ABC says conspiracy web sites are contributing to mental health issues

reply to post by Yoda411


No problem hope you enjoy the movie !

One key question is who decides what a conspiracy websites is ?
Another question worth asking , is it not within our rights to visit any website that we chose ? As long as its not child porn or something of that nature ?

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


don't know about a voice in the wilderness :-)

but, it does interest me that more people haven't commented on how this wasn't a news article - an informative article - so much maybe as an opinion piece passed off as news

maybe it's much ado about nothing after all - maybe this amounts to nothing more than sloppy writing

but, you're right - it gives no actual cases as examples - nothing to even start the ball rolling - to establish that there is in fact someting to be concerned about

immediately pulls in David Icke (no matter how you feel about him - while he does seem a likely poster boy for the "fringe" crowd, seems a little odd how conspicuously he's been used as the only real example)

rolls past some of the comments of the articles own star experts

then, sets us all up to ponder what potentially dangerous psychiatric concoctions are being brewed by unstable minds "in the quiet of their own homes"

gives us all a target to focus on - the crazy-making conspiracy theory internet sites

then closes with Icke

gives me the creeps just thinking about it

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by meadowfairy
Ok for those who dont think this might be the reason well its started in China and now it may be implemented in Australia and most probably your neck off the woods.

But but, this story with no facts, data, evidence, proof, any substance was given by an "educated" reporter. I mean so far, everything about it seems to totally check out for some people here. Amazing how many people are willing to believe anything they see on the MSM even with NO FACTS at all to back it up. With what is happening in Austrailia and youtube and AOL, this is just a little more pretext to net censorship.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Yes this is the point im getting at. Its sensational and people do believe purpetuated stories like this from the msm. You cannot help them people see the lies.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
but, it does interest me that more people haven't commented on how this wasn't a news article - an informative article - so much maybe as an opinion piece passed off as news

This has become a misconception within this thread among many of you. This is a result of assumptions over investigation.

The reporter, Lauren Cox, along with Angus MacDonald III (Ph.D., 2001, University of Pittsburgh) merely raise the question, "Who are the people who believe such theories in the quiet of their homes, and what does such behavior mean for a person teetering on the edge of mental illness?".

I seem to be, surprisingly, the only one who accepts this as a valid question to be raised.

Professor MacDonald is also affiliated with the Graduate Program in Neuroscience and the Department of Psychiatry.

MacDonald cautioned that not everyone who believes in a conspiracy plot is mentally ill. They just may be suggestible or just suspicious of authority.

For the healthy in mind, MacDonald said, "it's a wild card about whether this is going to improve people's state or not. It may turn out that the value of the community is greater than the destructive nature of the narratives that are spun out of them.

"But on the same point, this is a domain that didn't need more wild cards," he added.

Whether or not conspiracy theories harm people who are susceptible to mental illness is a matter of debate among psychiatrists.

"Most people with major mental illness don't believe in conspiracy theories," said Dr. Ken Duckworth, medical director of the National Alliance of Mental Illness.

Duckworth likes to imagine a Venn diagram with one circle representing people with paranoid psychosis and another circle representing people who believe conspiracy theories.

"They do overlap, but I can't tell you how big the overlap is," he said. "And, lizard people? Many people who are hearing voices would think that's crazy."

According to MacDonald, most delusions begin with general, unexplained feelings of discontent that are caused by a problem with the brain. It's only when someone tries to search for an explanation for their feelings that a delusion forms.

"Then over time, the delusions become crystallized -- meaning they take on particular narratives, story lines and people's motives begin to be fleshed out," said MacDonald. "When one thing isn't explained, it's never abandoned. The plot just thickens ... and you credit your persecutor with a tremendous amount of power."

MacDonald said it can make it difficult to do talk therapy when delusional people feed their story from outside sources or find evidence with other conspiracy plots.

[edit on 12/15/08 by Yoda411]

To show that this was an article with no other healthy skepticism except for biased opinions associated with people from the medical unit you seem to get the notion and feel for what the editor is representing in a biased way and i cannot help you there if you cannot see it yourself.

What you could see is that it was a question exactly asked on suspiscion quite contradictory. "Who are the people who believe such theories in the quiet of their homes". Basically its none of their business and why would they need to police that.

reply to post by Yoda411


between the two of us - we provide a first rate example of how 2 people can read the same article - and come away with very different ideas about what they each just read

you believe it's an article about real concerns, asking important questions

I see something else entirely

but, I'm willing to consider the idea that it's less about conspiracy and more about - whatever

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist myself - and I think paranoia is just too exhausting for me to really get into - or do right

am I saying I'm too lazy to be paranoid? :-)

so, I'll just let it all go with - what was that I just read, anyway?

Originally posted by meadowfairy
To show that this was an article with no other healthy skepticism except for biased opinions associated with people from the medical unit you seem to get the notion and feel for what the editor is representing in a biased way and i cannot help you there if you cannot see it yourself.

What you could see is that it was a question exactly asked on suspiscion quite contradictory. "Who are the people who believe such theories in the quiet of their homes". Basically its none of their business and why would they need to police that.

Certainly they aren't suggesting these individuals need to be policed.

between the two of us - we provide a first rate example of how 2 people can read the same article - and come away with very different ideas about what they each just read

you believe it's an article about real concerns, asking important questions

I see something else entirely

This goes to show an important truth among individuals with strong opinions. Sometimes people will make their decision before they even read the entire article and open their mind to the possibilities of an incorrect first evaluation. Additionally, two individuals reading an identical story interpreted the article in two different ways.

I keep my mind as open as possible to all possible things. While I can see where you find bias out of this article, you have to understand what a great job she did keeping it open to personal speculation. The article could have easily read the same as the title of this thread, "Conspiracy web sites are contributing to mental health issues". However, the title of this thread is very misleading and should have reflected that of the true ABC title which was, "What's Behind Internet Conspiracy Empires?".

In my personal opinion before there is facts, before there is truth, before anything can be debunked or disproven.. you MUST ask the questions.

I believe this reporter merely asked of us an opinion, to which many have read but few on this thread specifically have attempted to answer.

[edit on 12/15/08 by Yoda411]

Originally posted by Yoda411
The reporter, Lauren Cox, along with Angus MacDonald III (Ph.D., 2001, University of Pittsburgh) merely raise the question, "Who are the people who believe such theories in the quiet of their homes, and what does such behavior mean for a person teetering on the edge of mental illness?".

I seem to be, surprisingly, the only one who accepts this as a valid question to be raised.

Okay, I thought I was done, but I guess not

She does not "merely raise" this question; she purports to answer it.

She does so by presenting one internet conspiracy theorist, whose theories are pretty far on the fringe edge of what's out there.

She quotes him saying things like it's not his problem if he's contributing to mental illness, which will incense her audience and make him come across as not only wacky but perhaps even an amoral manipulator of the mentally ill.

She cites one psychiatrist who claims that internet conspiracy sites make it hard to treat delusional patients because they provide a coherent story. Note that this psychiatrist is a university professor and spokeperson for a mental health nonprofit – we have no idea if he actually treats patients, or on what he's basing this opinion.

She does not reference articles that have contained information on how this particular presentation provides a route for successful talk therapy (see for example Dr. Vaughan Bell, "'Mind Control' experiences on the internet".

She provides no actual cases.

She makes no effort to investigate less extreme cases.

She provides the occasional "not all conspiracy theorists are crazy" line in the midst of it all so that she can't be accused of doing what she in effect does: directly link internet conspiracy sites with mental illness.

If she just raised the question, I would still want to know why, and why now.

But she raised the question and provided a biased, poorly reasoned and poorly researched answer, which gets transmitted to the public as truth because she has, as you say, an excellent resume.

How does one get an excellent journalistic resume? One way is by writing things that titillate and draw readership.

Originally posted by Yoda411

This has become a misconception within this thread among many of you. This is a result of assumptions over investigation.

Look dude, I really am sick of going back and forth with you but this post is just....ehchhh. What are you reading? Where did you see anything thoughtful, informative, and educated? All it was is a collection of ideas put together by someone who does not understand mental illness very well at all. They used some out of context things and some half info and presented an assumption. Since when is journalism about making assumptions?

Look, you already claimed Freud was honored among psychologists. This is just so patently wrong that I could barely stay in my chair. Personal attacks aside, if that is your understanding of psychology today, can you not admit then that you might be very very wrong about this article? How can you determine the validity of the statements it makes about psychology when you already demonstrated your understanding of it to be poor at best?

This is not a personal dig. I am just asking, "raising the question" - is it possible that if you knew more about mental illness and psychology that maybe, just maybe, you might see this article differently?

Either way, how can you claim it has anything positive in it when it poses an idea and then never backs it up.

If their hypothesis was true...why couldn't they provide anything to back it up?

That is my question to you. If what they said was so valid, where is one example?

So sorry if someone already posted this.

What's Behind Internet Conspiracy Empires?
As Conspiracy Communities Grow, Mental Health Docs Are Left With Big Questions
By LAUREN COX
ABC News Medical Unit

Dec. 12, 2008—


abcnews.... go.com/print? id=6443988

Originally posted by Yoda411
Additionally, two individuals reading an identical story interpreted the article in two different ways.

I thought the news was supposed to report unbiased facts. Am I wrong? Can you interpret facts so differently?

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


To those of you whom read my posts, I apologize. Angel of Lightangelo is always in need of a jump start.

MacDonald cautioned that not everyone who believes in a conspiracy plot is mentally ill. They just may be suggestible or just suspicious of authority.

For the healthy in mind, MacDonald said, "it's a wild card about whether this is going to improve people's state or not. It may turn out that the value of the community is greater than the destructive nature of the narratives that are spun out of them.

Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

To those of you whom read my posts, I apologize. Angel of Lightangelo is always in need of a jump start.

I stopped all the nonsense and responded to you in a polite fashion posing a question to you. Aside from a personal attack, I fail to see what this response was supposed to demonstrate to me. I will refrain from attacking back and see if we can have an adult conversation.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


The misconception being challenged by me personally is that this article was written to promote a specific opinion.

It is those quotes from the article that I believe provide an open end to the conversation and allow you to draw your own conclusions.

The title of this thread was an individual's interpretation of the article, therefor it got eaten up by everyone furious of being offended by ABC.

It's important to read thoroughly articles with an open mind to the opposite of what you may have initially believed.

Ive got a good question to ask Cox.

Who are these professionals who only know what they are taught and like zombies day in and day out only report what they are paid to report in support off mental health.

Yoda we can all agree that some stories on here sound incredulous out in the real world. It might even cause some incredibility to this site but as the site suggests its conspiracy. Conspiracy with capitals. Surely people can read in between the lines. It is a place where people can be open about possible fantasy type subjects whether with proof or without. Whether it spreads is another things and a classic example of the 100 monkeys syndrome.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

I thought the news was supposed to report unbiased facts. Am I wrong? Can you interpret facts so differently?

interpretation aside - you're not wrong

that's what news is supposed to do - be factual

as factual as it is honestly possible to be

as unbiased as it is humanly possible to be

I personally prefer my news to contain some facts

not just opinion or speculation

even just some facts would almost make it real news

reply to post by Yoda411


I actually find the original title of the article to be more offensive, with its insinuation that the people running internet conspiracy sites have created "empires" and the further implication that these "empires" are built at a steep cost for the mentally ill.

And while it's important to read the whole article, it's also worth noting where the balance of weight goes.

The question is "what is the impression that this article gives" not "has the author covered ABC's butt legally?"

Originally posted by meadowfairy
Ive got a good question to ask Cox.

Who are these professionals who only know what they are taught and like zombies day in and day out only report what they are paid to report in support off mental health.

Yoda we can all agree that some stories on here sound incredulous out in the real world. It might even cause some incredibility to this site but as the site suggests its conspiracy. Conspiracy with capitals. Surely people can read in between the lines. It is a place where people can be open about possible fantasy type subjects whether with proof or without. Whether it spreads is another things and a classic example of the 100 monkeys syndrome.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately however not everyone is as mentally fit as you, or I. Fantasy type subjects can be a blurry line among delusional subjects. This brings me back to my initial point that those previously experiencing mental health issues, or on the bleeding edge of experiencing a mental health issue, would be most at risk.

They are just trying to discredit us.

Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

The misconception being challenged by me personally is that this article was written to promote a specific opinion.

OK, I can buy that. I can see that you may see it that way. But then, I still have to go back to the idea that the news is supposed to report news, not ask questions that really do not matter. Is there a rash of mentally ill people losing it all over? Are more people checking in for help due to increased paranoid delusions?

Don't you have to ask yourself why ABC news felt the need to ask this question in the first place since there was no originating issue to spark interest in the idea?