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?"

[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?"

[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?"

[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?"

[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?"

[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?"

[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?"

[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.

Paranoia

[Applekid]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[evanbd]

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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:Are you really THAT important?

[MindlessAutomata]

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

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?

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!