Slashdot Mirror


Mind Control Delusions and the Web

biohack writes "An article in the New York Times provides interesting insight into online communities of people who believe that they are subjected to mind control. 'Type "mind control" or "gang stalking" into Google, and Web sites appear that describe cases of persecution, both psychological and physical, related with the same minute details — red and white cars following victims, vandalism of their homes, snickering by those around them.' According to Dr. Vaughan Bell, a British psychologist who has researched the effect of the Internet on mental illness, '[the] extent of the community [...] poses a paradox to the traditional way delusion is defined under the diagnostic guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association, which says that if a belief is held by a person's "culture or subculture," it is not a delusion. The exception accounts for rituals of religious faith, for example.'"

12 of 631 comments (clear)

  1. Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?" by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I mean, I'm not a huge fan of psychology myself but for the New York Times to file this under Fashion & Style gives me the impression that all the cool kids are joining gang stalking support groups ... makes one wonder what will the next fad be?

    The exception accounts for rituals of religious faith, for example.

    Remember, it's fashionable to be a nutcase, to claim people are out to get you, to believe you're being persecuted & suppressed--just look at Tom Cruise.

    It's been pointed out before but the internet is a very real, very powerful, very double-edged communications tool.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?" by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... to believe you're being persecuted & suppressed--just look at Tom Cruise.

      Actually, if you look at how Scientology treats its members (especially the really valuable or potentially embarrassing ones), in all likelihood Tom Cruise is being persecuted & suppressed.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?" by 77Punker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you look at how people outside Scientology treat the cult's victims (Tom Cruise) like lepers instead of offering an outside world of love and compassion, maybe it does make sense for him to think that the world is out to get him.

      What people in cults need is to feel welcomed into the world outside the cult; otherwise, they'll just get pushed farther into their fantasy world.

    3. Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?" by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question is, does Tom Cruise really believe in Scientology, or is he a cynical opportunist? The upper echelons of the organization tend to benefit financially. The truly brainwashed deserve sympathy, but the cult leaders, who benefit from their underlings' credulity, deserve scorn.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    4. Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?" by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Science says...that the universe serves no particular purpose or has any meaning for its existence,

      Tell me, which exact branch of science deals with meaning and makes such statements?

      Science has nothing to say about meanings and values. These fall completely outside of its domain. The world is full of people who somehow read the message "the universe serves no purpose" into cosmology and "people have no purpose" into evolutionary biology but that message is being put there by those people, it's not part of cosmology or evolutionary biology.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    5. Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?" by xolo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I don't get is how Xenu and his nukes is treated as bunk, but the invisible man in the sky who can hear a billion people whisper to him at the same time is treated like a celebrity who dare not be questioned by anyone who wants to run for elected office in America.

      Maybe because that statement is misrepresenting theistic belief to make it sound silly? Theism is not "an invisible man in the sky." I am taking the statement literally here, that there is a human that lives in the upper atmosphere that cannot be detected by any known means, but does have the ability to open a one way communication channel with any of the earth's occupants.

      When you say "invisible man in the sky" it makes theism sound absurd because if that's what theism was, it IS absurd.

      But Xenu's nukes are not a misrepresentation of Scientology. They sound silly all on their own.

      That's not a really good answer to your question, but that's where I see the difference.

    6. Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?" by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A hammer is a collection of electrons, neutrons and protons. But that's a completely useless point of view except in very special contexts. A hammer is a tool for knocking nails into wood. But it doesn't become a hammer because you add something to those particles. There is no essence of malleosity you have to sprinkle on its molecules to make it into a hammer. So you've completely lost me with equations like "Cosmology + n = Purpose".

      I also have no idea what you mean by "Cosmology and evolutionary biology don't need any such entity". Presumably you intend 'need' as a metaphor of some sort, but it needs unpacking. Hammers serve a purpose, but a physicist can quite happily describe the physics going on inside a hammer without ever touching on its purpose. So what does cosmology have to do with the purpose of the universe?

      Now I admit that there was a time when meaning and science were bound up. For example Aristotle talked of final purposes and derived physics from such things. But those days have long gone.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  2. Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a delusion if other people also believe it?

    That's not a definition of delusion. It's a political step to avoid annoying religious people. They are no less deluded for it.

    Oh, now a politically-motivated definition doesn't stand up to analysis? Big surprise.

    1. Re:Politics by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away.

  3. Re:i'm insane? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except that - as a nerd - you grew up in a culture (presumably public school) where 80% of the time, the snickering _was_ about you. You're just exhibiting an old learned response, kind of like a veteran might duck when he hears a car backfire.

  4. Okay doctor, how about this... by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about this; I'm pagan. Several of my friends are wiccan or american indian (one is both). We bless our houses, some of us see spirits, or hear things, or get feelings about a place, or sense a presence. By your definition, these things are delusions because they're part of our culture. But to most other people, their subjective realities don't include them and so (quite naturally) they think we're nuts. Which brings me to my ultimate point -- the mental health community in general has defined these kinds of things as a disorder if they cause significant impairment in a person's daily life.

    So, this is part of my culture, but by the same token it's quite readily apparent that it causes a negative impact on my ability to deal with the rest of the world, who don't share my beliefs. It doesn't pass a clinical threshold in these cases, but assume they did. Would it change anything? Since just about anything can be defined as "cultural"-- afterall, schizophrenics have a cultural identity too (I'd like to know about the whole pennies thing myself)-- how can you (or anyone in the medical community) abandon the more objective metric of significant impairment for "cultural values"? Does this mean we're throwing out gender identity disorder too, because that's cultural? How about depression -- all those goths, they're not depressed anymore, they're just down with their culture. And people who drink the koolaid -- there was nothing wrong with them, they were just trying to fit in.

    If you ask me, it seems like a cop-out by an establishment that's not sure enough of its foundations to take the initiative and say that some behaviors, even when culturally acceptable, lead to bad results. Because that would be a moral judgement, is that the argument? Just like pharmacists that refuse to dispense birth control and insurance companies that refuse to pay for gender reassignment surgery, etc. Here's a suggestion -- how about the medical community stop trying to pass moral judgements through the back door like this. Your job is to help people, not figure out their culture. Their culture is totally irrelevant -- what IS relevant is if they're in pain, if their life is significantly impacted, and there is a medical treatment or cure available that could help them. THAT is where the focus needs to be, and culture only plays a role insofar as how to reach out to the patient and contextualize what's happening. disclaimer: not a doctor.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  5. Re:i'm insane? by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a mental shortcut. Not too long ago (in evolutionary terms of time) we lived in a hostile environment, where assuming everything that happened was potentially a danger and then later (after a few seconds) realizing it isn't and you can calm down again, is a much better survival strategy then thinking first and deciding that it really is a danger after careful thought, which would cost precious seconds.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org