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.'"
Psychiatrists identify social media as new source of revenue..
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.
Actually, 6 of the 20 people executed in Salem MA were men. And one of them (Giles Corey) wasn't even convicted, he just refused to plead and at the time torturing to force a plea was legal.
I am officially gone from
I blame Facebook for a lot, but I think they deserve a pass for this. "Mass hysteria" looks to me like a real phenomenon, but that doesn't mean the "victims" aren't doing in on purpose.
For example, from one of the stories linked in the summary:
If they can stop whenever they want, then I have a hard time calling it a "disease." It sounds more like "being an asshole." (See also, Salem witch trials.)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Guy: Where did you hear that?
Girl: The Internet.
Guy: And you believed it?
Girl: Yeah. They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true.
Guy: Where did you hear that?
Girl: The Internet.
Girl: Oh Look, here comes my date. I met him on the internet. He's a french model.
French Guy: Bonjour.
Me:
'Wanna try some snow crash?'
... 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.
both my kids had all kinds of conditions and diseases because my wife read all kinds of crap on the mommy and parent blogs and the kids fit most of the symptoms
...the only thing that would make this even better is if these 'diseases' were fatal.
Any disease spreadable to the special snowflakes that could catch such 'diseases' over social media could ONLY be a win for Darwin generally.
-Styopa
While I think that's true for real disease in the biological sense, strange disease-like phenomena can arise from a confluence of seemingly unrelated factors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Plague_of_1518
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_mania
And it raises the question if these phenomena spread like disease and harm like disease, should they be viewed any differently?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Where once were daemon and angles...
Exactly what sort of angles are we talking about here, accute, obtuse, right?
Didn't you read TFS? Acute hysteria among obtuse individuals.
Not that peanut and gluten allergies don't exist, but in the past few years I've gone from knowing no one with either to running into people everywhere with one or the other. Seriously, I work with three people with gluten allergies, one guy with a peanut allergy, and the waitress who served me at a restaurant last night told me she'd never had the sandwiches there because she had a gluten allergy. Menus are popping up everywhere with gluten free options.
Schools are setting themselves up as peanut free areas and banning all peanut products even though the number of severe food reactions in a country of 310,000,000 is less than 2000 a year, with fewer than 150 deaths from all food allergies in all age groups combined. More than ten times as many people die falling down the stairs every year, but we're not mandating that schools be single-story. The rate of deaths by firearm for school-aged children is far far higher (second most likely cause of death for high-school aged children after car accidents), but we don't ban guns from homes with school-aged children or prevent school-aged from going to friends' houses where there are guns.
So, don't get me wrong - peanut allergies and gluten allergies most certainly exist, but the response in lots of places has been all out of proportion to the risk involved. I wonder if part of it has to do with the easy accessiblity of compatriots via social media. We as a species like to panic about things. I'm not immune: when my son was born preterm (he's fine now) my wife and I went into what could only be described as folie a deux about his health.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Actually, presenting facts to people opposed to them only seems to harden their opinion further in that direction. People are so invested in being right that they dig in deeper when their beliefs are "under attack" by facts that don't agree with what they believe.
Amusingly, you know what makes partisanship disappear? Money. If you give a financial incentive for correct answers or for admitting ignorance, people of different political strips start giving much more similar answers rather than just spouting off whatever sound bite they've heard from their own party members.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Please do not use the words 'woman' and 'women' as they contain the words 'man' and 'men', respectively.
Okay, seriously? If so many people are going to hate on a field, at least have the decency to hate on the right one.
I'm tired of so many people taking this as evidence that psychology/psychiatry is wrong or over-reactive and therefore we must never pay any attention to it. First, the article's main expert is a sociologist, not a psychologist or psychiatrist. Granted, there's some overlap in the fields, but not enough that I'd trust the guy to start diagnosing or treating people. Second, as the article goes on, the other 'experts' referenced are in order: a nurse (LPN), a neurologist, another neurologist, and whatever the hell you call someone with a PhD in the history of medicine.
You'd think that if this were some sort of conspiracy by psychologists/psychiatrists to drum up legitimacy/business/interest for their field, they'd have the decency to at least provide an expert on their behalf.
Oh, not that this is entirely relevant, but just for the record, psychiatrists are MDs who specialize in mental disorders. Psychologists are PhDs who specialize in mental disorders and human behaviour. Psychologists cannot prescribe medications; so all the complaints about how psychologists are people who do nothing but a front for drug companies and push pills all the live long day? You're thinking of psychiatrists (and in my experience, there are a great many psychologists who would agree with you).
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles Mackay
Not only relevant but a must-read for any educated person....