Today, The New York Times has a look at mind control websites and online communities that reinforce the delusional beliefs of its members:
Identified by some psychologists and psychiatrists as part of an “extreme community” on the Internet that appears to encourage delusional thinking, a growing number of such Web sites are filled with stories from people who say they are victims of mind control and stalking by gangs of government agents. The sites are drawing the concern of mental health professionals and the interest of researchers in psychology and psychiatry.
Well, yes, of course. The Internet is a large place, so The New York Times could write a new article every week on the bizarre and strange communities that exist on topics you didn’t even know existed. Some are odd, some are likely potentially harmful, but the vast majority are harmless or greatly beneficial to their users. But that’s not as interesting as finding groups of people who suffer from delusions of persecution and that people are “out to get them” who gain support from sharing the supposed truth of their delusional beliefs with one another:
Mental health experts who have closely looked at the Web sites are careful to say that there is no way to prove if someone posting on, say, Mr. Robinson’s site, […] is suffering from mental illness.
Gosh, I don’t know. Persecution delusions that span decades and involve “mind control,” being “sexually stimulated” remotely, or have been abducted by aliens and singled out for probing sound a lot like a form of mental illness to me. And while nobody can offer an accurate diagnosis online, these are common symptoms of schizophrenia or a psychotic disorder.
And of course, the article subtly reinforces the ridiculous possibility that all of this could really exist:
Recently the sites have linked to an article published in September in Time magazine, “The Army’s Totally Serious Mind-Control Project,” which described a $4 million contract given to the Army to develop “thought helmets” that would allow troops to communicate through brain waves on the battlefield.
This sort of snippet provides pretty strong evidence that if the government already had mind-control technology that could affect people from distances of hundreds or thousands of miles, they wouldn’t have allowed a new article to be published in TIME discussing a very weak form of that technology. Why would the Army be only now developing communication technology for their soldiers if they could control people’s minds already? (I’d think controlling people’s minds and behaviors is much harder than simply sending them a message!) Technology, by the way, that hasn’t even been proven to work.
Vaughn Bell, a psychologist, is quoted in the article, as he actually has done some research in this area:
Dr. Bell and some other mental health professionals say that even if the users of such sites are psychotic, forging an online connection to others and being told — perhaps for the first time — “you are not crazy” could actually have a positive effect on their illnesses.
“We know, for example, that things like social support, all of these positive social aspects are very good for people’s mental illness,” Dr. Bell said. “I wouldn’t say it’s entirely and completely positive, but it can be positive.”
Which is a good point, but without research, you can’t really say these communities are causing harm or helping people. If these types of communities simply reinforce one another’s delusions and delusional behavior, then it could be potentially harmful. In terms of finding acceptance and possible social support in these communities, it can be potentially helpful. (He also separately argues a technicality of the definition of schizophrenia about cultural sensitivity that I believe is incorrect and misses the broader point that delusions have to be primarily false or erroneous; a subgroup is not typically recognized as a “culture.” To argue this line, anyone diagnosed with any mental disorder could legitimately be considered their own “culture.”)
These communities differ from traditional mental health self-help support communities, like the ones we offer here at Psych Central support forums, in that our emphasis is on helping people gain support and information to get better. The communities described in the NY Times article seem focused instead on not only validating, but actually reinforcing, the delusions and delusional behavior.
It’s an interesting article, but not one that is skeptical enough about these niche communities.
Read the article: Health Professionals Fear Web Sites That Support Theories on Mind Control
By the way, I don’t think the author of the article is presenting a fair and balanced picture of the extent of this phenomenon and whether it really is of much relevance (outside of a passing curiosity). Here’s an example of the scare-mongering done in this article:
The site lists more than 71,000 visitors, and it has links to several other sites, including Harrassment101.com, which has 965 posts.
Yes, the homepage has a counter. Each time you reload the page, it increments by one. That could be 100 visitors visiting the homepage 700 times each, or 70,000 people visiting it just once. But you don’t know, because it’s a page counter, not a visitor counter. But it sure sounds scarier noting a big number of “visitors” than the less impressive number of “965 posts” (which any pet hamster, satanist, or fishing website could receive in a month).
11 comments
Hi there,
I entirely agree with your point about the lack of research in this area. We simply don’t know, with regards to psychosis, whether these groups help or hinder, or rather who they might help and who they might hinder. On the basis of work on ‘pro-ana’ sites, however, it is likely to be a mixture of both, owing to the mix of emotional support and contra-recovery advice they give.
The point on the criterion for a delusion to be a belief “not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture” is indeed a technicality, but an important one because it is one of the diagnostic criteria. Note, however, that the criteria mentions subculture, so a subgroup does indeed count.
Indeed, you could argue the same ‘technicality’ point about any one of the criteria, including the fact that a delusion must be “primarily false or erroneous”.
Delusions do not have to false. For example, the belief “the devil is listening to my thoughts” may well be delusional, but it is impossible to falsify. In fact, a large number of delusions that have a religious or spiritual content are simply unfalsifiable.
Others are value judgements (“I am fantastically talented inventor”) and so their falsifiability lies in subjective opinion, and so cannot be strictly false.
We also know that certain delusions are serendipitously true – the work of Bill Fulford has shown that in about 10% of cases of delusional jealousy, the spouse is genuinely having an affair, but this does not immediately ‘cure’ the affected person.
There are objections and counter-examples to every point in the definition of delusion. These are all ‘technicalities’ but important ones, because they test the limits and usefulness of the definition empirically and conceptually.
A sound empirical and conceptual basis, is, of course, essential for a useful and applied science.
If you want to split hairs, then what you say is actually not a part of the technical criteria for schizophrenia. While mentioned in a part of the narrative description of schizophrenia (in the DSM-IV TR) as an issue to consider when making the diagnosis, it’s not a part of the specific definition. Specifically,
The first sentence is true of all mental disorders. What one culture views as depression may very well not be considered depression by another culture.
But you seem to make the argument (and correct me if I’m wrong) that if all people who believe that they are the next King of England join a Yahoo Group called “We are the next Kings of England,” they no longer qualify for a schizophrenia diagnosis because this is a legitimate belief of their subculture.
I think that’s logically a slippery slope and one I’ve never heard postulated about delusions previously. I also think it is plainly a misinterpretation of the DSM’s diagnostic criteria for this disorder.
As for “false” versus the DSM’s use of only the word “erroneous,” I thought them to be synonymous, but I agree, those two are not necessarily the same.
Hi John,
The study does not address schizophrenia specifically, but the DSM diagnostic criteria for a delusion, which is thus:
“A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture.”
The example you give is relevant, but I am not claiming it as what should happen, or what does happen, but as a paradox for the criteria. i.e. it’s a problem for the definition, because someone plainly isn’t cured if they join an online group, or even a ‘real life’ community, of people who share their belief.
Details in the paper:
http://tinyurl.com/5sk7nw
Furthermore, good discussions on the problems with the diagnostic criteria in:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10609433
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2225797
and
David, A.S. (1999) On the impossibility of defining delusions. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology, 6 (1), 17-20
The reason I had trouble finding this information in the DSM was because the definition doesn’t appear in the discussion of delusions in any chapter of the DSM, but rather in one of the appendices, a glossary of terms used throughout the book.
So I think the problem is one of language not being properly reconciled between the glossary and the actual diagnoses (which define the terms differently, as in this case).
This indeed may be a problem with the definition, but one that is readily resolved through a change in the language of the definition or the glossary term. (FWIW, I suspect the glossary was created by committee that was composed of people different than those working on any specific disorder.)
The arguments Vaughn and others make about this concern are arguments occasionally leveled against the entire current diagnostic and classification system of mental disorders. They are not limited to delusions or schizophrenia. All I can say is that it’s not a foolproof system, nor was it ever meant to be one (and I won’t defend it further here, as that’s an entirely different discussion). For instance, it’s been noted that if all mental disorders are actually brain disorders that have medical causes, virtually every definition in the book is invalid.
I just don’t see how it sheds any further light on this “subculture” of people to point out that the current diagnostic system has technical flaws in it (flaws that nevertheless don’t stop professionals from reliably using it everyday to help millions of people).
[quote]Yes, the homepage has a counter. Each time you reload the page, it increments by one. That could be 100 visitors visiting the homepage 700 times each, or 70,000 people visiting it just once. But you don’t know, because it’s a page counter, not a visitor counter. But it sure sounds scarier noting a big number of “visitors†than the less impressive number of “965 posts†(which any pet hamster, satanist, or fishing website could receive in a month).[/quote]
The site get’s about 2500, unique visitors per month. Mostly male. This is coming from these states here. http://www.quantcast.com/gangstalkingworld.com
[quote]This site reaches approximately 2,459 U.S. monthly people. The site attracts a college educated, somewhat male crowd.
[/quote]
This is my response to the New York Times article. A response not likely to be read by as wide an auidence to be sure, but one that I hope you will take into some consideration.
The links have all been removed, due to the spam filter. To see the original article, please go here. http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Social/article.php?sid=315&mode=thread&order=0
———
After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further.
The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article where a reference is made to such communities.
According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell’s definition?
Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as AboveTopSecret dot com would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities.
Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves?
There are lot’s of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster.
The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell’s work and the New York Times article.
The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today’s society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it’s spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity.
According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this.
World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy.
Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so.
Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redefined to accommodate an online culture.
A second woman in Japan was arrested because she killed her online husband. She killed his virtual self. That’s right, she did not kill him, or have any intention of killing the real him, but when his online virtual self divorced her, she got even and killed him. She was arrested for hacking into the computer and other things, and now if she is formally charged, she could face up to 5 years in jail.
It is becoming more and more clear that it is the offline world that is having to adapt to the new online realities and not often the other way around. Therefore what we considered traditional and mainstream yesterday for an offline reality, in many ways is being redefined, and it does not seem as if some offline structures are keeping up to date with this reality.
The third point of concern with the New York Times article is that people were being considered paranoid with simple offline assessments. Are these offline assessments adequate for some of the challenges that people are facing in the modern day world to define Targeted Individuals as paranoid?
Recent research has unearth a great deal of information to show that when people are being termed as paranoid, it might not be the case.
Research is showing that there are in fact networks of individuals being hired by the state in various countries to track and spy on average citizens. The spying includes email and phone taps. Being followed around in public by hired Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Having these same Informants move into the houses around the target when possible. Following them around in vehicle and foot patrols, plus many other forms of intrusive surveillance.
Individuals and Families under these types of surveillance are often not aware, and if they do become aware and go to seek help, they are often written off by the establishment as paranoid, psychotic, or crazy. The modern day reality is that without proper investigations, Freedom Of Information Act requests, and other proper forms of inquiry a true assessment might be impossible to determine. The secondary problem is that many of these investigations are ending up in secret databases, which the public has no access to. F.O.I.A. requests are no longer a sure fire way to determine if an individual is under surveillance.
I think it’s fair and safe to say that before a community is considered extreme many factors should be considered, and the definition itself should factor into consideration what’s considered normal online as well as offline. Assessing if a community or individual is paranoid or psychotic in today’s modern surveillance society should be done with care and caution. It’s been shown time and time again that anti-terror laws are being abused, National Security Letters are being handed out left right and center, with over 30,000 being issued per year, and many groups and individuals are being spied upon and placed on watch lists, unfairly.
In a society as the one described above, it is not only normal to have concerns about surveillance, but when there is a suspicion of such, the job of therapists in the future might not be first subscribing the patient to medication, it might be first asking if they have placed a F.O.I.A. request.
Society might even have to make it a mandatory law for psychiatrist to be notified if a person is under surveillance so that they are not falsely labelled, committed or medicated. This does not happen, the culture and society have changed within the last decade, but the methods used for determining paranoia, psychosis, and mental illness, in regards to the belief that one is under surveillance are still fairly antiquated in many cases, and might not pass muster for the realities of a modern day surveillance society.
Thank you so much for all informations. Because my cousin is schizophrenic too.. Again thanks.
I want to again thank Vaughan Bell for confirming that he has never studied the subject matter of Gang Stalking or the Gang Stalking websites, and that his research was fully focused on Mind Control Websites.
The New York Times article placed Gang Stalking, Electronic Harassment and Mind Control all together, an easy error to make if you are not familiar with these harassments.
Well I think the elaborate response by gangstalking confrims these people are mentally ill. I love when he says “research says” or “research shows.” Attribution? What research? Where? WHY are these Covert Human Intelligence Sources moving next door, following, phone tapping etc etc etc these people?
Personally, I think it is obvious these sites are creating enormous harm in validating these seriously ill people’s delusions. So they refuse treatment, ie., medication. Of all mentally ill people paranoids are particualarly dangerous. Anything that reinforces/prevents them from getting well is reckless and inarguably harmful.