ABC says conspiracy web sites are contributing to mental health issues

Typical media propaganda.

Notice it takes what is the most laughable and ridiculed example in Icke, and then uses it as a way of labeling the entire subject as crazy.

It's no different than a marijuana rally and the media focuses on a couple of teens who say "I just wanna get high", while ignoring the people with legitimate concerns or medical problems.

They also state they are worried that other people might hear these things and not agree with the point of views the media puts across. They even say it themselves - if he held up a sign on the side of the road, nobody listens. But if they have a website, then people listen. The problem is that people listen.

This article is a clear cut example of propaganda. I can't believe everyone is even arguing if they article has any merit or not, it should be shown and treated as propaganda.

reply to post by badmedia


You are completely missing the point. Whether these sites hold factual information or not they do indeed promote paranoia. An individual whom may already be slightly paranoid would be much more so after reading some of the garbage on this website.

Originally posted by blowfishdl
A mental illness defines an extremely wide variety of issues that one can be experiencing. The most prevalent for this arguement is paranoia. Whether factual or fiction many stories on here incite paranoia. Therefor, conspiracy theory websites contribute to mental issues.

Do you really think this argument stands up?

Paranoia exists, stories about paranoia exist, therefore stories about paranoia cause paranoia?

Have you read any of the psych literature on this question? Cause it is out there. And it's far from unanimous it concluding that conspiracy sites are responsible for delusions.

The arguement to whether or not the mental illness is pre-existing is similar to punching a brick wall. Nobody wins. The point is that they do exist. Anyone that says mental illness' are fiction should be evaluated themselves.

Maybe nobody wins, but it sure makes a difference as to whether it's safe for schizophrenics to visit conspiracy sites. Can you cite any actual evidence that people whose delusions are fueled by conspiracy websites would not have the same level of delusional behavior (with perhaps different specific beliefs) if they had never heard of the Internet?

It's right there in plain text. Abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. I would most definitely argue that that is an attribute to believing some of the crazy things that get thrown out here. "It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid, or bizarre delusions", as though reading about ghosts, cover-ups, 9/11 conspiracy, people living in inner earth, Nibiru would not further promote such mental inconsistency?

Why would it promote such mental inconsistency? It is not at all clear to me that it does. That may seem like common sense to you, but it has no meat to it. It is simply an assertion.

I would sincerely advise the opposing force to ABC's conclusion to not only fact-check back with ABC regarding their fully capable research team, but to also do their own research regarding the situation of individuals with mental illness'. The case seems plain as day to me that ABC hit one right on the nose (personal attack deleted).

Maybe you should do the same? ABC's research team may (or may not) be fully capable; one thing they have shown themselves to be fully capable of is spin control.

I think this and related issues are going to be increasingly important over the next ten or so years as the Internet comes of age, and psychology and medicine begin to rethink some of the assumptions they've brought with them from the mid-twentieth century.

But it is not a clear-cut issue now, and any attempt to present it as such will skew the material somehow. Is it any surprise that ABC's take will skew it toward hysteria?

OF course they are contributing to mental health issues - the conspiracy websites are opening and enlightening our minds to the retched truth instead of all the sweet bubble-gum filled propanganda lies that the mainstream media wants us to believe.

Originally posted by themamayada
OF course they are contributing to mental health issues - the conspiracy websites are opening and enlightening our minds to the retched truth instead of all the sweet bubble-gum filled propanganda lies that the mainstream media wants us to believe.

There is a growing number of us who believe that its all fake.

NWO, Bloodlines, Reptiles,

it's all created so that WE (the smartest people) are tricked into thinking we can't serve in Government or that our Government his helplessly corrupt and so we subconsciously don't expect ANYTHING because we think Government has been compromised (via royal families, aliens, and masons)


I think that way more and more everyday.

this is funny i was arrested by my local police station last week and the police took me to psyciatric screening center because they thougth i was suicidal and nuts for believing 9/11 was a inside job, reason why they did this is because im very vocal about 9/11 and the nwo i tell the truth and people just think im nuts. but we'll get back to the psyciatric screening, first of all they had 2 county cops in the screening center watching me for no reason, even the cops that where watching me agreed that i should not have been brought in for a screening,, and they also said they believed 9/11 was a inside job. i was at the psyciatric screening center for about 3 hours they asked me alot of questions and did some tests, and they came to a conclusion and released me becouse im not a threat to anyone and im not nuts, im perfectly normal. see we are not nuts we all just know the truth.. # the NWO and # bush and others for carry out 9/11 you all will burn in hell. we all know 9/11 was a inside job. the facts and evidence are so overwheelming!!!! we will take back this county soon!!!!!!

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
it's all created so that WE (the smartest people) are tricked into thinking we can't serve in Government or that our Government his helplessly corrupt and so we subconsciously don't expect ANYTHING because we think Government has been compromised (via royal families, aliens, and masons)

Who then is creating these stories to keep the smartest people from getting into government concerns? You saying its a private industry conspiracy to keep people from working with government or what?

A person who is schizophrenic will search out and twist any information to fill in the pieces of their own constructed delusion regardless of the source. These could be cryptic messages hidden in every day reading materials in science theory or average news articles. At least with the help of some people here they're allowed to adjust their views without the interpretation of a physical negative experience around others.


Some people here have a really bad attitude towards others as if this is their college dorm and they're scholars. These are the truly deluded ones....Legends in their own minds.

Originally posted by Frith

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
it's all created so that WE (the smartest people) are tricked into thinking we can't serve in Government or that our Government his helplessly corrupt and so we subconsciously don't expect ANYTHING because we think Government has been compromised (via royal families, aliens, and masons)

Who then is creating these stories to keep the smartest people from getting into government concerns? You saying its a private industry conspiracy to keep people from working with government or what?

,
Because a few of them (10s or hundreds)-- [That is--Conspiracy Theories] are bound to be true and really did occur(They are not conspiracies, they are truths), so the Government must inflate the number of total conspiracies to take the heat of the 1 or 2 that are dead true. You discredit the entire concept.

You do that by putting out new junk everyday.

Who? CIA/FBI/NSA?

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by blowfishdl
A mental illness defines an extremely wide variety of issues that one can be experiencing. The most prevalent for this arguement is paranoia. Whether factual or fiction many stories on here incite paranoia. Therefor, conspiracy theory websites contribute to mental issues.

Do you really think this argument stands up?

Paranoia exists, stories about paranoia exist, therefore stories about paranoia cause paranoia?

Do you think the 9/11 conspiracy causes paranoia?
The answer is obviously yes, it does. Maybe you have a different twist on the subject at hand.

Let's take another subject. How about Nibiru and the Mayan Calender, after all that's a popular one. Do you believe this does not incite paranoia?

Make sure to take into consideration the article is titled, "... contributing to mental health issues". It does not say it causes mental health issues.

With that said, are you really attempting to argue that a paranoid schizophrenic would not further become paranoid by reading that the government massacred it's own people and government officials to literally take over the world?

I think you may want to re-think your conclusion and bring a more insightful arguement to the table.

Edit: To any further arguments brought to the table please realize that ABC did not personally attack you personally for contributing to a conspiracy website. Please do not argue against it merely because you feel insulted.

[edit on 12/13/08 by blowfishdl]

reply to post by blowfishdl


I assure you that I do not feel personally insulted by either ABC's coverage or your posts.

I tend to be an "open-minded skeptic" here – pretty much the only "conspiracy" that we talk about here that I fully embrace is that the public is lied to sometimes by the government and media.

And yes, I really do mean to argue that it is possible no additional delusional belief or behavior is caused by conspiracy websites – that the people who do have delusions fleshed out by things they read on the internet would have delusions no matter what – just different delusions.

"Common sense" seems to be the only thing your argument is based on, and "common sense" is notoriously unreliable in scientific matters. Mostly, I just wanted to point that out. Thinking something seems obvious to you does not make it true.

One interesting question that psychologists and neurologists are working on now is, given that the definition of a delusion is basically just a belief that is not shared by a community, can we still define UFO abduction scenarios, mind control victimization, etcetera as "delusional" if communities are being formed on the internet around belief in these concepts.

'Mind control' experiences on the internet (abstract).

And note, this entire discussion is assuming that the conspiracies are delusions. No doubt some of them are (for one thing, some conspiracy theories are mutually exclusive), but it is equally certain that conspiracies do exist.

Some schizophrenics hear voices, but not everyone who hears voices is schizophrenic.

Here's a quote from the second page of the ABC article:

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.

ABC decided to focus on the testimony of Dr. MacDonald, who admits that it's possible online conspiracy communities provide more benefit than danger, but still thinks they're bad because they're "wildcards", instead of researchers like Dr. Duckworth, who points out that the sort of conspiracy theories you find online are not the same kinds that you typically find in schizophrenic delusions.

In other words, the impact of conspiracy sites on the mentally unstable is unclear, and "common sense" is not the best way to try and figure it out.

reply to post by americandingbat

And yes, I really do mean to argue that it is possible no additional delusional belief or behavior is caused by conspiracy websites – that the people who do have delusions fleshed out by things they read on the internet would have delusions no matter what – just different delusions.

Not true. In psychology one of the most used models, at least with dealing with schizophrenia, is the diathesis-stress model. This states that a person may have a predisposition to a certain mental disorder, but it does not manifest until certain environmental factors come into play, generally a stressful situation. This is especially true with paranoid schizophrenia which typically manifests later in life due to stressors in one's life, as opposed to catatonic or disorganized schizophrenia which appear to have a more biological cause and generally have earlier onset due to this. So, if a person is genetically predisposed towards paranoid schizophrenia and they come on a site such as this and begin to think that the world is completely different from what they were taught it could start to put stress on their mental state and cause symptoms of schizophrenia begin to appear. Whereas if they had never come on a conspiracy site they may have never been put under any kind of stress like that. Remember the article says contributes to, not causes.

Furthermore, a person does not need to be a paranoid schizophrenic to have their condition exacerbated by a site such as this. A person may simply have a paranoid personality type. This site could easily make their condition worse. They already dont trust people and then they come on here and are told that their mistrust is well placed it could make their condition hard to treat and possibly make their condition even worse.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


But do we have any stats to back up the idea that sites like this are actually having an effect? We have had the diagnosis for much longer than the internet so that means there have always been those triggers, those stressers. Apparently it is only a matter of time and since most PS begin to manifest symptoms in the early to mid twenties, and always have....Do we have any data that shows more people being "triggered" than ever before? Were there undiagnosed ones running around because they never got stressed until they came online? Do they have any evidence to show that it is coming on any stronger or earlier or manifesting itself in more dangerous or unhealthy ways?

I am not arguing with you, I am really asking. I think you have a sound premise and all but I cannot help but remember every case study I watched and read that was from the '70s. It sure did not take any internet sites to trigger these folks so I am wondering, now that we have conspiracy sites, where is the proof they are having any effect?

Since the OP forgot to give us a link, let me give it to you. Read the ENTIRE article if you are in the least skeptical that this is an incorrect statement. It gives some seriously valid points of view, then let's discuss. Thanks.

ABC Link

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Not true. In psychology one of the most used models, at least with dealing with schizophrenia, is the diathesis-stress model. This states that a person may have a predisposition to a certain mental disorder, but it does not manifest until certain environmental factors come into play, generally a stressful situation.

*snip*

Whereas if they had never come on a conspiracy site they may have never been put under any kind of stress like that. Remember the article says contributes to, not causes.

That's rather better than appealing to common sense and "it's clear that"

But, I wonder if people who are at that kind of risk are more likely to accidentally stumble across a site like this and be introduced to conspiracy theories despite never having heard of them before, or more likely to first be exposed through TV or movies and then search for more information once the idea is planted?

And how can you possibly show that people would not have been placed under a stress like that if it wasn't for stumbling across this site?

And does the theory really imply that reading something on the internet is an adequate stressor, or would the precipitating stressor be a life experience and the conspiracy site be a shaper of delusion rather than the precipitating cause?

Isn't it somewhat dangerous to accept ABC's view that conspiracy websites are potential mental health threats at face value? Isn't it possible that there is an advantage to the status quo in making sure that conspiracies are linked in the public mind to delusions, and conspiracy sites to the spread of mental illness?

I really don't mean to argue that it's never the case, just that people in this thread who are replying "of course that's so, it's obvious to me" might want to step back and look again.

Reply to blowfish
I did read the entire article, which is how I found the quote above regarding psychiatrists being in disagreement about whether or not such sites contribute to mental illness.

[edit on 12/13/08 by americandingbat]

reply to post by blowfishdl


OK, I was lost by the first paragraph. They begin the premise by talking about a crazy man on the corner. Then they say that if given the proper forum to reach many and not appear crazy, he can.......what? Is he now making people crazy? Is he triggering paranoids that would have otherwise lived long healthy lives? It is an incomplete thought meant to lay blame and sound "truthy" but it really does not do anything but disguise a bad idea as a poor analogy.

Unfortunately, I kept reading until I got to here.

Icke was laughed out of the public eye in the early '90s when he started wearing only turquoise and explaining that voices had sent him on an important mission to save the earth.

Decades later, Icke has written books, has fans in 47 countries and can gather a crowd of 2,500 people in a city simply by posting a date for a lecture on his Web site.

Two small problems here. I do not buy any of Icke's crap but he had a HUUUUUUGE following already in the early '90s. Where do they get their evidence that he was laughed away?

But that is not the important part. Forgive me for not reading any farther. If they say anything valid, I'd love to hear it but I cannot continue on after this nonsense -

Icke was laughed out of the public eye in the early '90s andb]Decades later, Icke has written books,

I am sorry but exactly what year was this article written in? 2018? 2028? How many decades past the '90s is the author exactly? I hate time traveling writers. They are always skewed in favor of 3rd party politics.

Anyway, if there is anything in there that is not so stupid that it makes me defend[/] Icke, feel free to shove it in my face.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]