Self-Delusion Regarding Special Paranormal Abilities

[UncaYimmy]

I've been thinking a lot recently about how some people steadfastly hold on to paranormal beliefs about themselves where they believe they have some special ability. To be clear, I'm not talking about people who believe in astrology, psychics or ghosts. I'm talking about people who believe they can do something that cannot be explained by science. I'm not talking about people who just say they have these abilities to defraud people.

I think all of us at one time or another have deluded ourselves. It's quite easy to do in our love life. We might think someone still loves us even after the relationship is over. We might justify cheating with another lover or pretend that our lover is not cheating. I don't think a delusion in and of itself is a mental disorder. However, I want to repeat that I do not look at a mental disorder any differently than I look at any other health issue. I don't judge people for having a broken leg, and I don't judge them for having a chemical imbalance.

I'm going to bring up some names of members, but I don't intend this as some sort of call-out thread. To really understand what I'm talking about, I think it's important to look at what these people say and do in the face of skepticism.

It is my understanding the Chillzero believed herself to have some psychic abilities. I don't know the full story, so, Chill, if you could share some information about your experiences, that would be great. What did you believe? How did you react to others telling you that you were deluded, assuming they did? How did you conclude that you were not psychic?

Reason1 insisted that he could detect people staring at him. He was repeatedly told how this could be easily explained, but it didn't seem to make any difference. He insisted on test conditions that did not eliminate the ordinary. He seemed quite cocky about it.

Connie Sonne also seemed quite cocky about her abilities, but she failed the test with flying colors. Her response? The JREF must have been cheating.

VisionFromFeeling, about whom I know the most, has steadfastly held on to her claims. She has been virtually unshakable in her beliefs despite literally thousands of posts telling her she does not have the ability. She failed tests, but refuses to call them failures. She seems sincere in her belief that she is actually working towards a test when in fact the rest of us see it as clear evasion.

What's at work here? This site discusses Narcissistic Personality Disorder. While we really cannot diagnose anyone over the Internet, the symptoms he describe seem to apply to a lot of these people.

For example, I've wondered why these people come into the lion's den (this forum) and repeatedly subject themselves to what amounts to abuse. Quite frankly, I don't think I could do what VisionFromFeeling did. No way would have I continued to come back here and start threads only to be told that I am wrong, wrong, wrong.

This site above says, "The narcissist consistently baits authority
figures into punishing him and thus into upholding his delusional self-image
as worthy of their attention. This provocative behaviour is called
Projective Identification."

When I read that it made a lot of sense, especially with VFF and a few others. Why come here when you could go to a woo website and be greeted with open arms? My theory, which is based on things these people have said, is that they look down on woos. It's like, "those people don't have real abilities, but I do. They avoid skeptics because they will be debunked. I am so confident in my belief that I will bewilder the skeptics."

The referenced website also says, "A Narcissistic Hedge is when a narcissist colours more than one field of activity with his narcissistic hues. He infuses the selected subjects with narcissistic investment. He prepares them as auxiliary Sources of Narcissistic Supply and as backup options in case of a major system failure." This, too, seems to be a common factor in that these people often have related claims or give examples of other special things they do.

The site also says, "The narcissist is likely to react with rage to all these [being told they are not special, being exposed, having talents belittled] and, in an effort to re-establish his fantastic grandiosity, he is likely to expose facts and stratagems he had no conscious intention of exposing. The narcissist reacts with narcissistic rage, hatred, aggression, or violence to an infringement of what he perceives to be his entitlement."

We've seen this as well. Lots of these threads are littered with angry responses and agression towards others. It seems that the closer we get to exposing the fantasy, the more intense the reaction.

The site also says, "The "modesty" displayed by narcissists is false. It is mostly and merely verbal. It is couched in flourishing phrases, emphasised to absurdity, repeated unnecessarily – usually to the point of causing gross inconvenience to the listener. The real aim of such behaviour and its subtext are exactly the opposite of common modesty."

We have also seen this a lot. Even Connie Sonne said that she was really just the recipient of some special gift from an unexplained source. We've seen people say that they are not special and just want to prove what they can do, but in fact all of their actions seem to come from believing they are special and entitled.

That's enough for this installment. If you've had experiences with other people who claim special abilities in the face of all reason, please share them. I'm very interested in understanding the mentality. Like I said before, I'm not trying to make a medical diagnosis, but even if one is implied, it's no different than someone describing flu symptoms. I hope we can find a balance of between discussing specifics of various people, members and non-members, without getting personal. The goal is to understand, not blame.

[scarlettinlondon]

nice post

I have been reading all of VFF's threads with interest. (As well as your site, and her own)

It is my view that a great many people have the potential to display this kind of behaviour, but that not many have the opportunity. Most have parents that, at a young age condition them out of attention seeking behaviour, and it they don't, the edges are knocked off them during the school experience. Some however, have highly indulgent parents, who praise them relentlessly but miss out on true parenting, setting boundaries, socialising their children to accept that they are not the centre of the universe, and to put other people before themselves.

If children 'miss out' on these essential (and painful) life lessons, for one reason or another, those tendancies are not erased early on, and pop up later in one form or another.

For VFF it is my view that this has happened. She is struggling to accept that she is not very important and this woo is just the vehicle. It could just have easily been another area of 'specialness'.

The problem here is that VFF is highly unlikely to accept reason or reasoned argument to change her views. In many ways, every mention of her failures puts up more defences and makes her beliefs stronger. Whilst a skeptic is more likely to change their views as a result of discussion and evidence, VFF is less likely as her beliefs and her personality are one and the same. Every attack on her 'powers' is viewed as an attack on her personally, and is therefore highly painful.

It is logical to assume therefore that her defences of her powers are much more vigorous than they would be for you or me. Imagine someone insulting or attacking your child, and that is what it feels like for her.

This is where we get the basic misunderstanding between us. This forum firmly believes that reason should change the minds of paranormal claimants, as the members are generally accepting of new evidence and don't feel personally betrayed. VFF does not have that option. Evidence of her failures is evidence of failure of her as a person and it is unbearable.

The work that would be most helpful for paranormal claimants is to separate their claims from their personalities. However that cannot be achieved on a forum. In the meantime, every time someone disputes one of VFF's claims, no matter how rationally, helpfully and politely, she will become more entrenched, not less.

However, I don't believe that she is 'mentally ill'. Rather that this behaviour is at one end of a scale that all humans are capable of.

Best regards Scarlett

[sleepy_lioness]

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

However, I don't believe that she is 'mentally ill'. Rather that this behaviour is at one end of a scale that all humans are capable of.

Firstly, I should say that I'm talking generally here and not about any specific person.

My (lay) understanding is that personality disorders are not 'mental illnesses' as such, but rather stable and pretty much unchangeable aspects of someone's personality, which is why they're so difficult to 'treat'.

I know that NPD is in the DSM and so on, but I also know that the concept of narcissism arose out of Freud and there seems, to a lay observer, to be quite a lot of psychodynamic stuff still associated with it, which raises my woo hackles a bit. Could any mental health professional poster (Dancing David?) shed light on how much of the NPD description and its usage is pop psychology and how much is considered clinically valid?

[big-E]

I would imagine turning up on a woo forum to announce your mystical abilities, only to have other posters say 'oh yeah, I can do that too' or worse, 'I can do better than that' would be quite demoralising to those who want to be special. The tendency for all woo to be accepted must make for a bit of an anti-climax.

Many (the I-can-see-auras/orbs/etc. crowd) will no-doubt find validation from fellow woo-ers but the psychopathology (and I think that's a justified word) of those who want to 'transcend the mundane' by feeding their self delusion probably do need to be the martyr, the Special One, bravely battling the hordes of unbelievers... how depressing to have discovered the arcane secrets of the universe and then be told that it's been done before. In fact with all the multifarious flavours of woo, it must be quite hard to battle for your own particular recipe - appealing to the evidence to settle arguments isn't really going to work

Come to JREF and you can be (in your own mind) the only 'true' position fighting against everyone denying you.

I think in the reverse situation, a sole skeptic would be very unlikely to try to make a heroic stand to convince masses of woo-ers. We - as the woo-ers are often fond of pointing out - do love to club together! Or rather, find "like-minded" people. I think we also tend to realise the futility of trying to change minds that are diametrically opposed when we will never have some cataclysmic piece of evidence that suddenly destroys all opposing arguments. The sorts of dedicated woo-er in the OP do seem to know that, assuming their beliefs were true, the could strike a huge blow by demonstrating them in a valid and convincing experiment. However, they either fail in the experiment or they twist and turn to avoid being caught in a failure, and the twisting and turning is definitely the most interesting from a psychology point of view. The VfF saga is becoming more compelling as a 'meta' study of a woo mindset rather than her endless failure to actually test anything properly. I've taken to skipping her posts and just reading the responses, which are considerably more enlightening!

[calebprime]

Originally Posted by sleepy_lioness

Firstly, I should say that I'm talking generally here and not about any specific person.

My (lay) understanding is that personality disorders are not 'mental illnesses' as such, but rather stable and pretty much unchangeable aspects of someone's personality, which is why they're so difficult to 'treat'.

I know that NPD is in the DSM and so on, but I also know that the concept of narcissism arose out of Freud and there seems, to a lay observer, to be quite a lot of psychodynamic stuff still associated with it, which raises my woo hackles a bit. Could any mental health professional poster (Dancing David?) shed light on how much of the NPD description and its usage is pop psychology and how much is considered clinically valid?

Thanks for this.

[scarlettinlondon]

Originally Posted by sleepy_lioness

My (lay) understanding is that personality disorders are not 'mental illnesses' as such, but rather stable and pretty much unchangeable aspects of someone's personality, which is why they're so difficult to 'treat'.

I know that NPD is in the DSM and so on, but I also know that the concept of narcissism arose out of Freud and there seems, to a lay observer, to be quite a lot of psychodynamic stuff still associated with it, which raises my woo hackles a bit. Could any mental health professional poster (Dancing David?) shed light on how much of the NPD description and its usage is pop psychology and how much is considered clinically valid?

I would agree about the psychodynamic stuff to a certain extent, even though I was trained at the Tavistock Clinic in London. I tend now not to use the psychodynamic framework to operate in as an applied pyschologist, although I expect to a certain extent it influences my thinking. My main area is in understanding and trying to change behaviours rather than explaining them (which is, in my understanding, much of the pychoanalytic view).

I think what I am trying to get at is an understanding of VFF's world view and why despite all evidence to the contary, she is still able to believe that she possesses certain powers. I think that she is not unintelligent, but the extent and length of her postings indicates to me that her personal investment in having these powers is so great that she cannot afford to let them go.

It is my view that she genuinely believed that in coming here, she would 'startle' skeptics and be discovered to be the one true person with these powers. It upsets, diorientates and hurts her when she finds that forumites are not so eaily swayed. After all she did not originally have the understanding that this has all been heard before.

It is likely that she supposed that all other claimants were in fact fraudulent, except her, and she would be a revelation to us all. This is the reason why she talks about synesthsia etc, not because she genuinely believes it to be the case, but so that we know she is the 'real thing' as she has an understanding that 'other claimants' might have had it, and this is how they were not the genuine article.

[blutoski]

I do think it's futile to attempt to diagnose over the internet, but I think you've tripped over the wrong DSM category.

I believe the causes are quite varied, ranging from Axis I secondary delusions as an artefact of [Psychosis] to milder Axis II [Delusional Disorder], or something not even diagnosable like [Fantasy prone personality].

Comorbidity is possible, as is "Just Plain Wrong." (Not all people who disagree with skeptics have a diagnosable mental problem)

It's also important to understand that motives may evolve over time. A claimant may ultimately change their mind, but be unable to change their public face, due to investment.

[Maia]

Hey UncaYimmy!

I don't know of any research, but I would be willing to bet that it has to exist somewhere. One problem, though, is that the personality disorders themselves are so squirrelly; I've heard that the entire category may undergo some changes in the DSM-V (assuming it ever comes out.) Scarlet may know more about that, for I am but a lowly psych social worker... Anyway, according to the DSM-IV-TR, "a personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment."(pg. 685) However, this makes the PD's sound a lot more straightforward and easier to categorize than they are. I think they're a horribly sloppy category, and so do a lot of others.

Here's why. There are standardized self-administered tests for some disorders, such as the Beck Depression Inventory for, well, depression, or the Cambridge Depersonalization Scale for depersonalization disorder. Some disorders are verifiable by taxometric research. The dissociative disorders hold up the best by this standard, IMHO. In other words, there's a scoring scale called the Dissociative Experiences Scale Taxon, consisting of eight questions. If you don't have a full-scale dissociative disorder, you will almost certainly not answer yes to even one of these questions. But when it comes to the personality disorders, yes, there's something serious is going on-- but what? I've worked with a lot of people labeled borderline, and frankly, I have to say that I'm of the opinion that 80% of the time, it's a garbage catch-all category for "I don't want to deal with this person and they make me very uncomfortable." I've worked almost 100% with people who have severe and persistent mental illness and live in poverty, and you could say that almost all of them have some kind of personality disorder if you're going by the book, but is that really a meaningful thing to say-- or is it a reflection of what their illness has meant in their lives? The DSM-IV-TR itself states that "it should be noted that this clustering system [for the personality disorders] , although useful in some research and educational situations, has serious limitations and has not been consistently validated." Slapping a name on a pattern of behavior or a collection of tendencies to react to certain situations in certain ways is something which we as mental health professionals should be incredibly careful about doing, IMHO. I don't think that as the category stands, the personality disorders have been well validated. The idea has face validity (it sort of seems to make sense) but that's about it. So I don't think it can be said to cover what's going on with paranormal claimants who stick to their stories.

That being said, I do think that even though the primary explanation for at least a good percentage of these people is neurobiological, there's got to be something psychological going on as well. I just don't think that a personality disorder covers it.

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

I've been thinking a lot recently about how some people steadfastly hold on to paranormal beliefs about themselves where they believe they have some special ability. To be clear, I'm not talking about people who believe in astrology, psychics or ghosts. I'm talking about people who believe they can do something that cannot be explained by science. I'm not talking about people who just say they have these abilities to defraud people.

I think all of us at one time or another have deluded ourselves. It's quite easy to do in our love life. We might think someone still loves us even after the relationship is over. We might justify cheating with another lover or pretend that our lover is not cheating. I don't think a delusion in and of itself is a mental disorder. However, I want to repeat that I do not look at a mental disorder any differently than I look at any other health issue. I don't judge people for having a broken leg, and I don't judge them for having a chemical imbalance.

I'm going to bring up some names of members, but I don't intend this as some sort of call-out thread. To really understand what I'm talking about, I think it's important to look at what these people say and do in the face of skepticism.

It is my understanding the Chillzero believed herself to have some psychic abilities. I don't know the full story, so, Chill, if you could share some information about your experiences, that would be great. What did you believe? How did you react to others telling you that you were deluded, assuming they did? How did you conclude that you were not psychic?

Reason1 insisted that he could detect people staring at him. He was repeatedly told how this could be easily explained, but it didn't seem to make any difference. He insisted on test conditions that did not eliminate the ordinary. He seemed quite cocky about it.

Connie Sonne also seemed quite cocky about her abilities, but she failed the test with flying colors. Her response? The JREF must have been cheating.

VisionFromFeeling, about whom I know the most, has steadfastly held on to her claims. She has been virtually unshakable in her beliefs despite literally thousands of posts telling her she does not have the ability. She failed tests, but refuses to call them failures. She seems sincere in her belief that she is actually working towards a test when in fact the rest of us see it as clear evasion.

What's at work here? This site discusses Narcissistic Personality Disorder. While we really cannot diagnose anyone over the Internet, the symptoms he describe seem to apply to a lot of these people.

For example, I've wondered why these people come into the lion's den (this forum) and repeatedly subject themselves to what amounts to abuse. Quite frankly, I don't think I could do what VisionFromFeeling did. No way would have I continued to come back here and start threads only to be told that I am wrong, wrong, wrong.

This site above says, "The narcissist consistently baits authority
figures into punishing him and thus into upholding his delusional self-image
as worthy of their attention. This provocative behaviour is called
Projective Identification."

When I read that it made a lot of sense, especially with VFF and a few others. Why come here when you could go to a woo website and be greeted with open arms? My theory, which is based on things these people have said, is that they look down on woos. It's like, "those people don't have real abilities, but I do. They avoid skeptics because they will be debunked. I am so confident in my belief that I will bewilder the skeptics."

The referenced website also says, "A Narcissistic Hedge is when a narcissist colours more than one field of activity with his narcissistic hues. He infuses the selected subjects with narcissistic investment. He prepares them as auxiliary Sources of Narcissistic Supply and as backup options in case of a major system failure." This, too, seems to be a common factor in that these people often have related claims or give examples of other special things they do.

The site also says, "The narcissist is likely to react with rage to all these [being told they are not special, being exposed, having talents belittled] and, in an effort to re-establish his fantastic grandiosity, he is likely to expose facts and stratagems he had no conscious intention of exposing. The narcissist reacts with narcissistic rage, hatred, aggression, or violence to an infringement of what he perceives to be his entitlement."

We've seen this as well. Lots of these threads are littered with angry responses and agression towards others. It seems that the closer we get to exposing the fantasy, the more intense the reaction.

The site also says, "The "modesty" displayed by narcissists is false. It is mostly and merely verbal. It is couched in flourishing phrases, emphasised to absurdity, repeated unnecessarily – usually to the point of causing gross inconvenience to the listener. The real aim of such behaviour and its subtext are exactly the opposite of common modesty."

We have also seen this a lot. Even Connie Sonne said that she was really just the recipient of some special gift from an unexplained source. We've seen people say that they are not special and just want to prove what they can do, but in fact all of their actions seem to come from believing they are special and entitled.

That's enough for this installment. If you've had experiences with other people who claim special abilities in the face of all reason, please share them. I'm very interested in understanding the mentality. Like I said before, I'm not trying to make a medical diagnosis, but even if one is implied, it's no different than someone describing flu symptoms. I hope we can find a balance of between discussing specifics of various people, members and non-members, without getting personal. The goal is to understand, not blame.

I was just watching Jon Stewart's interview with anti-health reform propagandist Betsy McCaughey. I imagine Stewart felt some of the same emotions during this interview as we feel when faced with the implacable facade of the deeply committed woo.

At one point, Steward admitted that he felt there was "no connection" with the subject of his interview, and toward the end stated, "I don't know how your mind works."

You can see the interview in its entirety here.

My own understanding is that it's not really productive to engage such folk in discussion, because such interaction cannot be an authentic exchange of ideas.


M.

[Audible Click]

Is the general consensus that the type of disorders mentioned in the OP are untreatable?

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by Audible Click

Is the general consensus that the type of disorders mentioned in the OP are untreatable?

I don't know, but the usual response to such a question is that the "disordered" person needs to want to change for any treatment to be effective.


M.

[Maia]

Originally Posted by Moochie

I don't know, but the usual response to such a question is that the "disordered" person needs to want to change for any treatment to be effective.


M.

Well, of course they're treatable (whatever "they" are), and the same thing could be said of any kind of mental disorder at all (that the people in question need to want treatment in order for it to work.) Marsha Linehan pioneered dialectical behavioral therapy as treatment for borderline personality disorder, and it's used for all the PD's now. The problem is that the categories themselves are awfully squirrelly, so it's hard to say what's really being treated. I think what's eventually going to happen is that the various PD's will be separated out into distinct and qualitatively different categories much more than they are.

That said, I do like Linehan's stuff. If you take a pragmatic POV, it can work very well no matter what it is that's actually going on.

[Eyeron]

There is one common behavior among human beings, on and off the internet.

That is, in any given group the popular opinion will ALWAYS do whatever it can to drown out unpopular opinion.

This can be tested out too. For example, go to a political forum for liberals and state an opinion like "homosexuality is deviant behavior" and watch people start coming out of the woodwork to tell you that you're wrong. Most are doing just because everybody else is.

On this board the popular opinion is skepticism. So paranormal beliefs (pun intended) get shot down. On a board for paranormal beliefs, the skeptic will get shot down and very similar things to the original post will get said. On a religious board the atheists will always get shouted down. On an atheist board, the religious will get shouted down. And on it goes.

It is not just limited to one group doing it to another.

Humans are social animals, and the only way to fit in is to be like everybody else, because if you don't fit in then you will be shut out.



This is what I've come to call the herding mentality of human beings. I've come to believe that what human beings value is conformity, not individuality, because the individuality represents the unknown and therefore is possibly a threat. So people must be made to conform to the popular opinion and belief in any given group. It's just that people cannot really agree what to conform to.

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

There is one common behavior among human beings, on and off the internet.

That is, in any given group the popular opinion will ALWAYS do whatever it can to drown out unpopular opinion.

This can be tested out too. For example, go to a political forum for liberals and state an opinion like "homosexuality is deviant behavior" and watch people start coming out of the woodwork to tell you that you're wrong. Most are doing just because everybody else is.

On this board the popular opinion is skepticism. So paranormal beliefs (pun intended) get shot down. On a board for paranormal beliefs, the skeptic will get shot down and very similar things to the original post will get said. On a religious board the atheists will always get shouted down. On an atheist board, the religious will get shouted down. And on it goes.

It is not just limited to one group doing it to another.

Humans are social animals, and the only way to fit in is to be like everybody else, because if you don't fit in then you will be shut out.



This is what I've come to call the herding mentality of human beings. I've come to believe that what human beings value is conformity, not individuality, because the individuality represents the unknown and therefore is possibly a threat. So people must be made to conform to the popular opinion and belief in any given group. It's just that people cannot really agree what to conform to.

I haven't a clue as to what you're on about

Edited by Gaspode:

Edited for Rule 12

M.

[Maia]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

There is one common behavior among human beings, on and off the internet.

That is, in any given group the popular opinion will ALWAYS do whatever it can to drown out unpopular opinion.

This can be tested out too. For example, go to a political forum for liberals and state an opinion like "homosexuality is deviant behavior" and watch people start coming out of the woodwork to tell you that you're wrong. Most are doing just because everybody else is.

On this board the popular opinion is skepticism. So paranormal beliefs (pun intended) get shot down. On a board for paranormal beliefs, the skeptic will get shot down and very similar things to the original post will get said. On a religious board the atheists will always get shouted down. On an atheist board, the religious will get shouted down. And on it goes.

It is not just limited to one group doing it to another.

Humans are social animals, and the only way to fit in is to be like everybody else, because if you don't fit in then you will be shut out.



This is what I've come to call the herding mentality of human beings. I've come to believe that what human beings value is conformity, not individuality, because the individuality represents the unknown and therefore is possibly a threat. So people must be made to conform to the popular opinion and belief in any given group. It's just that people cannot really agree what to conform to.

Well, I'm sorry, but I do think this comes across as just plain silly. It's a lot of very broad and vague assertions without any actual proof to back them up. Here's an example of what I mean. "This can be tested out too" needs to be followed up by the results of an actual test. Specific anecdotal evidence is what tends to follow a statement like this. That's not very good quality evidence at all, but at least it's something, and even that is preferable to a completely vague statement of "whenever you do A, B happens" with absolutely nothing to back it up.

For example, I'm not an atheist, and I'm very open about it on these boards. I'm never, ever "shouted down." My observation is that when people make it clear that they aren't atheists and then do get "shouted down", it always follows a lot of obnoxious posting on their part. I've seen the same thing on a lot of other boards. Most of the time, people are treated this way not because of their beliefs, but because of their posting behavior. Now, this is hardly great evidence. It's anecdotes and personal observation. Out of all of it, the best quality evidence comes from the fact that the way people with different opinions are treated usually changes only after they become obnoxious, rude, and disrespectful to others, not before. This is something which can be objectively supported by examining posting patterns. But at least I've made an attempt to come up with evidence instead of just making these kinds of conclusions without any basis. Then there's the larger problem of trying to make sweeping judgments about human behavior in general based on evidence that was so badly flawed to begin with. I think you'd be better off just stating that these are your opinions and leaving it at that, because I have to say that there are a lot of logical reasons to not be very impressed by these kinds of arguments. It doesn't mean that anyone is an awful person, just that they're not arguing from a very sound basis.

[UncaYimmy]

Originally Posted by blutoski

I do think it's futile to attempt to diagnose over the internet, but I think you've tripped over the wrong DSM category.

Not at all. See the Mayo Clinic site on Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Quote:

Believing that you're better than others
Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
Exaggerating your achievements or talents

This accurately describes several paranormal claimants. VFF is taking one failed missing kidney detection and using it to go for a $50K challenge in Hollywood.

Quote:

Expecting constant praise and admiration

Yep. In VFF's case she has repeatedly asked people to give her credit for being a psychic who is investigating things skeptically.

Quote:

Believing that you're special

Yep.

Quote:

Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Taking advantage of others

We see this all the time. The refusal to accept conditions for a reliable study is at the center. Expecting testers and subjects to devote a lot of time and money might indicate a lack of recognition of others as "real" people.

Quote:

Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior

Often directed at other claimants because they don't have any real abilities.

Quote:

Being jealous of others

VFF brings up Brent Atwater quite a bit.

Quote:

Believing that others are jealous of you

This one is hard to see.

Quote:

Trouble keeping healthy relationships

Harder to see, but I've seen it.

Quote:

Setting unrealistic goals

No doubt about this one.

Quote:

Being easily hurt and rejected
Having a fragile self-esteem

We've seen this one as well. VFF told us she contemplated suicide when she dropped out of a class due to what she claims was abuse by a professor.

Quote:

Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

The continued insistence on useless protocols is the most obvious example.

I'm not saying any one of the claimants has this disorder, but the similarities are striking. Understanding the disorder might help us deal with these people better. For example, the attention seeking in the lion's den makes a lot more sense when you look at it from the perspective of it being used to reinforce the belief that "I am worthy of attention of skeptics." Spending little if any time on woo sites makes more sense in that "I am not like these other psychics - I'm special."

[scarlettinlondon]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Spending little if any time on woo sites makes more sense in that "I am not like these other psychics - I'm special."

This is the key bit to VFF's motivation. It is my view that she often genuinely believes that she is possibly the only genuine psychic/body reader (whatever) and all the rest are inferior/fraudulent etc.

[UncaYimmy]

Upon further consideration, this is not limited to just the paranormal. Consider, if you will, the physics cranks over in the Science forum. These people people they know things that nobody else knows. They believe they are right and that all of mainstream science is wrong. I'm not sure I've even seen one with a degree in the subject, much less being involved in using this information as part of their career.

Like with paranormal claimants, they lack the ability to state their positions clearly. They ignore tests that prove them wrong. They get very aggressive about it. They see conspiracies to keep this information suppressed. And they come into the lion's den and seem to believe they are shaking up the establishment when in fact nobody is giving them any respect at all. The more they are dismissed, the stronger the attacks. We also see that these people repeat the same pattern on multiple forums, sometimes getting banned before moving elsewhere. Many have done it for years.

I like being right as much as the next guy. I, too, would love to prove the establishment wrong. So would any physicist. Clearly there is some fundamental difference between people like myself and these other people. I really wonder from where it comes.

[UncaYimmy]

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

This is the key bit to VFF's motivation. It is my view that she often genuinely believes that she is possibly the only genuine psychic/body reader (whatever) and all the rest are inferior/fraudulent etc.

She has actually stated that she is not the average claimant. She has also hedged her bets by saying that if she is proven wrong (something she fights tooth and nail) that her site will be a shining example for how other claimants should investigate their claims. She says that she will then move on to assisting these people in falsifying their claims.

She said that if she fails the kidney test, it will falsify her healing claim. However, she says she will continue to investigate it to see if maybe she is creating a placebo effect. She flat-out refused to retract her offer to the migraine sufferer's group. So, even if she "falsifies" the claim, she is still special.

Connie Sonne doesn't seem like she's going to dismiss her claims despite failing the test. At first it was the entities not working through her, and then it was the JREF cheating. She remains special no matter what happens.

It's very frustrating to deal with.

[stanfr]

What's the psychological diagnosis for someone who feels the need to continue to engage the woo, depsite knowing full well that the engagment serves nothing but to reinforce the woo's delusion, providing him/her with attention and a sense of importance (which is acknowleged above as one source of the delusion in the first place!)?

It was obvious from the start that VFF could easily have proven a paranormal claim from the outset, so clearly she had none. It was also quickly apparent that no amount of argument from the skeptics was going to convince her otherwise, it just made her all the more adamant. So why the urgent need for the skeptics to engage her time and time again? That is at least as worthy of study as VFF's psychological state!

Just leave her alone, maybe when there is no one to answer to but her own conscience, something will click and 'recovery' will be possible.

[TjW]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Upon further consideration, this is not limited to just the paranormal. Consider, if you will, the physics cranks over in the Science forum. These people people they know things that nobody else knows. They believe they are right and that all of mainstream science is wrong. I'm not sure I've even seen one with a degree in the subject, much less being involved in using this information as part of their career.

Like with paranormal claimants, they lack the ability to state their positions clearly. They ignore tests that prove them wrong. They get very aggressive about it. They see conspiracies to keep this information suppressed. And they come into the lion's den and seem to believe they are shaking up the establishment when in fact nobody is giving them any respect at all. The more they are dismissed, the stronger the attacks. We also see that these people repeat the same pattern on multiple forums, sometimes getting banned before moving elsewhere. Many have done it for years.

I like being right as much as the next guy. I, too, would love to prove the establishment wrong. So would any physicist. Clearly there is some fundamental difference between people like myself and these other people. I really wonder from where it comes.

Yes, it's certainly not limited to just the paranormal. Virtually everything you've mentioned here could be applied to some of those posting in Conspiracy Theories.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by stanfr

What's the psychological diagnosis for someone who feels the need to continue to engage the woo, depsite knowing full well that the engagment serves nothing but to reinforce the woo's delusion, providing him/her with attention and a sense of importance (which is acknowleged above as one source of the delusion in the first place!)?.

Narcissism

[UncaYimmy]

Originally Posted by stanfr

What's the psychological diagnosis for someone who feels the need to continue to engage the woo, depsite knowing full well that the engagment serves nothing but to reinforce the woo's delusion, providing him/her with attention and a sense of importance (which is acknowleged above as one source of the delusion in the first place!)?

It was obvious from the start that VFF could easily have proven a paranormal claim from the outset, so clearly she had none. It was also quickly apparent that no amount of argument from the skeptics was going to convince her otherwise, it just made her all the more adamant. So why the urgent need for the skeptics to engage her time and time again? That is at least as worthy of study as VFF's psychological state!

Just leave her alone, maybe when there is no one to answer to but her own conscience, something will click and 'recovery' will be possible.

I encourage you to start a new thread about this subject, but it's off topic for this thread. When you do, I hope you provide some real life examples supporting your last paragraph. And while you're at it, you may want to expand the thread to include discussing those who don't offer anything productive other than to say that those in the game aren't doing it right.

[UncaYimmy]

Originally Posted by stanfr

What's the psychological diagnosis for someone who feels the need to continue to engage the woo, depsite knowing full well that the engagment serves nothing but to reinforce the woo's delusion, providing him/her with attention and a sense of importance (which is acknowleged above as one source of the delusion in the first place!)?

I think you owe me $100.

Quote:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...56#post4326156
Wow, 20 new posts since my last 2 hours ago. At this rate, should hit about 200 pages for this thread by next month, and i gaurantee nothing will have been accomplished. Which makes me wonder, who is really the "delusional" or "mentally ill" person here? Attention feeds delusion. That's the last time i'll say that, since im done with this silly train wreck, and unlike others who have made that promise, if i break mine please call me on it and i will send you $100 via paypal. That should keep me honest

Should I send you a PM to collect?

[scarlettinlondon]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

I like being right as much as the next guy. I, too, would love to prove the establishment wrong. So would any physicist. Clearly there is some fundamental difference between people like myself and these other people. I really wonder from where it comes.

The difference is in their inability to separate their claims from themselves. You will hear inklings of this from time to time, about how being psychic (or whatever) is the 'innermost part of their being' or other such waffle. (how the power 'comes from within')

To repudiate their claims feels like cutting a bit of themselves off.

If a normal person was found wrong, they may be a bit peeved/embarrassed or they may go, oh hey, that's interesting. They wouldn't feel violated.

separate the claim from the claimant and they will be able to give it up with less personal sacrifice.

In the meantime I am off to New York this morning. Hooray!

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Not at all. See the Mayo Clinic site on Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

UncaYimmy: differential psychiatric diagnosis is difficult to do even when you have the patient present - it is virtually impossible to do through an anonymous online forum. Cultural aspects always need to be taken into account as well, and this requires structured questions.


(NPD criteria snipped)

Quote:

I'm not saying any one of the claimants has this disorder, but the similarities are striking.

The PDs in the DSM have a lot of similar characteristics to one another - that's why they're clustered into one section. If you select any one of them, you'll find the 'similarities are striking' with any person you're hoping to diagnose. The differences are somewhat matters of degree.

A proper differential diagnosis benefits from starting with the patient's factors, and finding which diagnosis fits best, not picking a diagnosis and making the patient's attributes fit.

Here: look at one I left out of my previous list: [schizotypal personality disorder]:

• Ideas of reference (excluding delusions of reference)
• Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)
• Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions
• Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)
• Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation
• Inappropriate or constricted affect
• Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar
• Lack of close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
• Social anxiety that tends to be associated with paranoid fears rather than negative judgments about self

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Understanding the disorder might help us deal with these people better.

That is precisely why I advise against armchair diagnosis.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

For example, the attention seeking in the lion's den makes a lot more sense when you look at it from the perspective of it being used to reinforce the belief that "I am worthy of attention of skeptics." Spending little if any time on woo sites makes more sense in that "I am not like these other psychics - I'm special."

Perhaps. But all these are equally consistent with several other diagnoses, and actually also make complete sense for a perfectly healthy but woefully misguided person.



ETA: basically, what I'm saying is that there are a lot of pathologies and also healthy behavior that contributes to frustrating interactions between skeptics and true believers. The diagnoses are not limited to NPD, and in fact, the one property that contraindicates NPD is that these individuals appear to harbour delusions or hallucinations. That's more a sign of schizoid or a more organic issue like schizophrenia proper.

If you want an example of somebody I personally armchair diagnose as a good example of NPD, I'd nominate KevinTrudeau and Sylvia Browne. The key is that they probably don't believe a word of what they say, as opposed to the cited applicants, who often appear sincerely deluded.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by stanfr

What's the psychological diagnosis for someone who feels the need to continue to engage the woo, depsite knowing full well that the engagment serves nothing but to reinforce the woo's delusion, providing him/her with attention and a sense of importance (which is acknowleged above as one source of the delusion in the first place!)?

[OCPD].

My personal opinion is that OCPD is disproportionately represented in the skeptical community.

[UncaYimmy]

Originally Posted by blutoski

UncaYimmy: differential psychiatric diagnosis is difficult to do even when you have the patient present - it is virtually impossible to do through an anonymous online forum. Cultural aspects always need to be taken into account as well, and this requires structured questions.

I said as much in the OP. Nobody is making a diagnosis - that happens in the medical world. If we all proclaimed that this was an Official Diagnosis, it would have no medical value. The best we can do is say, "based on what you've said and what we've read, you should see a professional about this." This is something people do all over the Internet including to themselves.

Quote:

A proper differential diagnosis benefits from starting with the patient's factors, and finding which diagnosis fits best, not picking a diagnosis and making the patient's attributes fit.

Wow! I never would have thought of that. Do me a favor and keep your straw men in the garden.

Quote:

That is precisely why I advise against armchair diagnosis.

Why do you keep throwing around the word diagnosis? What I said was that learning more about certain behaviors can help us deal with people exhibiting those behaviors.

Quote:

Perhaps. But all these are equally consistent with several other diagnoses, and actually also make complete sense for a perfectly healthy but woefully misguided person.

And nobody has said otherwise. Mental illness is but one possible explanation as is being woefully misguided, sincerely mistaken, a deliberate fraud, or someone just pretending to believe things in order to troll.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

I said as much in the OP. Nobody is making a diagnosis - that happens in the medical world. If we all proclaimed that this was an Official Diagnosis, it would have no medical value. The best we can do is say, "based on what you've said and what we've read, you should see a professional about this." This is something people do all over the Internet including to themselves.

Why do you keep throwing around the word diagnosis? What I said was that learning more about certain behaviors can help us deal with people exhibiting those behaviors.

Actually, I observed a mixed message. You said you weren't diagnosing anybody, but then went on to compare a particular individual's behavior a DSM diagnosis.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

And nobody has said otherwise. Mental illness is but one possible explanation as is being woefully misguided, sincerely mistaken, a deliberate fraud, or someone just pretending to believe things in order to troll.

Then you'll have to ask a more specific question, because I'm not sure what you want out of this thread. Are you asking for general debating tactics?

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by blutoski

[OCPD].

My personal opinion is that OCPD is disproportionately represented in the skeptical community.

"Differential psychiatric diagnosis is difficult to do even when you have the patient present - it is virtually impossible to do through an anonymous online forum. Cultural aspects always need to be taken into account as well, and this requires structured questions."

[UncaYimmy]

Originally Posted by blutoski

Actually, I observed a mixed message. You said you weren't diagnosing anybody, but then went on to compare a particular individual's behavior a DSM diagnosis.

I cannot diagnose anybody. I'm not a doctor, and if I were, I wouldn't diagnose anybody without meeting them first. That doesn't mean I cannot compare my observations to a list of symptoms and try to gain some insight into the situation.

You proceeded to tell me that I stumbled across the wrong disorder. I have actually read up on quite a few different mental illnesses, and NPD stuck out like a sore thumb. I proceeded down the list of symptoms and indicated where they fit and didn't fit.

Quote:

Then you'll have to ask a more specific question, because I'm not sure what you want out of this thread. Are you asking for general debating tactics?

Feel free to post whatever you want. It seems that every time I have engaged you in the past we ended up going in circles, so I'm gonna take a pass in this thread.

[Jungle Jim]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

This is what I've come to call the herding mentality of human beings. I've come to believe that what human beings value is conformity, not individuality, because the individuality represents the unknown and therefore is possibly a threat. So people must be made to conform to the popular opinion and belief in any given group. It's just that people cannot really agree what to conform to.

You really should give credit to Friedrich Nietzsche for coining the phrase.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by desertgal

"Differential psychiatric diagnosis is difficult to do even when you have the patient present - it is virtually impossible to do through an anonymous online forum. Cultural aspects always need to be taken into account as well, and this requires structured questions."

I am referring to 20 years of face-to-face work with skeptics, not about this forum.

(Skepticism exists outside the internet! It's true!)


Also: I'm concerned that I've been chastized in this thread first for advising against hack online diagnosis, and now I'm being chastized for contributing in the spirit of the original post.

("Damned if you do; damned if you don't.")

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

You proceeded to tell me that I stumbled across the wrong disorder. I have actually read up on quite a few different mental illnesses, and NPD stuck out like a sore thumb. I proceeded down the list of symptoms and indicated where they fit and didn't fit.

Fair enough, but we'll just have do disagree on this one. As I warned: you will find a lot of 'fits' if you start with the diagnosis and just limit the exercise to confirmation.

The trick is to identify features that don't match and consider those as well. It's very important that delusion is not a diagnostic feature of NPD, but is a key feature of the alternatives I suggested. Based on the information you provided, I would have to say that NPD is incorrect.

However, I'm not just trying to convince you - there are other observers to these threads who may have followed the links and can weigh our reasonings on the issue.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Feel free to post whatever you want. It seems that every time I have engaged you in the past we ended up going in circles, so I'm gonna take a pass in this thread.

Well, I'm concerned, because my personal focus is the analysis of exactly the question you're asking in the opening post: how to navigate claimants' personality to make progress, and when to call it a day because the personality is too resistant. Furthermore: how to explain this decision to observers without posioning the process.

(A related issue is: how to manage skeptical groups, which have their own disproportionately represented personality quirks.)

To this end, I can only offer my personal advice as a person who has been observing the target population since 1986 - a person who has a psych degree and collaborates with psychiatrists on differential diagnosis on a regular basis (not to mention, being married to one).

If you don't people to give advice, don't ask for it.



ETA: I believe the overall topic of guessing when your opponent is probably pathological and when debate has been rendered counterproductive is very legitemate and worth discussion.

[UncaYimmy]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

I think you owe me $100.



Should I send you a PM to collect?

I have sent the PM to Stanfr