I’m one of those lackadaisical scholars who “tests well.” Testing well has not only driven my scholarly pursuits but my psychological diagnoses and treatments.

When taking that Minnesota Multiphasoid Psychological Personality test (okay - whatever it’s called) I knew that I should answer ‘no’ to the question, “I enjoyed torturing small animals in my youth.” I truthfully answered ‘no,’ but couldn’t imagine (at that time) anyone Number 2 pencilling-in the ‘yes’ oval.

I don’t condone lying, but... I think that many people (I won’t say most), disordered or not, have an inclination toward survival, even those who are cusping suicidal ideation. Once, when I was in an institution and cruising, I said, “god! I feel like I’m dying!” in the presence of staff. I went voluntarily (I always have) for a 3-day lay-in. My pain medication had been delayed for three days and the pain and withdrawal had been the reason for my outburst.

Maybe every binary/multiple-choice/essay test is flawed. Maybe, in this psychotic state, I am grandiose enough to believe that I can pass any psychological test without any red flags that would point to any psychological disturbances?

You have to ask yourself if the psychotic is more likely to admit to torturing small animals or to deny it, even though it had been a youthful pursuit? Not psychopaths, just run-of-the-mill psychotics.

It’s a shame that The Sanity Test is so named; it implies that it can test, well, the sanity of the testee. It doesn’t, of course. As the first message notes, there are problems with some of the questions. There are disclaimers noting that the test isn’t a replacement for actual therapy, etc., but maybe there should be giant ‘for amusement purposes only’ images on each page. As it is I would equate the test with astrology.

Is that fair?