In clinical psychiatry, after the initial interview and gathering data regarding various bio-psycho-social aspects of the life of a client (the subjective part of the examination), the objective part proceeds with a comprehensive analysis of cognition and sensorium

In clinical psychiatry, after the initial interview and gathering data regarding various bio-psycho-social aspects of the life of a client (the subjective part of the examination), the objective part proceeds with a comprehensive analysis of cognition and sensorium. Thus, the mental status examination (MSE) may be accounted as the psychiatric equivalent of the physical examination and system review in the rest of medicine. Accordingly, the MSE explores all parts of mentality and denotes evidence of signs and symptoms of mental problems. One of the critical parts of MSE includes insight and judgment, which may be acknowledged as the final outcome of the activity of mental function and a major step in the formulation of integrity or impairment of a mindset. In this regard, insight is a frontal lobe and executive function characterized by the ability of the individual to evaluate whether one’s behaviors, thoughts, emotional state, perceptions, and intended actions are proper and lifelike, and to analyze how one’s appearance or performance may be perceived and interpreted by others. Clinically, while degree of insight is typically rated on a continuum from absent to full, many patients have partial insight. On the other hand, while a component of insight is reality testing, the amount of insight may not be an indicator of the severity of the problem. For example, a person with psychosis may have good insight, while a person with a mild anxiety disorder may have little or no insight. Anyhow, insight may be impaired in delirium, dementia, frontal lobe syndrome, psychosis, and borderline intellectual functioning. Moreover, while intellectual insight may be defined as admission of illness and recognition that symptoms or failures in social adjustment are due to irrational feelings or disturbances, without applying that knowledge to future experiences, in true emotional insight, the awareness leads to changes in personality and future behavior, including compliance with therapeutic recommendations. Likewise, judgment is another managerial function that is facilitated by the frontal lobe, which signifies the ability of the individual to appraise circumstances, consider and decide among choices, or plan and implement a course of action and alter the sequence of performance when necessary based on new notions or conditions.  Sometimes, in spite of sufficient insight, judgment may be impaired. So, the level of judgment may or may not correlate to the level of insight. The important issues in assessing judgment include whether a patient is doing things that are unsafe or going to get him or her into misfortune. Clinically, judgment may be impaired in brain disease, schizophrenia, borderline intellectual functioning, and intoxication. Furthermore, abstract reasoning or thinking, which is not independent from cultural and educational factors, is the ability to shift back and forth between general concepts and specific examples, to discern, integrate, or analyze them, and to bring a functional, multidimensional, and dynamic thought (1, 2, and 3). In social sciences, insight may be applied to deep acquaintance of bureaucrats with existing social, monetary, and political challenges, and judgment may be applied to familiarity of administrators with surroundings and their competence for finding the best available solutions for the said challenges. Abstract thinking and a fund of intelligence, as well, may be applied to knowledge and experience of human capital, which is supposed to enact, thoroughly, verdicts of decision-makers. On the other hand, while in psychiatry, a repetitive maladaptive behavior may be acknowledged as a kind of personality disorder if it is performed unconsciously or malingering (or factitious) if it is performed consciously; in politics, it may be labeled maladministration or Machiavellianism, respectively.  Accordingly, if failure is due to frequent mishandling, erroneous assortments, biased decisions, and not shortage of resources, what kind of secretarial sightlessness or obliviousness may make reparable challenges irreparable? What may dismiss organizational insight or judgment and may cause hectic planning instead of functional formulation and resolution of socioeconomic problems. Why a system that may predict thinkable menaces clearly may not prevent them correctly, time after time? Alternatively, why may a system not turn its secretarial intellectual awareness into a managerial true emotional intuition? At this instant, if we attempt to apply the aforesaid measures, figuratively, to politics and executive administrations, especially the abortive or failed ones, a few queries may arise: for example, why or how a system may fail, was there any trustable or inclusive feedback loop, who were principal or accountable for wrong decisions, could blamable figures select at will, was there former and similar experiences, were the chargeable decision-makers the same, was the legislative system parallel to social shifts, were the legislators sovereign or attentive, were the constituents of directorial assembly cooperative or competent, was there any imbalance between internal shields and external pressures, had the officials enough resources for avoidance or reparation of shortages, have inapt strategies been reread or reformed, was there any band that ignored, purposefully, public privileges, in support of its own benefits, was the checking system independent from managerial system, were the monitoring and executive organizations experienced, trustable, and devoid of conflict of interest, were the policymakers aware of their duties and philosophy or ABCs of their agendas, which, usually are being prepared by their deputies, or gurus, and etc. For example, many local systems, which have an interest in principles of globalization, like privatization, foreign investment, flexible migration, climate concerns, and the general doctrine of neoliberalism, may ignore that such a program may be okay for a system that accepts becoming a ring of the chain of globalization, and its modules may not be selected self-interestedly. As a result, an outline of economic globalization in an individual territory may not be prosperous without acceptance of some surplus modules, like cultural and political globalization, which may ensue unavoidably. On the other hand, ignoring the importance of ‘political economy,’ or, allegorically, ‘pocket economy of masses,’ on behalf of academic economics, which may not see what is going on in the streets, may end in a series of unending and unwelcome happenings. So, any system that is unacquainted with the proposal or unbearable as regards its possible side effects, like currency imbalance, inflation, or social discontents, or lacks its necessary practicalities, maybe is better to hesitate more before thoughtlessly dismissing its earlier financial algorithms, especially when it seems that economic globalization has been planned, expectantly, for facilitation of international commerce, not induction of industrial revolution in developing countries, though it may help that if it is being applied by mindful, loyalist, and experienced administrators in the context of an all-inclusive blueprint. Alternatively, globalization tries, metaphorically, and according to its critics, to provide a capillary system, by means of small markets of developing countries, for great vessels of financial circulation of developed countries. In the absence of essential foundations, malevolent or double-dealing individuals may devastate, greedily or disloyally, masses’ livelihoods, seriously and mercilessly. Laws, which have not been updated accurately; legislators, who are not authorizing impartially; workers, who have not been supported fittingly; experts, who have not been trained correctly; resources, which have not been distributed fairly; and civil services, which have not been cleansed suitably or may not obliterate outsiders’ insinuations, teamwork, or task forces effectively, may not endorse, unconditionally, intricate, or abstruse programs on a national scale. On the other hand, a survey of available statistics may show that, in spite of various dissimilarities, developed empires and developing realms are not devoid of resemblances, either, concerning social vulnerabilities, which may be caused by the same idyllic programs. Anyhow, while no administrative system, whether ideological, fanatical, autocratic, or egalitarian, in the frame of a nation-state philosophy, may be excused from provision of legitimate and vital public demands, its sense of duty may not be immune from miscalculation, mishandling, or misconception, especially when the responsibilities are inexplicit or not settled relevantly (4-18).