This concept seems unhelpfully reductive and transparently targeted at people who feel a need for self-congratulation on account of being alienated by the "normal" people, although alienation is paradoxically also portrayed as one of the markers of being painfully ordinary.
"Many ‘normal’ people suffer from not being hypersane:
they have a restricted worldview, confused priorities,
and are wracked by stress, anxiety and self-deception.
[...] In contrast, hypersane people are calm, contained
and constructive. It is not just that the ‘sane’ are
irrational but that they lack scope and range, [...]"
All of these things are orthogonal traits and can occur in an individual in any combination. For example, I would categorize myself as having a moderately open worldview, mostly straight priorities, not wracked by stress and anxiety, moderate to severe self-deception, calm, contained, and mostly constructive. So which one am I? A barely conscious pleb or an advanced rational intelligence?
It seems to me these kinds of characterizations are really the product of people trying to build a framework that appreciates their (subjectively underappreciated) positive traits. It's obviously not wrong to celebrate those traits, especially when confronted with their opposites so publicly on a daily basis, but the problem arises when we're trying to bundle those traits up under a buzzword package name. People are very diverse, and their traits and behaviors develop over time.
I allege that it is more helpful to look at the positively connotated traits mentioned here in isolation, and work on improving aspects of ourselves in a targeted manner, as opposed to subscribing to a blanket identity (in this case hypersanity, which is ultimately meaningless). There needs to be less emphasis on "what identity am I innately" and more emphasis on "what properties do I like about myself and which ones do I want to improve". The difference here is not only one of nuance and constructiveness, but also one of fundamental outlook.