
Actually all founders are 'insane' because growth often happens after building and launching several failures. See Scott Adams' insight on this.
Thats not insansanity, that's devops
I had always attributed this to Deming, but I can't find any evidence that he said it either.
"Mastering is Doing the same thing and expecting different results".
(Just my 2 cents of quote)
(Just my 2 cents of quote)
Often times, sayings such as this one are not meant to tell you 'DA TRUTH', but to provoke you to think differently.
To all the logic warriors here - a sound argument is not always a true one. Damn... sometimes I wonder what will come first - computers becoming human, or humans becoming computers.
To all the logic warriors here - a sound argument is not always a true one. Damn... sometimes I wonder what will come first - computers becoming human, or humans becoming computers.
Yeah, to which I would say:
Isn't the world always in flux?
Isn't the world always in flux?
This is a marker quote.
[deleted]
[deleted]
In reality, global state may have changed. So, no.
i.e. What we refer to as "the same thing" often isn't, in a non-FP world.