Slashdot Mirror
Social Media Is a New Vector For Mass Psychogenic Illness
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "There is an interesting read at the Atlantic where Laura Dimon writes that mass psychogenic illness, historically known as "mass hysteria"—is making a comeback and it appears that social media is a new vector for its spread. Mass hysteria such as the Salem Witch Trials of 1692-1693, the most widely recognized episode of mass hysteria in history, which ultimately saw the hanging deaths of 20 women, spreads through sight and sound, and historically, one person would have to be in the same room as somebody exhibiting symptoms to be at risk of 'catching' the illness. 'Not anymore,' says Robert Bartholomew, a sociologist who has studied over 600 cases of mass hysteria dating back to 1566, noting that social media — 'extensions of our eyes and ears' — speeds and extends the reach of mass hysteria. 'Epidemic hysterias that in earlier periods were self-limited in geography now have free and wide access to the globe in seconds,' says Bartholomew. 'It's a belief, that's the power here, and the technology just amplifies the belief, and helps it spread more readily.' In a recent case, nearly 20 students at a Western New York Junior-Senior High school began experiencing involuntary jerks and tics. Some believe that the Le Roy outbreak was a direct result of videos posted to YouTube by Lori Brownell, a girl with severe tics in Corinth, New York, 250 miles east of Le Roy. The story took off quickly, not just on the local and national news but on Facebook and autism blogs and sites devoted to mental health and environmental issues. Bartholomew warns that there is 'potential for a far greater or global episode, unless we quickly understand how social media is, for the first time, acting as the primary vector or agent of spread for conversion disorder.'"
Truisms aside, this reminds me of the fact that they're still trying to redefine "delusions" in the DSM, because the Internet invalidated the old criteria, which went something like "Things believed by the individual, not supported by observation, and not shared with their social groups."
The internet made an avenue for crazy people to find similar crazy people, and form social connections with them, in a way that reinforced their own delusions quite directly. I don't think anyone has found a satisfactory conclusion to that problem, because they really don't want something that will classify people's religions as delusions.
... it is mass hysteria.
I can see it happening. The NSA is relatively new, so next comes the NMHPA (National Mass Hysteria Prevention Agency). They'll censor the internet systematically with advanced technology solutions and and say "No, we're not oppressing people's right to free speech. We're preventing panic caused by mass hysteria".
The belief that your photos and comments are somehow important to anyone else on the planet.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
in defense of the religions, people weren't actually killed _because_ of the delusions. Every homo sapiens social group that operates has a belief system of some sort and probably every single one of those is incorrect in serious ways.
And since every single social group has also killed and attacked other social groups, you don't get to blame their over-arching religion or philosophy, most of which are at odds with each other and even with themselves (being internally inconsistent). Every group has those. It's one of the ways any specific -group- is defined.
I know most folks like to blame history on socio-political issues but they are incorrect. Every group has a religion and philosophy just as every human has a spleen, a gall bladder and ligaments. Without ligaments, nothing gets done but we don't say ligaments _cause_ individual human actions.
Belief in a Creator God is a delusion but belief that religion causes the wars fought in its name is also a delusion.
Part of the problem is the science of allergies. Or, rather, the lack thereof. Combine this with a growing awareness of allergies and a burgeoning market in telling people what they are allergic to and you get the current state of affairs. This is complicated because no one seems to have even the slightest interest in the science of the field.
An allergy, at least when I was growing up, was a reaction that ultimately resulted in anaphylactic shock. In principle, an allergy can kill you.
People are complex biological organisms that are very poorly understood. There are allergies to various environmental factors (dust mites, certain plants, etc.) and to foods (peanuts and soy are perhaps the most common). But there are other ways/reasons for a body to react poorly to environmental factors or foods. I react poorly to (something in) eggs. I have an issue with casein (which is what makes cheese good, and fake cheese lacking it bad). I'm not allergic to eggs, nor do I have a milk allergy. Nevertheless, my body functions better when I consume neither.
Allergy testing is like something out of medieval medicine. There's a common sensical understanding of it, but apparently no actual science. And if you want to make an "allergy doctor" dance, suggest that you get closely repeated testing. They don't like to admit it, but the reproducibility of allergy testing is almost non-existent and having a reasonable time interval allows insertion of vague claims such as "your body has changed". They have fluid ideas about the subject and are more interested in running tests, administering "innoculation" witch's brews, and generally making money off of the fad than actually studying the subject.