Light On Dark Water

I was pretty sure Einstein never said that

I just saw, for the 20th or so time this week, that annoying pseudo-adage: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Generally it's accompanied by the claim that Einstein said it.

I think it was around the 300th time I heard it that I thought wait a second–that doesn't even especially make sense. A lot of doing the same thing over and over is involved in the acquisition of most extremely refined skills, e.g. playing  a musical instrument. You do the same thing over and over and gradually you do get different results.  Of course you don't in fact do exactly the same thing, but that's what you're trying to do: to get this one thing just right. Obviously there are situations in which doing the same thing over and over is clearly a mistake, but hardly "the definition of insanity."

And then I thought what's more, I don't believe Einstein said it. Apart from the fact that it isn't all that clever, it doesn't sound like him. Apparently I'm right.

The original of which this phrase is a variant makes much more sense: "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes but expecting different results."

Maclin Horton

13 responses to “I was pretty sure Einstein never said that”

  1. Janet Cupo

    I’ve heard that a million times, but I’ve never heard it attributed to Einstein. I can’t believe it was written by Rita Mae Brown. It’s frequently heard in 12 Step Meetings because of the second step, “Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.” I found this quote on a website, and it pretty well explains the context in which it is used. “When A.A literature refers to insanity it is not using the dictionary definition of insanity. The Big Book is talking about the insane thinking of an alcoholic when he decides to ingest alcohol. In this sense, we all, without exception, have been insane. Moreover, our plight was hopeless. It is necessary, therefore, that our Higher Power be sufficiently able and willing to restore us first to the sanity of total abstinence.” I think in this context it works, although the second version of it is probably better.
    AMDG

    Reply
  2. Janet Cupo

    Actually, I’m pretty sure that insanity is buying a little folding chair for your granddaughter that won’t be born until January so that she can have one to match her cousins’ chairs.
    AMDG

    Reply
  3. Louise

    No, Janet, that sounds pretty sensible to me. Better to have matching chairs IMO!
    Maclin, I cannot even begin to tell you how thankful I am for blowing apart that saying. It’s always bothered me, but I couldn’t say why. (Perhaps also b/c it’s now overused?)
    The real version makes more sense IMO.

    Reply
  4. Mac

    I think (I’m in a hurry & don’t have time to check) that reference had the 12 Step version preceding Rita Mae Brown’s. Sounds like she garbled it a bit. “repeating same mistakes” is very different–it makes perfect sense.
    Glad to be of service, Louise. 🙂
    The chair seems like perfectly normal grandmother behavior to me. We are accumulating quite a bit of baby stuff in our house. A rocking horse appeared today.

    Reply
  5. Louise

    oooh! a rocking horse!

    Reply
  6. Jesse Canterbury

    I never thought Einstein said it, but I wouldn’t have been surprised to see it attributed to a scientist. From a scientist’s perspective, if you say “repeating the same thing” there’s no need to add “exactly” since if you are in fact doing different things each time, you are clearly not doing the same things.
    I’ve actually never thought it was too annoying. I always thought it was a nicely elegant way of saying “stop banging your head against the wall.” [I always thought that it was implicit that the “same things” were mistakes in the “original” version.]
    Sorry for all the “quotes.”

    Reply
  7. Mac

    Yeah, it makes more sense in the context of a scientific experiment. I keep seeing it in contexts where “same thing” doesn’t really mean “exactly the same”–or, if you like, just “the same” in the absolute sense. Mostly it’s in politics, e.g. regarding attempts to elect a Republican senator in Massachusetts, or other areas where it really doesn’t apply at all, because “the same” conditions are never repeated.
    Even with all the qualifications in either direction, I think what fundamentally and originally bugged me about it was “definition of insanity.” There are many other mental malfunctions that I would think of before this one if I were trying to define insanity.

    Reply
  8. Paul

    Bang a chisel against mortar with a hammer, with identical force each time, and the fourth time might well have a different effect from the first.

    Reply
  9. Mac

    Great example! — much better than my musical instrument one.

    Reply
  10. Jesse Canterbury

    One could argue that in that case you are probably hitting it in a different place, at a different angle, etc.
    The objection is still valid, though…certainly there are plenty of situations in which outcomes are unpredictable even when initial conditions are exactly determined. How-things-break falls into this category in a general way, whereas something like how billiard balls bounce does not. I meant to say something about that previously but forgot.

    Reply
  11. Mac

    We’re starting to split these hairs pretty doggone fine.

    Reply
  12. Janet Cupo

    Well, but let’s split this hair. When you practice an instrument, what happens every time is that you improve a bit. And, when you bang your chisel against the mortar, what happens the same is that energy is transferred from you to the mortar. And what happens in these addictive situations (and I’m sure that at least 90% of the people who use this phrase use it in that context) is that this energy keeps being directed against something–your health, a relationship, etc.–and finally whatever that thing is shatters.
    AMDG

    Reply
  13. Mac

    It’s certainly pretty crazy to destroy yourself.
    I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard this adage in the context of addiction or a 12-step program. I guess it’s been borrowed and “re-purposed”, not very skillfully. (I don’t know how Einstein got into it.) Mostly I’ve seen it in the context of politics–stuff like this, which may have been the item that caused me to write this post. Very different sort of application, and not as…um…applicable as in the original sense and context.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Jesse Canterbury Cancel reply

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress