Being Sane in Insane Places

D. L. ROSENHAN

If sanity and insanity exist, how shall we know them?

The question is neither capricious nor itself insane. However much we may be personally convinced that we can tell the normal from the abnormal, the evidence is simply not compel- ling. It is commonplace, for example, to read about murder trials wherein eminent psychia- trists for the defense are contradicted by equally eminent psychiatrists for the prosecution on the matter of the defendant’s sanity. More gener- ally, there are a great deal of conflicting data on the reliability, utility, and meaning of such terms as “sanity,” “insanity,” “mental illness,” and

“schizophrenia” Finally, as early as 1934, Benedict suggested that normality and abnor- mality are not universal What is viewed as normal in one culture may be seen as quite aber- rant in another. Thus, notions of normality and abnormality may not be quite as accurate as peo- ple believe they are.

To raise questions regarding normality and ab- normality is in no way to question the fact that some behaviors are deviant or odd. Murder is deviant. So, too, are hallucinations. Nor does raising such questions deny the existence of the personal anguish that is often associated with “mental Anxiety and depression exist. Psychological suffering exists. But normality and abnormality, sanity and insanity, and the diagnoses that flow from them may be less sub- stantive than many believe them to be.

At its heart, the question of whether the sane can be distinguished from the insane (and whether degrees of insanity can be distinguished from each other) is a simple matter: do the sa- lient characteristics that lead to diagnoses reside in the patients themselves or in the environ- ments and contexts in which observers find them? . . . [T]he belief has been strong that pa- tients present symptoms, that those symptoms can be categorized, and, that the sane are distinguishable from the insane. More re- cently, however, this belief has been ques- tioned. . . . [T]he view has grown that psycho- logical categorization of mental illness is useless at best and downright harmful, misleading, and pejorative at worst. Psychiatric diagnoses, in

this view, are in the minds of the observers and are not valid summaries of characteristics dis- played by the observed

Gains can be made in deciding which of these is more nearly accurate by getting normal people (that people who do not and have never suffered, symptoms of serious psychiatric disor- ders) admitted to psychiatric hospitals and then determining whether they were discovered to be sane and, if so, how. If the sanity of such pseudopatients were always detected, there would be prima facie evidence that a sane indi- vidual can be distinguished from the insane con- text in which he is found. If, on the other hand, the sanity of the pseudopatients were never discovered, serious difficulties would arise for those who support traditional modes of psychiatric diagnosis. Given that the hospital staff was not incompetent, that the pseudopa- tient had been behaving as sanely as he had been outside of the hospital, and that it had never been previously suggested that he belonged in a psychiatric hospital, such an unlikely outcome would support the view that psychiatric diag-

nosis betrays little about the patient but much about the environment in which an observer finds him.

This article describes such an experiment. Eight sane people gained secret admission to 12

hospitals Their diagnostic riences constitute the data of the first part of this article; the remainder is devoted to a de- scription of their experiences in psychiatric in- stitutions. . . .

Pseudopatients and Their Settings

The eight pseudopatients were a varied group. One was a psychology graduate student in his The remaining seven were older and “es- Among them were three psycholo- gists, a pediatrician, a psychiatrist, a painter, and a housewife. Three pseudopatients were women, five were men. All of them employed pseudonyms, lest their alleged diagnoses embar- rass them later. Those who were in mental health professions alleged another occupation in

Reprinted from Science, Vol. 179 (January 1973), pp. 250-258, by permission of the publisher and author. Copy- right 1973 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

179

180 The Effects of Contact with Control Agents

order to avoid the special attentions that might be accorded by as a matter of courtesy or caution, to ailing colleagues With the excep- tion of myself (I was the first pseudopatient and my presence was known to the hospital adminis- trator and chief psychologist and, so far as I can tell, them alone), the presence of pseudopatients and the nature of the research program was not known to the hospital staffs

The settings were similarly varied. In order to generalize the findings, admission into a variety of hospitals was sought. The 12 hospitals in the sample were located in five different states on the East and West coasts. Some were old and shabby, some were quite new. Some were re- search-oriented, others not. Some had good staff-patient ratios, others were quite under- staffed. Only one was a strictly private hospital. All of the others were supported by state or fed- eral funds or, in one instance, by university funds.

After calling the hospital for an appointment, the pseudopatient arrived at the admissions office complaining that he had been hearing voices. Asked what the voices said, he replied that they were often unclear, but as far as he could tell they said and “thud.” The voices were unfamiliar and were of the same sex as the pseudopatient. . . .

Beyond alleging the symptoms and falsifying vocation, and employment, no further al- terations of person, history, or circumstances were made. The significant events of the pseudo- patient’s life history were presented as they had actually occurred. Relationships with parents and with spouse and children, with peo- ple at work and in school, consistent with the aforementioned exceptions, were described as they were or had been. Frustrations and upsets were described along with joys and satisfac- tions. These facts are important to remember. If anything, they strongly biased the subsequent results in favor of detecting sanity, since none of their histories or current behaviors were seri-

ously pathological in any way.

Immediately upon admission to the psychiat-

ric ward, the pseudopatient ceased simulating any symptoms of abnormality. In some cases, there was a brief period of mild nervousness and anxiety, since none of the pseudopatients really believed that they would be admitted so easily. Indeed, their shared fear was that they would be immediately exposed as frauds and greatly em- barrassed. Moreover, many of them had never

visited a psychiatric ward; even those who had, nevertheless had some genuine fears about what might happen to them. Their nervousness, then, was quite appropriate to the novelty of the hos- pital setting, and it abated rapidly.

Apart from that short-lived nervousness, the pseudopatient behaved on the ward as he “nor- mally” behaved. The pseudopatient spoke to pa- tients and staff as he might ordinarily. Because there is uncommonly little to do on a psychiatric ward, he attempted to engage others in conver- sation. When asked by staff how he was feeling, he indicated that he was fine, that he no longer experienced symptoms. He responded to in- structions from attendants, to calls for medica- tion (which was not swallowed), and to dining-

instructions. Beyond such activities as were available to him on the admissions ward, he spent his time writing down his observations about the ward, its patients, and the staff. Ini- tially these notes were written “secretly,” but as it soon became clear that no one much cared, they were subsequently written on standard tab- lets of paper in such public places as the day- room. No secret was made of these activities.

The pseudopatient, very much as a true psy- chiatric patient, entered a hospital with no fore- knowledge of when he would be discharged. Each was told that he would have to get out by his own devices, essentially by convincing the

that he was sane. The psychological stresses associated with hospitalization were consider- able, and all but one of the pseudopatients de- sired to be discharged almost immediately after being admitted. They motivated not only to behave sanely, but to be paragons of cooperation. That their behavior was in no way disruptive is confirmed by nursing reports, which have been obtained on most of the pa- tients. These reports uniformly indicate that the patients were “friendly,” “cooperative,” and “exhibited no abnormal

The Normal Are Not Detectably Sane

Despite their public “show” of sanity, the pseudopatients were never detected. Admitted, except in one case, with a diagnosis of schizo- phrenia [9], each was discharged with a diag- nosis of schizophrenia “in remission.” The label “in remission” should in no way be dismissed as a formality, for at no time during any hospital- ization had any question been raised about any

pseudopatient’s simulation. Nor are there any indications in the hospital records that the pseudopatient’s status was suspect. Rather, the evidence is strong that, once labeled schizo- phrenic, the pseudopatient was stuck with that label. If the pseudopatient was to be discharged, he must naturally be “in remission”; but he was not sane, nor, in the institution’s view, had he ever been sane.

The uniform failure to recognize sanity cannot be attributed to the quality of the hospitals. . . . Nor can it be alleged that there was simply not enough time to observe the pseudopatients. Length of hospitalization ranged from 7 to 52

with an average of 19 days. The pseudopa- tients were not, in fact, carefully observed, but this failure clearly speaks more to traditions within psychiatric hospitals than to lack of op- portunity.

Finally, it cannot be said that the failure to recognize the sanity was due to the fact that they were not behaving sanely. While there was clearly some tension present in all of them, their daily visitors could detect no serious behavioral indeed, could other patients. It was quite common for the patients to “detect” the

sanity. . . . “You’re not crazy. You’re ajournal- ist, or a professor [referring to the continual You’re checking up on the hos- pital.” While most of the patients were reas- sured by the pseudopatient’s insistence that he had been sick before he came in but was fine now, some continued to believe that the pseudo- patient was sane throughout his hospitalization The fact that the patients often recognized normality when staff did not raises important

questions.

Failure to detect sanity during the course of

hospitalization may be due to the fact that . . . physicians are more inclined to call a healthy person sick . . . than a sick person healthy. . . . The reasons for this are not hard to find: it is clearly more dangerous to misdiagnose illness than health. Better to err on the side of caution, to suspect illness even among the healthy.

But what holds for medicine does not hold equally well for psychiatry. Medical illnesses, while unfortunate, are not commonly pejorative. Psychiatric diagnoses, on the contrary, carry with them personal, legal, and social stigmas

It was therefore important to see whether the tendency toward diagnosing the sane insane could be reversed. The following experiment

was arranged at a research and teaching hospital whose staff had heard these findings but doubted that such an error could occur in their hospital. The staff was informed that at some time during the following 3 months, one or more pseudopa- tients would attempt to be admitted into the psy- chiatric hospital. Each staff member was asked to rate each patient who presented himself at admissions or on the ward according to the likelihood that the patient was a pseudopa- tient. . . .

Judgments were obtained on 193 patients who were admitted for psychiatric treatment. All staff who had had sustained contact with or pri- mary responsibility for the

nurses, psychiatrists, physicians, and psycholo- asked to make judgments. Forty-

one patients were alleged, with high

to be pseudopatients by at least one member of the Twenty-three were considered suspect by at least one psychiatrist. Nineteen were sus- pected by one psychiatrist and one other staff member. Actually, no genuine pseudopatient (at least from my group) presented himself during this period.

The experiment is It indicates that the tendency to designate sane people as insane can be reversed when the stakes (in this case, prestige and diagnostic acumen) are high. But what can be said of the 19 people who were sus- pected of being “sane” by one psychiatrist and another staff member? Were these people truly “sane?” . . . There is no way of knowing. But one thing is certain: any diagnostic process that lends itself so readily to massive errors of this sort cannot be a very reliable one.

The Stickiness of Psychodiagnostic Labels

Beyond the tendency to call the healthy sick tendency that accounts better for diagnostic behavior on admission than it does for such be-

havior after a lengthy period of

data speak to the massive role of labeling in psy- chiatric assessment. Having once been labeled schizophrenic, there is nothing the pseudopa- tient can do to overcome the tag. The tag pro- foundly colors others’ perceptions of him and his behavior.

From one viewpoint, these data are hardly surprising, for it has long been known that ele- ments are given meaning by the context in which

Being Sane in Insane Places 181

182 The Effects of Contact with Control Agents

they occur. . . . Once a person is designated abnormal, all of his other behaviors and charac- teristics are colored by that label. Indeed, that label is so powerful that many of the pseudopa- tients’ normal behaviors were overlooked en- tirely or profoundly misinterpreted. Some exam- ples may clarify this issue.

Earlier I indicated that there were no changes in the pseudopatient’s personal history and cur- rent status beyond those of name, employment, and, where necessary, vocation. Otherwise, a veridical description of personal history and cir- cumstances was offered. Those circumstances were not psychotic. How were they made con- sonant with the diagnosis of psychosis? Or were those diagnoses modified in such a way as to bring them into accord with the circumstances of the pseudopatient’s life, as described by him?

As far as I can determine, diagnoses were in no way affected by the relative health of the cir- cumstances of a pseudopatient’s life. Rather, the reverse occurred: the perception of his circum- stances was shaped entirely by the diagnosis. A clear example of such translation is found in the case of a pseudopatient who had had a close relationship with his mother but was rather re- mote from his father during his early childhood. During adolescence and beyond, however, his father became a close friend, while his relation- ship with his mother cooled. His present rela- tionship with his wife was characteristically close and warm. Apart from occasional angry exchanges, friction was minimal. The children had rarely been spanked. Surely there is nothing especially pathological about such a history. . . . Observe, however, how such a history was translated in the psychopathological context, this from the case summary prepared after the patient was discharged.

This white 39-year-old male . . . manifests a long his- tory of considerable ambivalence in close relation- ships, which began in early childhood. A warm rela- tionship with his mother cools during his adolescence. A distant relationship to his father is described as be- coming very intense. Affective stability is absent. His attempts to control emotionality with his wife and chil- dren are punctuated by angry outbursts and, in the case of the children, spankings. And while he says that he has several good friends, one senses considerable ambivalence embedded in those relationships also. . . .

The facts of the case were unintentionally dis- torted by the staff to achieve consistency with a popular theory of the dynamics of a schizo-

phrenic reaction Nothing of an ambivalent nature had been described in relations with par- ents, spouse, or friends. . . . Clearly, the mean- ing ascribed to his verbalizations (that is, am- bivalence, affective instability) was determined by the diagnosis: schizophrenia. An entirely dif- ferent meaning would have been ascribed if it were known that the man was

All pseudopatients took extensive notes pub- licly. Under ordinary circumstances, such be- havior would have raised questions in the minds of observers, as, in fact, it did among patients. Indeed, it seemed so certain that the notes would elicit suspicion that elaborate precautions were taken to remove them from the ward each day. But the precautions proved needless. The closest any staff member came to questioning these notes occurred when one pseudopatient asked his physician what kind of medication he was receiving and began to write down the re- sponse. “You needn’t write it,” he was told gently. “If you have trouble remembering, just ask me

If no questions were asked of the pseudopa- tients, how was their writing interpreted? Nurs- ing records for three patients indicate that the writing was seen as an aspect of their patho- logical behavior. . . . Given that the patient is in the hospital, he must be psychologically dis- turbed. And given that he is disturbed, continu- ous writing must be a behavioral manifestation of that disturbance, perhaps a subset of the com- pulsive behaviors that are sometimes correlated with schizophrenia.

One tacit characteristic of psychiatric diag- nosis is that it locates the sources of aberration within the individual and only rarely within the complex of stimuli that surrounds him. Conse- quently, behaviors that are stimulated by the en- vironment are commonly misattributed to the patient’s disorder. For example, one kindly nurse found a pseudopatient pacing the long hos- pital corridors. “Nervous, Mr. X?” she asked. “No, bored,” he said.

The notes kept by pseudopatients are full of patient behaviors that were misinterpreted by well-intentioned staff. Often enough, a patient would go “berserk” because he had, wittingly or unwittingly, been mistreated by, say, an at- tendant. A nurse coming upon the scene would rarely inquire even cursorily into the environ- mental stimuli of the patient’s behavior. Rather, she assumed that his upset derived from his pathology, not from his present interactions with

other staff members. . . . [N]ever were the staff found to assume that one of themselves or the structure of the hospital had anything to do with a patient’s behavior. One psychiatrist pointed to a group of patients who were sitting outside the cafeteria entrance half an hour before lunchtime. To a group of young residents he indicated that such behavior was characteristic of the oral- acquisitive nature of the syndrome. It seemed not to occur to him that there were very few things to anticipate in a psychiatric hospital be- sides eating.

often wake patients with, “Come on, you out of bed!”

Neither anecdotal nor “hard” data can con- vey the overwhelming sense of powerlessness which invades the individual as he is continually exposed to the depersonalization of the psychi- atric hospital. . . .

Powerlessness was evident everywhere. The patient is deprived of many of his legal rights by dint of his psychiatric commitment He is shorn of credibility by virtue of his psychiatric label. His freedom of movement is restricted. He cannot initiate contact with the staff, but may only respond to such overtures as they make. Personal privacy is minimal. Patient quar-

possessions can be entered and exam- any staff member, for whatever reason. His personal history and anguish is available to any staff member (often including the “grey and “candy who to read his folder, regardless of their

Being Sane in Insane Places 183

A psychiatric label has a life and an influence

of its own. Once the impression has been formed

that the patient is schizophrenic, the expectation

is that he will continue to be schizophrenic.

When a sufficient amount of time has passed,

during which the patient has done nothing

bizarre, he is considered to be in remission and

available for discharge. But the label endures

beyond discharge, with the unconfirmed expec-

tation that he will behave as a schizophrenic to him. His personal hy- again. Such labels, conferred by mental health

giene and waste evacuation are often monitored.

are as influential on the patient as

they are on his relatives and friends, and it At times, reached such pro-

The [toilets] may have no doors.

should not surprise anyone that the diagnosis acts on all of them as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Eventually, the patient himself accepts the diag- nosis, with all of its surplus meanings and expec- tations, and behaves accordingly …

Powerlessness and Depersonalization

Eye contact and verbal contact reflect con- cern and their absence, avoidance and depersonalization. The data I have pre- sented do not do justice to the rich daily encoun- ters that grew up around matters of depersonali- zation and avoidance. I have records of patients who were beaten by staff for the sin of having initiated verbal contact. During my own experi- ence, for example, one patient was beaten in the presence of other patients for having ap- proached an attendant and told him, “I like

Occasionally, punishment meted out to patients for misdemeanors seemed so excessive that it could not be justified by the most radical interpretations of psychiatric canon. Never- theless, they appeared to go unquestioned. Tem- pers were often short. A patient who had not heard a call for medication would be roundly excoriated, and the morning attendants would

portions that sense that were invisible, or at least unworthy of ac- admitted, I and other pseudo- patients took the initial physical examinations in a semipublic room, where staff members went about their own business as if we were not there. On the ward, attendants delivered verbal and occasionally serious physical abuse to patients in the presence of other observing patients, some of whom (the pseudopatients) were writing it all down. Abusive behavior, on the other terminated quite abruptly when other staff members were known to be coming. Staff are

credible witnesses. Patients are not.

A unbuttoned her uniform to adjust her

brassiere in the presence of an entire ward of viewing men. One did not have the sense that she was being seductive. Rather, she didn’t notice A group of staff persons might point to a patient in the dayroom and discuss him animat-

as if he were not

One illuminating instance of depersonalization

and invisibility occurred with regard to medi- cations. All told, the pseudopatients were ad- ministered nearly pills. . . two were

swallowed. The rest were either pocketed or de-

posited in the toilet. The pseudopatients were not alone in this. Although I have no precise records on how many patients rejected their

184 The Effects of Contact with Control Agents

medications, the pseudopatients frequently found the medications of other patients in the toilet before they deposited their own. As long as they were their behavior and the

own in this matter, as in other important went unnoticed throughout.

Reactions to such among pseudopatients were intense. Although they had come to the hospital as participant observers and were fully aware that they did not “belong,” they nevertheless found themselves caught up in and fighting the process of depersonaliza- tion.

The Consequences of Labeling and Depersonalization

Whenever the ratio of what is known to what needs to be known approaches zero, we tend to invent “knowledge” and assume that we under- stand more than we actually We seem unable to acknowledge that we simply don’t know. The needs for diagnosis and remediation of behav- ioral and emotional problems are enormous. But rather than acknowledge that we are just em- barking on understanding, we continue to label patients “schizophrenic,” “manic-depressive,”

and “insane,” as if in those words we had cap- tured the essence of understanding. The facts of the matter are that we have known for a long time that diagnoses are often not useful or reli- able, but we have nevertheless continued to use them. We now know that we cannot distinguish insanity from sanity. It is depressing to consider how that information will be used.

Not merely depressing, but frightening. How many people, one are sane but not rec- ognized as such in our psychiatric institutions? How many have been needlessly stripped of their privileges of citizenship, from the right to vote and drive to that of handling their own ac- counts? How many have feigned insanity in or- der to avoid the criminal consequences of their behavior, and, conversely, how many would rather stand trial than live interminably in a psy- chiatric are wrongly thought to be mentally ill? How many have been stigmatized by well-intentioned, but nevertheless erroneous, diagnoses? . . . diagnoses are rarely found to be in error. The label sticks, a mark of inadequacy forever.

Finally, how many patients might be “sane” outside the psychiatric hospital but seem insane

in because craziness resides in them, as it were, but because they are responding to a bizarre setting, one that may be unique to in- stitutions which harbor nether people?

[4] calls the process of socialization to such in- stitutions apt metaphor that includes the processes of depersonalization that have been described here. And while it is impossible to know whether the

responses to these processes are characteristic of all were, after all, not real pa- is difficult to believe that these pro- cesses of socialization to a psychiatric hospital provide useful attitudes or habits of response for

living in the “real world.”

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. P. Ash, Soc. Psychol. 44, 272 (1949); A. T. Beck, Amer. J. Psychiat. 210 (1962); A. T. Boisen, Psychiatry 2, 233 (1938); N. Kreitman, J.

Sci. 107, 876 (1961); N. Kreitman, P. Sainsbury, J. J. Towers, J. Scrivener, p. 887; H. O. and C. P. Fonda, J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 52, 262 (1956); W. Seeman, J. Nerv. Ment. Dis.

541 (1953). For an analysis of these artifacts and sum- maries of the disputes, see J. Zubin, Rev. Psychol. 18, 373 (1967); L. Phillips and J. G. Draguns,

22, 447 (1971).

2. R. Benedict, J. Gen. Psychol. 10, 59 (1934).

3. See in this regard H. Becker, Outsiders: Studies

in the Sociology of Deviance (Free Press, New York, 1963); B. M. Braginsky, D. D. Braginsky, K. Ring, Methods of Madness: The Mental Hospital as a Last Resort (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York,

G. M. Crocetti and P. V. Lemkau, Amer. Sociol. Rev. 30, 577 (1965); E. Goffman, Behavior in Public Places (Free Press, New York, 1964); R. D. Laing, The Di- vided Self: A Study of Sanity and Madness (Quad- rangle, Chicago, 1960); D. L. Phillips, Amer. Sociol. Rev. 28, 963 (1963); T. R. Sarbin, Psychol. Today 6, 18 (1972); E. Schur, Amer. J. Sociol. 75, 309 (1969); T. Szasz, Law, Liberty and Psychiatry (Macmillan, New York; 1963); The Myth ofMental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Mental Illness (Hoeber Harper, New York, 1963). For a critique of some of these views, see W. R. Gove, Amer. Sociol. Rev. 35, 873 (1970).

4. E. Goffman, Asylums (Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y., 1961).

5. T. J. Scheff, Being Mentally A Sociological Theory (Aldine, Chicago, 1966).

6. Datafromaninthpseudopatientarenotincorpo- rated in this report because, although his sanity went undetected, he falsified aspects of his personal history, including his marital status and parental relationships. His experimental behaviors therefore were not identi- cal to those of the other

7. Beyond the personal difficulties that the pseudo- patient is likely to experience in the hospital, there are legal and social ones that, combined, require consider- able attention before entry. For example, once ad- mitted to a psychiatric institution, it is difficult, if not impossible, to be discharged on short notice, state law to the contrary notwithstanding. I was not sensitive to these difficulties at the outset of the project, nor to the personal and situational emergencies that can arise, but later a writ of habeas corpus was prepared for each of the entering pseudopatients and an attorney was kept “on call” during every hospitalization. I am grateful to John Kaplan and Robert Bartels for legal advice and assistance in these matters.

8. However distasteful such concealment is, it was a necessary first step to examining these questions. Without concealment, there would have been no way to know how valid these experiences were; nor was there any way of knowing whether whatever detec- tions occurred were a tribute to the diagnostic acumen of the staff or to the rumor network. Obvi- ously, since my concerns are general ones that cut across individual hospitals and staffs, I have respected their anonymity and have eliminated clues that might lead to their identification.

9. Interestingly, of the 12 admissions, were diag- nosed as schizophrenic and one, with the identical symptomatology, as manic-depressive psychosis. This

diagnosis has a more favorable prognosis, and it was given by the only private hospital in our sample. On the relations between social class and psychiatric diag- nosis, see A. B. and F. C.

Social Class and Mental A Community Study

New York, 1958).

10. It is possible, of course, that patients have quite

broad latitudes in diagnosis and therefore are inclined to call many people sane, even those whose behavior is patently aberrant. However, although we have no hard data on this matter, it was our distinct impression that this was not the case. In many instances, patients not only singled us out for attention, but came to im- itate our behaviors and styles.

11. J. and E. Community 135 (1965); A. Farina and K. Ring, J. 70, 47 (1965); H. E. Freeman and O. G. Simmons, The Mental Patient Comes Home

(Wiley, New York, 1963): W. J. Johannsen, Ment. giene 53, 218 (1969); A. S. Linsky, Soc. Psychiat. 5, 166 (1970).

12. For an example of a similar self-fulfilling prophecy, in this instance dealing with the “central” trait of intelligence, see R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom (Holt, Rinehart &

ston, New York, 1968).

13. D. B. Wexler and S. E. Scoville, Ariz. Rev.

13, 1 (1971).

Being Sane in Insane Places 185