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.'"

Comments

Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[eldavojohn]

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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[Mesa MIke]

Tin foil hats are quite the style these days.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[gnick]

... 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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[77Punker]

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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[ShadowRangerRIT]

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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[gnick]

Well put. Persecuted, exploited, abused, but embraced within the cult and ridiculed, untrusted, and almost unwelcome outside the cult. That's gotta be a helluva way to live.

With only a pair of sentences, you made me pity Tom Cruise. Thank you.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[jellomizer]

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%.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[lysergic.acid]

and apparently the articles posted in the Fashion & Style section don't go through any kind of editing or proof-reading process:
"Some have hundreds of postings, along with links to dozers of similar sties.[sic.]"
"Mr. Robinson said in an interview that that [sic.] he has been tortured and abused by gang stalkers..."

in any case, i find the notion of shared delusion very fascinating. as Ronald De Sousa puts it, "When enough people share a delusion, it loses its status as a psychosis and gets religious tax exemption instead." the article also mentions this paradox in the medical definition of delusional beliefs.

folie à deux (madness shared by two) is the name for a psychiatric condition in which two people share a common delusional belief. similarly, folie à trois, folie à quatre, and folie à famille refer to shared delusions between 3 people, 4 people, and all members of a family, respectively. then there is the general case of folie à plusieurs, or madness of the many. but at which point does mass delusion become an accepted subculture rather than a psychiatric disorder? there doesn't seem to be a discrete boundary between what constitutes mental illness and what is considered socially acceptable behavior.

i mean, why should it make any difference how many people share a common delusion. a fallacy is a fallacy regardless of how many people believe in the fallacy. should medical diagnostic criteria pay tribute to political correctness? whether you were socialized with irrational, factually unsupported beliefs by 5 people or 500 people, it's still a delusion. factual reality isn't dictated by majority opinion.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[fiannaFailMan]

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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[77Punker]

I'm pretty sure the cult preys upon folks in Hollywood because they're loaded with money and are potentially insecure or can be swayed more easily by their emotions because they're artsy people. I believe that some people who have participated in many great films like John Travolta and Tom Cruise are the victims here, not to mention all the other, less profitable victims outside Hollywood. The people doing the scamming do not want to be in the spotlight the way those actors are.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[uglyduckling]

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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[Joe Snipe]

I wonder if I could make a product selling an aluminum-lined series of hats - look fashionable on the outside, but protect you from mind control on the inside

So does this guy.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[Nursie]

I'm sorry but I don't consider Tom Cruise to be a victim. He and his other celeb-scientologists are a big part of the problem.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[Arthur B.]

Doesn't mean he's not a victim. Victims are not angels, you can be both a victim and do bad things.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[mea37]

Ah, irony. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[Stanislav_J]

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?"

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> 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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[barometz]

The Christian (or any other mainstream) God wasn't invented by a crappy science fiction writer who himself said that starting a religion is the way to get filthy rich. That kind of helps.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[xolo]

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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[MindKata]

"but there are far too many people out there who would love to harass someone for no reason at all."

I find it very interesting you conclude, "no reason at all", because there is a reason, but unfortunately most people have not learned to see the reason, why some people behave this way towards others. When someone harasses someone else, there is always a reason, and that reason is always some form of personal gain from the harassment.

In a way, I find it both good and bad that a lot of people can't think of a reason, why someone would behave this way towards other people. Its good, in that most people clearly don't think (and so don't behave) this way towards others, which is very encouraging for all of us. But unfortunately is also bad, in that if more people learned to think like this, then fewer people would become the victims of this kind of treatment.

Everyone who continuously harasses, manipulates or ruthlessly exploits other people, for their own gain, is demonstrating a very strong sign of a cluster B personality disorder trait. One event of this kind of behavior, isn't enough to predict a person is this way, but a continued treatment of others by harassment, manipulation or ruthless exploitation, is a clear indicator of cluster B personality disordered behavior. But their behavior is not the reason why they are this way.

Here's a quick cut and paste from a previous post...
"The world will never change until everyone worldwide realizes that people who constantly seek power over others have a recognizable cluster B personality disorder. All cluster B personality disorders are ultimately driven by fear. And the ones with the disorder constantly seek to control that fear and control everyone around them based on their fear. (There are multiple fears, two examples are lack of attention and another is fear of lack of power. (There are also other fears). The attention seekers want more attention (they were deprived of parental attention as children. The ones who want power seek to prevent anyone ever having power over them again, the way they were treated unfairly as children)."

Cluster B disorders are only a minority of the population, but thought out our lives, we all meet multiple examples of these kinds of people in our lives. (To give an indication of the kinds of numbers of these people around, for example, its estimated that over 80% of people in prison have some form of cluster B disorder. Also there are many cluster B disordered people who are not in prison, but continue to treat others around them badly. (At times horrifically). Some are even in high positions. (They seek positions of power over others, sometimes relentlessly seek high positions of power over others). Also some of these people can be extremely convincing, as they spend years learning how to manipulate others. Some are almost like they are acting a role as they manipulate others and they can get very good at it).

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[GlL]

You are making a huge assumption that people are inherently reasonable. People can operate reasonably, but very often we operate irrationally from our "reptilian" brain. When someone's consciousness is being dictated to from the "lower" brain functions, they become rationalizing instead of rational. So no matter how rationally you engage them it won't work. The only way to get folks to change is to engage them emotionally to the point that they feel safe enough to slough off the rationalization engines of the reptilian brain which is primarily focused on survival.
This is the reverse of how cults operate in that they put people in a position in which they are totally reliant on the "reptilian" brain. For more info, see http://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/MacLean.htm

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[plague3106]

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.

I still believe religon fits the definition of delusion. And there are LOTS of people out there who's delusions on religon are having a "deleterious effect on the [their lives]."

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[LithiumX]

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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[Raenex]

Yeah, I feel so sorry for Tom Cruise. Incredibly wealthy and good looking. For all the ridicule he gets, there are 10 times as many people to kiss his ass.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[Raenex]

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

Science has nothing to say about meanings and values.

If science existed in a vacuum, then that would be true. However, science interacts with our lives and we use it to ask "why?". It's cause and effect. You can show how evolution leads to certain behavior traits, like cheating. People dying in car accidents were considered "acts of God". Then they used science to improve the chances of surviving an accident. Everything we know about consciousness is tied to the physical brain.

So, when posed with the question: Why do these things happen? Is there life after death? Science plays a role in the answer. That's why religion has been constantly shrinking in the face of science. It has shrunk so much that people pretend science and religion don't overlap, but that's just revisionist history.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[orclevegam]

That's all well and good until you start making important choices based on that ignorance. I don't care if you're happy if it means you're going to be making bad choices that impact me. If you wish to remain ignorant to feel better about yourself that's fine, but in so doing you should be required to forfeit the right to make decisions about anyone else.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[dgatwood]

I have no idea if Scientology brainwashes their members. Only a member could answer that question; they aren't likely to talk about it, and statements made by ex-members have some degree of negative bias, so you can't completely trust their accuracy.

As for the implied question of whether Christianity is a cult, I would say it clearly is not. From my perspective, what delineates a brainwashed cult from a religion are two things: 1. whether or not the believers understand the true nature of the group's beliefs at the time that they join it, 2. whether the founders/leaders of the religion do so with intent to spread enlightenment or gain power for themselves, and 3. whether coercive force is used to force members into remaining faithful. If believers think that they are joining a group that believes one thing and eventually discover that the group believes something else entirely, to some degree, the years of indoctrination can make them then accept a belief that otherwise would have been unpalatable (e.g. discovering after ten years that the goal of the cult was really to commit mass suicide on New Years in 2013). Similarly, if the founders' purpose is to make money, to commit mass suicide, to dominate large groups of servile women, etc., that's cultist behavior. Finally, at least in modern polite society, if a religion uses the threat of violence, extortion, etc. to maintain its membership, that pretty clearly crosses a line into unacceptable behavior.

Those are the basics, and with the exception of a few small sectarian groups, Christianity teaches you all about the religion in a fairly compressed time frame when you join the religion (at least when you join as an adult; children's religious education is different by necessity), is mostly lead by people genuinely trying to encourage good behavior, and doesn't threaten people with death, lost jobs, etc. if they choose to join another religion or say bad things about the religion. Ergo, at least by my definition, Christian religions as a whole clearly don't brainwash their members and thus are not cultlike.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[Thiez]

> 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.

Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?"

[NiteShaed]

You said that science implies that there is no purpose, which is what I was disagreeing with.

Which is fine, but what you said was "Science doesn't imply the non-existence of God".
 

This is the philosopher's criticism of science - that you'll ultimately just end up with turtles all the way down [wikipedia.org]. However, religion is no better in that respect and is in fact worse since the religious only consider the first turtle!

Sure there's that problem. Of course, the difference is, in science you can at some point say "I don't know", whereas in religion you can end up with either an answer that's just made up, or the answer of "We're not meant to know".
 

If it interests you at all I'm a simulationist myself (and therefore to some extent ignostic), although I should stress that I don't think that implies either an afterlife or any particular meaning. But there's no science in that, only an idle guessing game.

It does interest me, and it also provides an answer. To you, (if I'm understanding the meaning of simulationist), we're living in a sim, which very probably was created for a reason. In that case, the universe does have a purpose (although we aren't aware of the exact nature of it). To go back to the pseudo-code thing that I've been getting battered over, you'd get this:
n = "test simulation"
The Universe + n = Purpose
Or, something created a universe, for the purpose of, for the sake of argument let's say figuring out if life can be supported in a universe with our particular laws of physics.
That's perfectly valid for you to believe, doesn't bother me any, but there's no evidence to support it. So then we're back to me. I don't think it's likely that anything purposely created the universe, and therefore I have no value to plug into n. Based solely on science, I'm left with the idea that the only purpose there is in anything is what we give it ourselves. It doesn't have one otherwise (no inherent purpose). That is why I say science implies that the Universe and Humanity does not have a purpose, you need another set of beliefs to add that, and we don't all share that this additional set of beliefs is necessary.

Paranoia

[Applekid]

Being paranoid doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really out to get you.

Re:Paranoia

[Ethanol-fueled]

"His group of self-described "targeted individuals" met offline in
Los Angeles last month for their inaugural conference, he said, where they attended a meeting to share stories, including the humiliating experiences of being told they are insane."

Oh, that explains it all! Just kidding.

"Subsequent research generally showed that those who believed they had been abducted were not psychotic, but suffering from severe memory and sleep problems, or personal traumas, Dr. Bell said."

In other words, stay sober as much as possible, get some sleep, and deal with your trauma in a healty manner. It's no accident that certain antipsychotics are also prescribed as sleeping aids. Self-medication with alcohol and other drugs causes blackouts(memory loss) and poor quality of sleep.

Besides, foil-heads, if you believe that people are ganging up on you to get a rise out of you, just realize that you're still the star of the show! Stop caring, and they will stop buggin'. The only winning move is not to play.

Re:Paranoia

[conureman]

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.

Re:Paranoia

[ShieldW0lf]

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...

Re:Paranoia

[JayAitch]

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.

Re:Paranoia

[theaveng]

You just described me during middle and high school - although I wasn't quite that extreme. I too was extremely self-conscious and thought my classmates were watching/criticizing my every move. Although it was partly true, I eventually realized what you said: I'm not important. Nobody really cares that I just scratched my nose (for example).

Now that I'm in my 30s, I've kinda moved to the opposite extreme where I don't care what people think ("If they don't like my clothes, they can close their eyes.").

Re:Paranoia

[Psmylie]

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...

My wife thinks she can whisper. She can't. I've finally convinced her to stop trying, when it comes to saying things about other people that she doesn't want them to hear.

Re:Paranoia

[xappax]

Really? That happens to you regularly? How confident are you that you're not just misinterpreting noisy chatter (as in pareidolia) and glaring at random people? Getting glared at by a stranger would certainly make me have a reaction that might look like guilt.

I would compare your experiences with people you know, and if they can't relate, consider how likely it is that your hearing is that much better than everyone else's.

Re:Paranoia

[Ethanol-fueled]

I agree that such tactics have been used in the past and are being used now, and I'm glad to see that there are so many of them forming a support group. A hug with a lot of sympathy and understanding goes a long way to help people face life and dispel their magical thinking, or at least to give them more strength to break free from actually being harassed and stalked!

To use your sideburns example above, you stated that you heard, "The guy with the sideburns" and knew somebody was talking about you. The problem with the paranoiac is that they hear something like "The guy with the sideburns..." and they fill in the blanks with their perception of the world. Sometimes there's no way to tell if the passerby said, "The guy with the sideburns is one cool stud" or if they said, "The guy with the sideburns has funny teeth and tonight we will slash his tires..."

Re:Paranoia

[LunaticTippy]

Jeez, get a load of that guy with the sideburns!

I have known a lot of paranoid people, and lots of times it seems to be confirmation bias and misunderstanding what is and is not commonplace feeding an innate mental imbalance. If you think there is a conspiracy of white cars driven by Asians monitoring your movements and you live in Koreatown, prepare to have your mind blown. If you are afraid of possibly-Arab men with mirrored sunglasses you will notice every single one, reinforcing your fears even while being within normal demographics.

It really doesn't help that a lot of these people think the medical establishment is part of the conspiracy and meds are part of the problem.

Re:Paranoia

[gmack]

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.

Re:Paranoia

[operagost]

You know, people with superior hearing hear people who have bad hearing talking about them as they walk down the street all the time?

It's not your superior hearing. They're talking about you on the radio and you're picking it up on your fillings.

Re:Paranoia

[Joe Snipe]

someone will make a comment about "the guy with the sideburns" to their friend, then I look em in the eyes

Have you thought about getting rid of the sideburns? Just sayin...

Re:Paranoia

[dontthink]

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.

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.

Re:Paranoia

[ShieldW0lf]

Really? That happens to you regularly? How confident are you that you're not just misinterpreting noisy chatter (as in pareidolia) and glaring at random people? Getting glared at by a stranger would certainly make me have a reaction that might look like guilt.

I would compare your experiences with people you know, and if they can't relate, consider how likely it is that your hearing is that much better than everyone else's.

I had my hearing professionally tested when I joined the military, it's mandatory. My eyes are shit, but my hearing is phenomenal. I can hear with exceptional frequency range, both high and low, I can hear sounds with extremely low amplitude, and I can discern sounds from noise very well. As well, I was trained and given exams in recognizing and locating sounds as part of my infantry training, and got perfect scores every time.

That said, I'm sure I experience pareidolia to some small degree just like everyone else does.

Re:Paranoia

[blueZ3]

Really?

If you're infantry (or were) it seems unlikely that your hearing is still that good. By the time I got out (almost 5 years with some time in the sandbox) I had about a 20% hearing loss in my right ear (eardrum, meet 5.56 round and associated sharp sound) and tinnitus in both.

But maybe they're not issuing those little orange "don't do squat" earplugs anymore?

Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Politics

[zappepcs]

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.

Re:Politics

[xant]

The definition exists because people who are religious are not generally mentally ill. Just deluded. So what we really need to change is the definition of particular mental illnesses that depend on delusions. For example, instead of saying "transubstantiation is not a delusion", we should say "Schizophrenia is characterized by delusions, other than the delusions of religious faith."

Re:Politics

[evanbd]

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

Re:Politics

[jahudabudy]

The problem there is, if you disbelieve hard enough, anything will go away, from your perspective. After all, every evidence you have about reality is filtered through your mind; it's all perceived reality. There is lots of research that indicates all sorts of very strange things about how the human brain interacts with reality.

Re:Politics

[IcyHando'Death]

No, the exception is not politically motivated. It's an important factor in determining the nature of a belief.

A belief can be based on no evidence at all, can even contradict the available evidence, without it being a sign of mental problems. Even the most skeptical people have such beliefs when you look closely enough. They arise because of the nature of our brains (check out http://www.csicop.org/si/9505/belief.html.

It's when someone clings to a manifestly false belief in the absence of any social support -- indeed often in the face of seriously adverse social consequences -- that the medical community starts to consider it a medical problem. Such beliefs are often accompanied by hallucinations and can be a symptom of chemical imbalance in the brain.

There's a lot more to being delusional than just being wrong. Anybody who thinks otherwise is obviously deluded.

Re:Politics

[ceoyoyo]

Uh, there's nothing in that definition about everybody else believing it. According to the definition, you're deluded if you persist in believing in something despite indisputable evidence to the contrary. Now, I expect that whoever wrote that didn't really mean "indisputable" in a rigorous sense, but rather something like "overwhelming" or similar. There's actually nothing that's "indisputable."

The DSM definition of delusion-based disorders likely includes something about how popular the belief is so that there aren't any convenient, APA approved excuses to commit every religious person. That means they're not clinically deluded, by APA standards, but they still match the non-clinical definition of deluded just fine, even if their delusion is shared (in some form) by 90% of the population.

Re:Politics

[paulthomas]

If you disbelieve hard enough, you might go away, barring some external, real intervention. Disbelieve that food exists and that you need it to survive, and it will go away from your perspective because your perspective goes away when you die.

i'm insane?

[Lord Ender]

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.

Re:i'm insane?

[Anonymous Coward]

[snicker]

Re:i'm insane?

[Culture20]

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.

Re:i'm insane?

[Tom]

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.

Not a delusion?

[VirginMary]

"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.'"

Reminds me of my favourite quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion."
      -- Robert M. Pirsig, author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Re:Not a delusion?

[Danathar]

There is another one that's well known.

crazy + Poor = delusional

Crasy + rich = Eccentric

CowboyNeal is stalking me

[christurkel]

Why do you think he's never updated his web page? Because he's too busy stalking me.

Article isn't very insightful or correct

[DocJohn]

The article is incorrect in one person quoted therein that a delusion is not a delusion if it's commonly held by its culture or subculture. That's not what the definition of delusion says in the manual. It says that one's culture should be taken into account when making the diagnosis, that's all.

And you're in a logical circular loop if you start saying that a person's disorder is a legitimate "subculture." It is indeed a group, but an entire culture or subculture? I don't think so.

Read more observations about the article here:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/11/13/shedding-light-on-a-dark-side-of-online-community/

Whats wrong with these people?

[Anonymous Coward]

If people are leaving garbage in your yard, honking and yelling at your house, following you, tailgating you, etc, etc... did you ever think that maybe it's because you're an asshole?

And that's the main problem with assholes, they don't even realize that they're assholes. They think people are out to get them all the time for no reason.

If people are out to get you, maybe there IS a reason.

Re:Whats wrong with these people?

[Reziac]

Actually, I know someone like that. He's a classical paranoid (has all but one of the 9 or 10 recognised symptoms, and it only takes 3 to diagnose), he wears his emotions on his sleeve, he wants to be acknowledged by others, and he's quick to take offense for any imagined slight.

The result is that this encourages "button pushers" and other small-time bullies to pick on him, because it's fun to make him snap and snarl ineffectively.

And in consequence, he believes that entities like the MTA are "conspiring against him" and cites "proofs" like that sometimes the bus stops 6 inches further away from the curb, making it harder for disabled people (like himself) to get on. But it can't be random driving error; it has to be because the driver hates him and wants to make his life difficult!

He also rejects any shrink who points out this paranoia or tries to treat it as such. He's really only interested in enablement, NOT in "getting treatment".

Re:Whats wrong with these people?

[overbaud]

Exactly!!! I know a girl that is very physically attractive but always goes on and on about how her boyfriends leave her for less attractive women. It never occurs to her that she is shallow and self obsessed and while these other girls are less attractive physically that they really are great girls with depth and easy to get along with. I asked her what she thought about the fact that a series of disconnected guys all exhibit the same behaviour and she is the commonality between the events. She thought for a minute and then replied with "Guys suck". Some people just don't understand that they influence behaviour in others and that's why said behaviour is all around them. If some tinfoil hat nut bag went off at me, my family or friends damn right I would go around and get in their face and stir them up and if said nut bag is doing it all over the place they can expect ramifications to be coming back to them from all over the place.

People love delusions...

[Bullfish]

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

That's just a poor definition

[xilmaril]

The 'parodox' goes away if you are willing to call rituals and religions delusions, which is pretty easy for anyone to do when you consider that at most one of the major religions in the world could possibly be true, since they contradict each other so well. The only thing that properly defines a delusion is that it is an incorrect belief.

Internetism

[philspear]

This really seems like just regular delusion, except now there's the internet. Doesn't make it a whole new ballgame. Delusional people are always finding ways of validating their delusions, that it happens on a message board instead of some guy on the subway, or one of those pseudoscience magazines doesn't make it a special new thing. Sounds a lot like someone trying to sell a book or at least make up a new disease that they're an expert in.

Hey, I've got a new disease I'm an expert in: people who think aliens are probing them and who regularly visit the facebook group "Aliens are probing me." It's nearly impossible to cure, because there's a facebook group that supports it. Buy my book and find out how you can treat people with it and prevent yourself from getting this terrible affliction.

Jung Figures into This

[mpapet]

This kind of thing is much more common than the story suggests. Much like other myths, people connect to and share some illusion or story. Much of which is culturally driven. So there are *shared* stories about black helicopters, red and white cars, virgin births, etc. Another related tidbit, the more repressive a culture, the more things like speaking in tongues is present.

It's also important to note that one person's "mental illness" is another persons "religious belief" or more generically, faith-based construct of their Self. You could easily flip the story around and put some common religious beliefs in there.

These are great ways to explore conciousness. (sp??)

Re:Jung Figures into This

[Bender0x7D1]

This kind of thing is much more common than the story suggests. Much like other myths, people connect to and share some illusion or story. Much of which is culturally driven. So there are *shared* stories about black helicopters, red and white cars, virgin births, etc.

Actually, the black helicopters are real.

Each year there are several JSOC exercises that simulate things like grabbing high-level officials from hotels. They pick a U.S. city, tell only a few city officials like the mayor and the chief of police, put the "target" in the local Hilton and have the special operations guys go snatch him. They usually do a helicopter extraction from a nearby park. Guess what color those helicopters are... black.

What do people in and around the area see? They see a black helicopter circling overhead, land in a park, a guy in a suit thrown into the back, the helicopter takes off and the guys on the ground drive off in vans or SUVs. Then, they check the papers the next day and there is nothing about it. So, they start thinking: Conspiracy!

Now, I don't know if these operations are the basis of the Black Helicopter Conspiracy, but it makes more sense than anything else I've heard. Well, except for the Illuminati being behind it. With those guys, anything is possible.

Re:Jung Figures into This

[Reziac]

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. :)

Are you really THAT important?

[Silentknyght]

I have a somewhat crude hypothetical question when considering these types of scenarios: "Are you really THAT important?"

Are you really important enough such that the government--or less likely, a cadre of independent people--would devote their lives to harassing every tiny bit of your life, with such things as periodically taking down the websites you visit? If you've invented something fabulous, then maybe just maybe... but if you're a janitor--I hate to be rude but--no one's going to waste their life with that.

It's important to distinguish between "time" and "life." Being harassed by someone you know, or even someone you don't, for their enjoyment for a few days or a couple weeks... that happens. But if you believe that someone's going to do this for years... yeah, you're not that important.

Re:Are you really THAT important?

[turtledawn]

I've found this to be a useful technique. I wish it worked for my partner, however. Guys, here's a hint: DO NOT tell your partner that s/he is not important or interesting enough to have random people on the street following them around or whispering about them. It will not have the desired result, unless the desired result is being whacked with a broom.

Re:Are you really THAT important?

[curmudgeous]

I tripped over that landmine several years ago. My wife at the time had just started climbing the business ladder and had her first dinner meeting with vendors trying to sell some VERY expensive equipment. She came back from the meeting with a very swelled head from all the compliments and praise they'd heaped on her. I figuratively shot myself in the foot by pointing out that, of course they're going to say stuff like that, they want you to buy their gear. Trying to point out the benefits of cynicism is not a good road to a healthy marriage. :)

Re:Are you really THAT important?

[MindlessAutomata]

*sigh* that's women in business for you.

Re:Are you really THAT important?

[Alsee]

WHAT AN OFFENSIVE COMMENT!!!

Business has nothing to do with it.

-

Okay doctor, how about this...

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:Okay doctor, how about this...

[ceoyoyo]

What I got from reading your post was that you'd really like to be treated for your delusions. That's great! I'm sure if you go to a psychiatrist, tell him you see dead people and it's ruining your life, he'll treat you. No problem.

The official criteria discussing delusion suggest that the psychiatrist take into account the patient's culture when deciding whether the delusion needs treatment. It's not passing moral judgement, or a cop out, it's an instruction not to blow harmless individual eccentricities out of proportion.

Re:Okay doctor, how about this...

[MindlessAutomata]

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.

I'm not a doctor either, but I do know enough to at least comment on this; you, in all your ignorance of the subject, probably shouldn't be.

Part of the diagnosis for a psychological disorder uses culture as a context because culture sets the stage for what a person is likely to believe (as people are group animals, after all), what a person is likely to fit into their cognitive schema for how the world works. Diagnosing delusional beliefs isn't perfect, and it's certainly not based on what is objectively true because that's both impossible to determine.

Another dimension IS whether their "condition", if you call it that, is negatively impacting their life, or those around them. That is, personally distressing. You do not fit in with that criteria. You would never be diagnosed by a competent clinician simply because of your Wiccan beliefs because of this fact. You are not impinging on the lives of others, like, say, an antisocial or narcissistic person would, either. You do not fit the criteria for a delusional disorder in this context. Quit your bellyaching.

As psychological disorders has, in the scheme of things, been only very recently scientifically investigated, it's quite imperfect, especially since there is great difficulty investigating the neurological roots of many mental disorders. For example, schizophrenia, which can include, obviously, delusion and hallucination, is related in some ways to the dopamine neurotransmitter.

Wiccans always amuse me because they often feel they have a good opinion on something, when in fact they believe in a made-up religion less than a century old. Unlike Wicca, psychology is based on science--sometimes shoddy science, but that's true in all science. Good psychology, unlike Wicca, is NOT made up and so you do not really have a good foundation to be complaining here until you have done at least some cursory reading on clinical psychology and its methodology.

If you don't like this, you can always cast a spell for the Mother Goddess and perhaps she will use her magickal nature to change things.

Probably not.

psychotronic mind control

[BigHungryJoe]

I believe that mind control devices are real and are being used by American intelligence and law enforcement.

How do I know? The Village Voice quoted an FBI official during the siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in 1994 as saying that they were planning to use a device on Koresh that would make him think he was talking to God.

I've always found the Village Voice to be pretty responsible... I think the official let this slip, and we haven't heard about it since because we weren't supposed to have ever heard about it at all.

Re:psychotronic mind control

[xappax]

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

All about politics

[fish_in_the_c]

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.

Re:All about politics

[raddan]

But the broader psychological community regular engages in what is little more the pseudo-science.

So how many psychology classes have you taken? Yeah, I thought so.

There's a huge difference between an emerging scientific field—where the subject matter is extremely complicated—and pseudoscience. You don't give physicists a bad rap because they once believed in aether, do you?

There are many people out there doing scientific studies of human behavior. They're working against thousands of years of assumptions, some right, some wrong. It's going to take some time.

Re:All about politics

[raddan]

The physicists have progressed beyond that. By your own admission, psychologists haven't.

What? I never said that.

Seriously, what's the difference between scientific opinion and best-guessing? This is literally how the scientific process works:

1. Guess
2. Check
3. Repeat

Let's not overlook the fact that "wrong" answers are still, nevertheless, extremely useful. But, no, let's throw it all out, man, because Newton was "just guessing".

Re:All about politics

[Rakishi]

Do you know anything about psychology or do you just like to run your mouth off? The scientific part is saying "there is a likely genetic link between X and Y." The science (experimental psychology) generally stops there and you get the more practical parts (psychiatry, etc.).

You don't have a genetic trait for alcoholism, you have a genetic trait for a higher chance of becoming an alcoholic if you drink too much. A gay person has the genetic trait for being gay or possibly they are just born gay (not genetic but rather an effect of his mother's womb). In your analogy it's as if they were born addicted to alcohol instead of just with a predisposition to getting addicted. Getting over alcoholism itself is a difficult process and, as I understand it, you never actually stop being an alcoholic (you just stop drinking).

The social and personal difference comes from the effects. Being gay doesn't really prevent you from being part of society if society doesn't actively hunt you down. Being an alcoholic does prevent you from being in society even if society actually actively tries to help you (a much much stronger action than just ignoring your quirks).

"Paradox"?

[fm6]

...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.

I don't see the problem. Why is it sane for people to believe in angels, but not sane for people to believe they're being followed by secret agents in red cars? People believe in a lot of silly things. That's not delusion, that just buying into a set of beliefs that don't make sense to outsiders.

The social norm definition of delusion is perfectly fine. The real problem is that the mental health community insists on treating this as a "diagnosis". This is a concept that makes no sense in describing mental conditions. The human brain is the most complicated thing in the known universe, and poorly understood. There are a few physical or chemical abnormalities that can screw up your thinking, but except for those, the idea that you can take a list of behaviors and "diagnose" an underlying condition the way an oncologist diagnoses a tumor is absurd.

Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with this charade. People won't trust mental health professionals (who actually are useful now and then) if they don't maintain the pseudo-medical mumbo-jumbo. And of course insurance companies won't pay any bills without a "diagnosis".

Dysfunctional Groups

[rlp]

The internet has allowed dysfunctional individuals to create communities and reinforce their dysfunctional behavior. For instance tech savvy individuals with no life can get together and ...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"Fashion & Style" *are* mind control!

[vajrabum]

I don't wonder at it all. The two most powerful mind control tools ever invented are PR/Advertising and TV, and fashion and style were two of the first things that both of these tools were applied to.

Just think how long it took the average American to stop drinking the Bush/Cheney kool-aid. If that wasn't mind control I don't know what is.

Now where is that tin-foil? Up to a couple of weeks ago when I went all digital mine was wrapped around my TV antenna. Made a world of difference.

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?

anyone see pattern here ..

[rs232]

Before the Internet they were being abducted by aliens, before flying saucers they were being stalked by television news readers, before that they were receiving visitations from angels .. anyone see pattern here ..

Re:Gang Stalking Vlog

[Culture20]

And you just helped confirm her delusions by having /. vastly increase her view count in less than a day. Bravo.

Flaimbait!

[conspirator57]

and here's your flame:

Relativism and materialism are also indefensible philosophies as Nietzsche pointed out. What evidence do you really have that anything you percieve, or indeed your very self actually exists at all?

Also, many atheists / materialists believe that society would be better off if everyone subscribed to their beliefs. However many of these same people do not credit the rest of humanity with the enlightened self interest necessary to bootstrap and sustain what we commonly hold to be an ethical society. (My argument here is essentially that if most members of society were to drop their religious beliefs and yet not have the capacity for enlightened self interest that society would be unsustainable, essentially making broad case atheism / materialism parasitic.) And the best thing is that many atheists / materialists is that they cannot stand scrutiny of these autocontradictory beliefs they hold. "It would just all be better if no one believed in God(s)."

Well, that wasn't even much of a flame... more of a reasoned argument. I'll have to try harder next time.

Thomas Szasz

[paulthomas]

"If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." -Thomas Szasz, Psychiatrist

Re:But What Does That Mean?

[flynt]

I'm sorry, you seem to know what you're talking about, and can express yourself clearly and effectively, could you please find another web site to post on?

Do you have a link for that?

[khasim]

Because most of the city parks that I know of are not very good landing zones for helicopters. Not to mention the wind effects within a city.

This is the first I've ever heard of such claims.

Re:But What Does That Mean?

[DocJohn]

In respect to this specific article and claim made, it was suggested that since people belonged to an online group that reinforced their delusions, perhaps they weren't technically delusion after all (according to a definition of "delusion" that appears in an appendix of the DSM-IV, not in the actual text of the diagnostic criteria for delusional disorder or schizophrenia). I find that a spurious claim at best and a warping of the intent of the diagnostic criteria.

Of course people can and should be diagnosed with delusional disorders or schizophrenia if they believe stuff like, "All of my organs have been replaced with exact replicas by aliens," and not have such a diagnosis (and its respective treatment) withheld simply because they've joined an online group that reinforces that false belief.

John
--
Psych Central

We are Thrilled

[Follier]

... that not only are our targets gathered together in a few websites, but they actually post how they feel! I can't tell you how many times we wondered if we were freaking them out or not. I mean... so we replaced the lightbulb in the fridge with a broken one, and then switched it back the next day. But did they even notice?? Or did we nearly break our necks on the fire escape for no f***ing reason?

These sites make our jobs even more worthwhile. Keep up the good work!