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.'"
If I hear people snickering behind me, my first instinct IS to assume they are laughing at me. My rational mind then takes over and reminds me this is unlikely; but, still, I assumed this response is either normal for humans or trained as a result of our "kick me" sticky-note pranks as kids. I never realized it meant I was nuts.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
My second ex-wife, (the one the MDs said was Paranoid-Schizophrenic) did actually have some nut-job (who had supervisor access @ the phone company) stalking and spying on her for a while. One of the many semi-surreal things I've seen.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
They are so much easier to deal with than real-life problems. The delusional one sets the context, and whoever controls the context has the control. And delusional people don't give up their delusions easily. As the old song said, "no wise man has the power, to reason away, what a fool believes"
And the internet lets them set up a community of people to support their delusions so their delusion gets reinforcement
It's not a delusion if other people also believe it?
No, it's not. How do you define normal? How do you define abnormal? Generally speaking if 75% of your society believes something, you are abnormal if you do not. In the last few decades we are slowly moving toward believing that the wide range of human conditions are all normal, but different from one another. Normal is getting a make-over, so to speak. Delusion:
2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion) emphasis is mine
It's only delusional when 'normal' people do not believe what you do, or there is "indisputable evidence to the contrary" which clearly makes you wrong. In the world of mankind, any religion with enough believers becomes that "indisputable evidence to the contrary" if you do not believe as they do.
Point: At one time, those who thought the world was not flat were considered delusional. Those who thought left handed people were 'ok' were thought delusional. When the majority or 'normal' people say you are delusional, then that's the verdict.... unless you can prove them indisputably wrong. With religion you cannot prove them wrong, so they remain 'normal' despite complete lack of evidence to show they are right.
In this case, popularity wins. The definition you reference is not politically motivated to not anger the religious. That is simply how it works.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The real problem is psychology is not very scientific.
They is no real definition of sane or insane. Nor a testable definition of order or disorder ( for that matter).
The whole science is wish washy and based on subjective judgment as opposed to a first order science that basis it's classification scheme on measurable objective facts.
For instance, why is it homosexuals were ever classified as a having a disorder? Why is it that they are now classified as not having a disorder. How come no other sexual inclination a person might have , bestiality for instance, has not changed status from being a disorder?
The reason is simple. Weather or not something is considered a disorder or not is basically voted on ( majority opinion is so scientific after all).
There is no real definition of a disorder and there is no way of performing concrete test or deterring from data if a given set of symptoms constitute a disorder.
This is not to say there aren't consolers out there that help people and I'm am limiting myself comments to psychology formal here not to include psychiatry ( medical ) or neuropsychology.
But the broader psychological community regular engages in what is little more the pseudo-science.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I don't know how anyone can be aware of such times as the Red Scare and McCarthyism, or the modus operatus of groups like the CIA and KGB, and yet believe that this doesn't happen to people. Not to say that everyone who thinks it's happening to them is right, but clearly, it happens to people all the time, sometimes for periods measured in years and decades.
You know, people with superior hearing hear people who have bad hearing talking about them as they walk down the street all the time? Many if not most people make idle commentary about people passing by when they are bored, and people with bad hearing make false assumptions about how far their voice carries. Happens to me regularly... someone will make a comment about "the guy with the sideburns" to their friend, then I look em in the eyes, and they get a guilty look on their face. Really quite annoying, and I can see how it would drive a more mentally fragile person around the bend...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Stop caring, and they will stop buggin'.
I have a friend that has severe social anxiety. My brother and I are the only people he feels comfortable hanging out with. In the past I've been an enabler in some ways because I allow him to hang out at my house with the condition none of my other friends are coming. Well at some point I had enough.. I've been inviting others over without telling him in advance (he'd just make some excuse if I told him someone else is coming). One new friend at a time. He got mad at me at first, but he's starting to realize it's ok. His issue is he thinks everyone is talking/thinking about him. I have to continually remind him how unimportant he really is for him to accept that no one is talking about him.
In some ways it is...
It is part of Nature vs. Nurture In a world that seems crazy and irrational. The feeling that there are forces out there to to get you and purposely hurt you is easier to accept then a world where most people just don't care about you. That way you feel more important. Hey I must be important if people are trying to kill me. Then when you join these groups just like a any other Cliques you have a sense that you are some how in the majority. Much like on how Slashdot it feels like Linux has about 75% market share in the world. While it still only has about 1%-3%.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The problem though is that people see patterns and come to the wrong conclusion. It's the delusion that everything has to do with you.
See the same person driving behind you a lot? Could it be that that you leave around the same time every day and so does that person? If you think this is happening to you then you should break your patterns and see if their pattern changes as well.
As an example:
I had a girl think I was stalking her and confront me about it. Her evidence? Several times when she was praying I was nearby.
I thought about it for awhile since it's rather disconcerting when someone I wasn't paying any attention to whatsoever is suddenly screaming at me and accusing me of eavesdropping. I realized that I had a favorite seat and so did she. Her favorite seat was several rows behind me. Simple crowd dynamics explained that when she went up to pray I ended up being in the same area.
She could have tested her suspicions by praying elsewhere and saved me the headache and her the trouble of having her family think she lost her marbles.
The distinction is that delusional beliefs are fixed, false beliefs that are causing mental ill-health; in other words they are having a deleterious effect on the person's life. Simply discovering that someone believes something that is false does not imply delusion.
The classical example is that the belief that the world is flat was not delusional during the dark ages. To believe such a thing now - if that belief were really fixed - would be delusional, presuming that person was of apparently normal intelligence, had a reasonable education etc.. It is arguably possible that someone could just happen to believe such a thing and it have no other effect on their life, but in practice someone who truly held that belief would most likely exhibit other signs of mental illness.
If someone were 'socialized' with a belief but otherwise of normal intelligence and education, it should be possible to convince them that their belief is false, given reasonable evidence of that - in which case the belief is not fixed, and is therefore not delusional.
That's not mind control by a longshot, it's just targeted audio. Advanced versions of this off-the-shelf technology: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/work/8636.html
I hadn't heard of it before this story, but the CIA definitely did this kind of stuff heavily back in the 50's and 60's. It was called Project MKULTRA. One of the goals was to create a "Manchurian Candidate" subject through mind control. Ken Kesey (author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) and (supposedly) Ted Kaczynski participated. Interesting stuff, though I'm not in any hurry to find myself a tinfoil hat.
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.
Because the Christian delusion has many things going for it: a long history, vast numbers, and, yes, money and influence. It is also well-integrated into Western culture at large; think of all the music, art, and philanthropy that has been influenced by Christianity. Plus whereas many delusions produce fear, paranoia, and anxiety, the Christian message also provides comfort, a reason to go on, and answers to those deep, dark questions that have always plagued mankind. Seriously. Many of us on Slashdot look askance at faith, but for someone who is not very rational and emotionally hurting, Christianity can be a very seductive philosophy. Science says that we are merely super-intelligent animals who arose by chance, that the universe serves no particular purpose or has any meaning for its existence, and that when we die, we cease to exist. Contrast that against the notion of being a special creation in a universe run by a beneficent God who cares about us and listens to us, and being rewarded after a brief struggle on this planet with eternal life in paradise. It doesn't matter that one happens to be scientific and reasoned while the other is based on pure blind faith: which worldview do you think is easier to "market" to "consumers?"
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
"If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." -Thomas Szasz, Psychiatrist
If you want to go into the psychology of it, yes... there is a reason for everything people do.
The problem is, you're making that reason more complicated than necessary. There is a deeper reason why some people harass others, treat others poorly. It's the same reason why some people are just plain mean. It's the same reason why most children, even the most angelic, have a streak of cruelty.
We are primates, and cathartic brutality - for it's own sake - is a factor of primate behavior that we are not immune to. Not only do we share it with our relatives, but it becomes more highly developed and intricate as you look at primates with higher intelligence. Monkeys can be mean to other animals - they can be observed stealing food and toys from other species (including cats, dogs, and other non-primates) and placing them where the animal can't reach them. This isn't a survival behavior, and the monkey clearly has no interest in the item itself - it's just denying it's use to the other animal. Chimps take it further - many cases have documented instances where research chimpanzees, unaware that they were being monitored, tormented chickens and other animals. In one case (see Dragon's of Eden, by Sagan) they repeatedly lured chickens to them with the promise of food, then poked them with a wire as soon as the chickens got close. The chickens did not learn, and the chimps were pretty obviously enjoying themselves.
Schadenfreude is a trait we all share, and which socialization aims to suppress for the good of all. Not only does empathy restrain it, but it's also a critical ingredient - you can't get a response from something you can't understand.
Cruelty, even in a healthy individual, results in an intense emotional response. In a properly socialized individual, most of this response is negative (due to empathy). A normal person, though, derives some primitive excitement from seeing the misfortune of another. There are limits to this, but emotional excitement does have a powerful attraction. Ever seen footage of apes going, well, "apeshit", when witnessing the beating of another of their kind? You can see the same thing in humans when they observe a fight. "Drama" is an intellectualized form of this - we watch characters go through unpleasant situations, and while we don't necessarily clap our hands and get excited, we do derive pleasure from the emotional catharsis of watching another's (fictional) misery. The fact that it's fiction makes this permissible. Most sports are also a controlled form of this. It's not something to totally hide or shun - it's core human psychology - but it's also something that has to be controlled in order to have anything like a healthy stable social order - and a desire for this is most of what defines a "healthy" individual.
Don't believe me? Next time you're on the freeway, driving by a wreck, look at all the rubberneckers and tell yourself they're just being cautious.
People who openly derive pleasure from tormenting others do not automatically have a specific disorder. Events that built their character are just cause and effect - we are all the product of our past. The bully who was bullied always had a choice. They do not lack empathy either, or else it wouldn't be cruelty - just aggression. Unless they have a very specific underlying cause, something chemical or biological, they are just an individual who allows themselves to take full pleasure in the same beastial stimulation that we all train ourselves to resist. This desensitizes them, which is why many can become increasingly depraved over time. If the person is low-key in their tastes, they might enjoy harassing someone. If they take it far enough, and are otherwise sane, people die.
We all have a mean streak - it's in our genes. Some people will always be cruel because some people will just never care - and will never understand why the rest of us do.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
Xenu's nukes are a lot less silly than talking snakes.
And talking snakes are less silly than talking shrubbery.
Oh, I mean... talking flaming shrubbery.
And that is far less absurd than some army claiming that an pure-good invisible man in the sky.... oh I'm sorry... some pure-good invisible thing in the image of man hanging out in the 'heavens'... ordered them to pillage a city and kidnap all the pre-pubescent girls and slaughter all their mothers and slaughter all their fathers and slaughter all their brothers and slaughter older sisters... and ordered them to rape those girl children... ohh I'm sorry... ordered the soldiers to take those little girls as wives.
If some army did that today, and told you that same story, that they got those orders from an all powerful all merciful all benevolent invisible voice, would you bow down and pray to that invisible voice? Or would you hang those men from the nearest tree as lying/delusional murderous pedophiles terrorizing and violating poor helpless preteen girls?
And on and on and on. The bible is somewhat less silly than the ancient Greek tales of Zeus&pals frolicking on Mount Olympus, but the bible is somewhat more silly than Scientology. Aliens inventing nukes and inventing spaceships and having some civil war under Emperor Xenu is downright reasonable in comparison.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I never heard of any such thing (tho I don't doubt it's been worked out as a theoretical exercise) but... I live under one of the flight paths into Edwards AFB. A while back I noticed a correlation between various political crises and a spate of unmarked aircraft (mainly smaller passenger-type jets) coming in for a landing along this flight path. (Otherwise, it's not generally used, except for the larger cargo planes.) And sometimes a clump of these unmarked aircraft arrive without any reported news, which always makes me wonder what's going on that we don't hear about. :)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
> Ockham's Razor.
As much as I like to shave with that razor, it is a guideline, not a law. Sometimes the simplest explanation is not the correct one.