It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
Vaughan Bell, a British psychologist who has researched the effect of the Internet on mental illness, first began tracking sites with reports of mind control in 2004. In 2006 he published a study concluding that there was an extensive Internet community around such beliefs, and he called 10 sites he studied "likely psychotic sites."
So he actually witnessed that there was a large community of people frequenting these websites and then decides to conclude then the they are "likely psychotic sites."
Anyone know this guy? That is about as unscientific as you can get right there. Is he the resident psychologist for Weekly World News?
I am a clinical and research psychologist interested in understanding brain injury, mental distress and psychological impairment. I’m currently at the Departmento de Psiquiatría in the Universidad de Antioquia and the Hospital Universitario San Vicente de Paúl, in Medellín, Colombia, where I’m a visiting professor. I’m also a visiting research fellow at the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London.
Here are the follow up articles on this topic.
1. Sharing their Conspiracy on the Internet
gangstalking.wordpress.com... ernet/
2. Bridging the gap.
gangstalking.wordpress.com...
3. Extreme assessments and paranoid conclusions
gangstalking.wordpress.com... nclusions/
4. Clarification
gangstalking.wordpress.com...
5. Areas to consider when researching Gang Stalking
gangstalking.wordpress.com...
Originally posted by Yoda411
Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth
Originally posted by Yoda411
Would you argue that this fact-less concept could potentially further skew his perception of reality? Potentially even permanently embedding the idea that his nurses are reptilians?
By this reasoning we should ban all works of fiction. After all a mentally unstable person could read/watch it and think it is true.
Vas
Ah, but the difference is fiction is rightfully labeled fiction where as on a website you have to determine the credibility yourself through research and fact checking. Not everyone is mentally fit for this.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
The man is an extremely respected psychologist who has studied and written an extensive list of research papers, SOME of which I have posted above. In fact, he has probably done more research on this subject than anyone in the world.
Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by americandingbat
Indeed. So if the question to be asked is, "which psychologist do we trust?", then the answer is both. Both of them have done their absolute best to apply ancient psychiatric theory to modern day technology. This is not an easy task, and therefor we have no definite answer.
What we are left with, in my opinion, is our personal experiences. From my personal experiences, if someone is depressed and then you tell them their dog is dead, the assumed reaction would be to become more deeply depressed.
In the same respect, if someone is paranoid, telling them Biped Reptilians are dressing up like humans and ruling the world through mind control I would only expect them to become more paranoid.
If someone is happy, and you tell them they are going on vacation to Costa Rica, the natural reaction would be to become even happier.
If someone is delusional and believes monsters live in his closet, and you show him an article from what he assumes is a credible source that seems to prove that not only do monsters live in your closet but they are coming out at night and picking your boogers, [assuming he believes it] he has therefor become more delusional.
I understand if you consider this taking it out of context, however I am just attempting to explain my personal psychology applicable to my opinion.
Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by Yoda411
" Indeed, individuals with mental illness' cannot determine truth from the fiction we are bombarded with 24/7. This is why I support the hypothesis in which they could be further mislead towards an incorrect perception of reality. "
I know this could never happen in this earth age,
but how much mental illness do you think there'd be,
if the news could not lie, and told the whole story and nothing but the whole story.
FWIW, had you heard of the reporters on fox who sued because the story was untrue, and the judge found the liars not guilty because there was no law against lying!!!! lmao...what a country......gotta love justice like that...
Bell, V. (2007) Online information, extreme communities and internet therapy: Is the internet good for our mental health? Journal of Mental Health, 16 (4), 445-457.
Bell, V., Maiden, C., Muñoz-Solomando, A. & Reddy, V. (2006) "Mind control experiences" on the internet: Implications for the psychiatric diagnosis of delusions. Psychopathology, 39, 87-91.
Aims: To examine the effect of the internet on mental health.
Method: Literature review.
Results: The internet is typically discussed as if it were a set of activities when it is actually a medium upon which various activities can occur. It is, therefore, neither “good” nor “bad” for mental health, although specific activities may have an influence. The standard of mental health information on the internet is probably equivalent to the mainstream media, although overall it still remains poor. The concept of “internet addiction” looks increasingly invalid, although it is likely that depressed or isolated individuals are more likely to focus on certain activities to excess. A number of “extreme communities” have formed online, such as pro-anorexia, pro-suicide, pro-amputation and likely-psychotic groups. These serve to provide support, outside a medical and social mainstream that finds their beliefs and behaviours unacceptable. A review of preliminary randomized controlled trials shows online therapy to be effective for many disorders.
Conclusions: Mental health professionals are advised to lead the creation of online treatments and information. Clinical recommendations for the use of the internet are offered.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Harassment101
First of all, I assume that your reference to "you" is a generalization, and not aimed at me, because "I" did not do the things you said.
Having said that, however, I want to go on record that I answered, pn page 18 of this thread, a question asked by angel of archangelo, about "who" Vaughn Bell was. The response factually stated his credentials.
Second, Bell did write several peer reviewed papers dealing with the subject of "extreme communities". Here are two of them:
Those communities were referenced as extreme communities based on his research, but he has never researched them. That is the correction that needed to be made.
Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
Did the schoolyard have delusional theories posted?
Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by Resinveins
Which website would be more dangerous to believe every word of if you had a severe learning disability?
AboveTopSecret.com
Or...
ABCNews.com
Originally posted by Resinveins
Wow... this answering a question with another question stuff is fun! Now I see how things get to 27 pages
As another of Dr. Bell's defenders on this and another thread, I would point out that he can hardly be blamed for not researching things that he doesn't claim to have researched.
For those that aren't familiar with how news networks develop a story, here's the quick and dirty answer-
They decide EXACTLY what to believe FIRST, then they tell their reporters to go out and find things that support their beliefs. Yes, there are a few good reporters that actually report the news as they see it, but a large majority of them, report what they are told to report. It's called collecting a paycheck for another week.
Originally posted by Harassment101
The person who wrote the article apprently didn't know the difference between Gang Stalking, or Mind Control. Lot's of research there.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Harassment101
First of all, I assume that your reference to "you" is a generalization, and not aimed at me, because "I" did not do the things you said.
Having said that, however, I want to go on record that I answered, pn page 18 of this thread, a question asked by angel of archangelo, about "who" Vaughn Bell was. The response factually stated his credentials.
Second, Bell did write several peer reviewed papers dealing with the subject of "extreme communities". Here are two of them:
Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
As another of Dr. Bell's defenders on this and another thread, I would point out that he can hardly be blamed for not researching things that he doesn't claim to have researched.
Perhaps this speaks to exactly what bothers me so much about the ABC article: there is legitimate research being done that recognizes that not all extreme/conspiracy/alternative Internet Communities are the same, that you can't rely on common sense to provide the link between participation in such a community and psychosis.
Whether or not conspiracy theories harm people who are susceptible to mental illness is a matter of debate among psychiatrists.
Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
Evidence of your bias on the subject matter:
You believe MSM is to blame for linking conspiracy web sites to mental health issues.
Yet ATS is not to blame for the posts in which people contribute to the website.
Somehow you fail to blame the reporter on ABC's behalf and jump directly to the conclusion it is the MSM, an even broader conclusion than if you were to blame ABC.
In the same context, you would therefor blame AboveTopSecret, or it's parent company (if there even is one), for the posts which are on their website.