Which would follow that the question of whether beliefs are a matter of choice is also a culturally defined parameter.

No. In my opinion that does not "follow"

Let me walk you through my thought process, and perhaps you can point out where I'm going wrong.

So according to this statement. The sane choose their beliefs, and the insane do not.

According to this statement, sanity/insanity is a culturally defined parameter.

So if sanity can be used to describe which people choose their beliefs and which do not, and if sanity is a culturally decided phenomenon, then why doesn't it follow that choice in belief is not also a culturally decided phenomenon.

There must be a link here that I'm missing.

It conditions the assertion, it doesn't refute it, as you may be intending to do.

The assertion regarding beliefs as a choice is cross-cultural for me. The fact that insanity is a culturally defined phenomena does not negate it.

I'm quite satisfied with the distinction that the inability to choose beliefs is a symptom of insanity. I was never talking about how the insane process the world.

Does that mean that you do accept the logic, just not the intention?

By saying that something follows, I mean that the inference is logically consistent. We haven't got to the question of whether the inference can be used to condition or to refute the assertion that beliefs are indeed a choice. We are simply exploring the boundaries of that assertion, and looking into what accepting it might imply so as to better understand and if necessary, to better define the notion.

As I indicated, I'd be happy to restate the assertion in these terms: The inability to choose belief is a symptom of insanity. This applies no matter what cultural context is being discussed.

I understand it to be a more contentious assertion when put that way. However, I'd employ it to illuminate the immediate context here.

Additionally, I'm not terribly interested in "logical consistency" as I don't see it describing anything besides logic itself.

And I should restate here what I've stated elsewhere many times. I'm not interested in "debating" things. I state my views and I am interested in the views of others. I don't see debates or even extended discussion as illuminating anything other than a collection of words - especially when conducted by only two or three people. Instead, I see these forums, for example, as a place for stating one's views and engaging in some limited discussion. I'm aware others see it quite differently. This is my own view.

Sure, I respect that. Excuse my persistance. As you can probably tell, I'm one of those who sees these things differently. I respect your stance and will try to avoid engaging you in extended discussion in the future. And I thank you for your time, thoughts and patience.

The Norman Bates question is still one I'd be interested to hear other's views on, especially from those who have said that belief is a matter of choice.

No problem. I've attempted to respond because it has been interesting.

Thanks.

Yes. Simply put, as a human I am able utterly reject reality and am able to hold any belief I am willing to go as far as necessary to secure the validity of.

To believe or not to believe is a choice. Sometimes our choices are more important than our beliefs, or lack of.

Well, I believe that NOT believing is a choice. But, for me anyway, belief is a little bit out of my control. I find it difficult to force myself to not believe in something that I believe in. I can look at things objectively, but the belief itself is already there, and unless something comes along to show me otherwise, well then there is nothing there to change my belief for me, or give me a reason to believe something else.