The Mind Labyrinth

Zafnah Unaisah ’26

Sanity, as defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary, is the “quality of being sane.” But this definition falls short of understanding the depth of the term. What exactly does it mean to be sane? What does it mean to have “soundness of mind”? Well, oddly enough, the answer lies in sanity’s counterpart—what society labels as insanity. To understand soundness is to grasp the moments when our minds feel anything but sound. Much like yin and yang, sanity and insanity feed off each other.

Insanity is often described as a severely disordered state of the mind, or in short, madness. But that definition only raises more questions: what is considered a disordered mind, and what are the means that go about determining this? These are questions that the fields of psychology, psychiatry, psychopathology and just about every other psych-word has tried to answer in an attempt to make sense of one of the most nonsensical forces in existence: the human mind. 

The human mind is indubitably complex and most definitely random. It operates on logic one moment and pure emotion the next, making it nearly impossible to separate reason from feeling. People react in countless ways when thrown into different situations. In an escape room, some people become frustrated and frantic when they can’t crack the code, while others shut down entirely, giving up before time runs out. The truth is, the reaction of an individual to a particular situation cannot be predicted, at least not from first glance. There are exceptions to this rule, such as personally knowing the individual, but even then, reactions are often surprising. We see it all the time in movies: the quiet, lame kid with a nerdy obsession surprises everyone by throwing a punch at the stubborn bully who has tormented him since the beginning of the school year. It might be a weak one and he might miss, but the point is no one expected him to throw that punch. 

That’s why the Behavior Analysis Unit (BAU) of the FBI (and the subject of the TV show Criminal Minds) considers multiple factors when analyzing suspects—including eyewitnesses, statistics of similar crimes, and evidence left from the crime scenes. Through this holistic process, they try to predict patterns of behavior, identifying the Modus Operandi (MO), or signature, of the perpetrator. While some criminals follow specific habits, others can still surprise experts. The way people act and react is influenced by a melting pot of thoughts, emotions, and experiences. That is what makes the human psyche so difficult to understand. 

This complexity in human behavior is what both psychoanalysis and psychiatric diagnosis try to categorize. They are each attempting to interpret the human mind in their own terms, despite its randomness. The two branches of study, however, could not be more different in methodology. Psychoanalysis is a system of psychological theory and therapy that aims to treat mental conditions by examining a combination of conscious and unconscious elements in the mind. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, developed various theories that sought to explain the peculiarities of human behavior, though many of them are now considered nonsensical and absurd. 

From my perspective, one major issue with Freud’s theories was his obsession with sexuality and his sexist mindset, which heavily distorted his understanding of human behavior. For instance, his Oedipus Complex and penis envy theories are overly simplistic and rooted in a singular experience rather than objective science. The Oedipus Complex theorizes that a child has an unconscious desire for the opposite-sex parent and feels a murderous rivalry with the same-sex parent. However, this mindset does not apply to everyone, as it lacks empirical evidence and was largely based on Freud’s personal experiences; he himself admitted to feeling particularly close to his mother and harboring resentment towards his father (Hall, 2017). As for penis envy, Freud theorized that young girls experience a longing for men due to feelings of inferiority for not having male anatomy. This notion is plainly sexist, reducing the female identity to a deficiency. Rather than understanding the female identity as complete and independent of the male identity, Freud defines it only by what women supposedly “lack” compared to men. While Freud has contributed significantly to the world of psychology—through understanding of psychoanalytic theory and defense mechanisms—it is essential to understand the limitations and personal biases in his work. His reliance on few experiences and narrow, often sexist assumptions conveys how difficult it is to universally define the human mind. If even one of the most influential figures in psychology couldn’t escape personal bias, how individualized and unpredictable can the human mind be? It seems impossible to box it into one set of guidelines. 

This complexity becomes more evident when examining real-world experiments such as David Rosenhan’s 1973 “Being Sane in Insane Places,” which exposed the flaws and subjectivity in psychiatric diagnosis. Psychiatric diagnosis is a process used by mental health professionals such as psychiatrists to identify and label a disorder or illness based on an individual’s exhibiting symptoms. While it is more structured than psychoanalysis, psychiatric diagnosis still has its shortcomings. In Rosenhan’s study, 8 pseudo-patients, including Rosenhan himself, who had no history of mental illness were admitted to mental institutions feigning auditory hallucinations. Once admitted, they ceased reporting hallucinations and answered questions truthfully. Despite this, they were still diagnosed with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and given antipsychotic medication. This was a controversial experiment that raised ethical concerns about deceiving hospital staff, but also established critical questions about the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses and the potential for mislabeling individuals. Rosenhan argued, “The issue is not that the pseudopatients lied or that the psychiatrists believed them…The issue is the diagnostic leap that was made between a single presenting symptom, hallucination, and the diagnosis, schizophrenia (or, in one case, manic-depressive psychosis). That is the heart of the matter” (Agarwal, 2023). What can be drawn from this study is the over-reliance on subjective interpretation and the tendency to jump to conclusions based on minimal symptoms. The study also suggests that psychiatric diagnoses based on limited information can often lead to misdiagnosis.

While the field of psychiatry has significantly advanced since Rosenhan’s study, the fundamental question still remains: how do we accurately understand the human mind when it is inherently complex and random? The issue lies not only in correctly diagnosing mental illnesses, but also avoiding personal biases that can potentially distort the diagnosis. This is not to say that Freud’s theories and psychological fields as a whole are some fraudulent scheme, but rather to acknowledge that these studies are certainly not immune to flaws, even when they provide valuable insights. As our understanding of mental health continues to evolve, it is essential to improve diagnostic tools and reduce bias in order to accurately examine and treat mental health conditions.