Author Topic: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading of Helpless Patients is Unethical and Degrading  (Read 2043 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Take it to the leghumper thread - forum killer. >:(

Take it to the bridge! >:(




...down Doc...down boi...



Like the others, I'll try to keep up with the database you are giving us, Albrecht.  At least the NY Times concedes that although the recording was crickets, the employees nonetheless could have been attacked by something else.  So, they are leaving that open.

Doctor M&N and Dramatron, Do you guys get personal in all threads you visit or just the ones I like?  This is a rhetorical question so just zippy the lippy.


Yeah, right. At least blame a group psychosis due to the crickets.  ;)   


https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2018/07/pentagon-wants-bring-mind-controlled-tech-troops/149776/


"DARPA seeks proposals to design, build, demonstrate, and validate a nonsurgical neural interface system to broaden the applicability of neural interfaces to the able-bodied warfighter. The final technology aims to enable neural recording and stimulation with sub-millimeter spatial resolution. "


https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=767054e365fc2ac4cd05a338a6d35a1d&tab=core&_cview=0   


"Neuropolitics"
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611808/the-neuropolitics-consultants-who-hack-voters-brains/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mechanics-of-mind-reading/
Not subscriber?
https://www.scribd.com/document/380165908/The-Mechanics-of-Mind-Reading



https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-are-developing-a-unique-identifier-for-your-brain/   

Let me wipe your mind so you can rewatch Hollywood "programming" again, says Samsung. 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/28551-samsung-wants-to-wipe-your-memory-so-you-ll-watch-tv-shows-again 

https://www.samsung.com/se/unspoilme/eng/


This is not, particularly, about mind-reading or control but that the "system" is slowly, sometimes not so slowly, taking even more control over children, this time in the guise of "child's rights." But now, at least in Iowa, a parent doesn't have the right to see medical reports and consult with their child's doctor- from the age of 10! Note: targeting of the "heartland," and a creepy possible slippery-slide to other more nefarious things with age-of-consent being so low? Also what else? Vaccines, abortion, gender-bending, prescribing meds (pharma trials or just for whatever,) experiments, abuse, and parents aren't allowed to know?

Now, I have no knowledge of the below particular case. Maybe there is some allegations or proceedings going on? But the article makes it seem it is by STATUTE not a specific family/parents issue.

https://www.kcci.com/article/parents-denied-access-to-their-childrens-medical-records-by-law/26032172 



Re: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading of Helpless Patients is Unethical and Degrading
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2019, 07:16:25 PM »
This was my favorite part of the article because so bizarre:
"says David Pizarro, a psychology professor at Cornell who specializes in disgust."  Must be hilarious to mention at a cocktail party. 


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/the-yuck-factor/580465/

Re: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading is Unethical & Degrading
« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2019, 09:08:32 AM »
My biggest concern, when it comes to mind reading is, by it’s very definition and the belief in its existence (without being swayed by evidence to the contrary) it is a symptom of psychosis in a handful of some of the most serious mental illnesses.

While it could be argued that psychiatry (in its own way) is a rigid set of beliefs, that are cult-like in nature, and many consider their diagnoses baseless - as they are without, to an extent, provable “tests” ... I’d rather err on the side of caution, and place stock in medical doctors uber alles.

I understand and appreciate that any human being should be spared forced confinement without just cause, however, treating those with mental disease falls into a grey area for a lot of people. Especially considering the fact that when ones mind is not functioning as society requires, you are doomed for the nut house.

That being said, I think the definition of psychosis fits all the more squarely with nonconsensual mind reading (as a belief it’s being perpetrated on one), as opposed to a medical doctor issuing medications and treatment that’s appropriate.

While mind reading is possible in some sense of the word, the majority of us don’t buy into it as much as we do modern medicine. I say this to say, ultimately, as sad as ones mind possibly being violated by the other is, balancing the chemicals in ones brain can usually drown out such things. What about the rest? Well, I really have no answer there.

In a nutshell, you’re fucked! I guess.

Designated hitter is bad thing?

Not for a pitcher's batting average.  Of course there are a few pitchers in the NL who can hit.

Re: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading is Unethical & Degrading
« Reply #38 on: May 24, 2019, 03:08:54 PM »
My biggest concern, when it comes to mind reading is, by it’s very definition and the belief in its existence (without being swayed by evidence to the contrary) it is a symptom of psychosis in a handful of some of the most serious mental illnesses.

While it could be argued that psychiatry (in its own way) is a rigid set of beliefs, that are cult-like in nature, and many consider their diagnoses baseless - as they are without, to an extent, provable “tests” ... I’d rather err on the side of caution, and place stock in medical doctors uber alles.

I understand and appreciate that any human being should be spared forced confinement without just cause, however, treating those with mental disease falls into a grey area for a lot of people. Especially considering the fact that when ones mind is not functioning as society requires, you are doomed for the nut house.

That being said, I think the definition of psychosis fits all the more squarely with nonconsensual mind reading (as a belief it’s being perpetrated on one), as opposed to a medical doctor issuing medications and treatment that’s appropriate.

While mind reading is possible in some sense of the word, the majority of us don’t buy into it as much as we do modern medicine. I say this to say, ultimately, as sad as ones mind possibly being violated by the other is, balancing the chemicals in ones brain can usually drown out such things. What about the rest? Well, I really have no answer there.

In a nutshell, you’re fucked! I guess.
Certainly true.  But if you read the links I've posted in the past above- some strange stuff was done, and is currently being done.  To what success can be debated but there certainly has been experiments and interests in doing so. 

Also if you consider that Freud, who sort of invented a large part of psychology (or simply identified and sexualized it) was cousins with Bernays. And there is a reason companies, and government, spend billions on advertising and marketing. If it had no effect, often without the express consent of the victims, why would that money be spend. Of course here we are talking about not "reading minds" but influencing behavior, both personal and political. But the victim, or society in general, might not recognize it as such. 


Note currently it is not even about demographics but clearly political in common household ads, television, movies, etc but often they are appealing to what are, in reality, a small minority of consumers or citizens. So why all the homosexual, LBQTI, etc pushed into programs? And how quickly has society and law since this started happening? I will leave it a value judgement for the readers, but the fact is that the "change" happened, and rather quickly.   Without votes, in most cases, until AFTER society was programmed to rethink, or just believe, certain opinions.  That often go after youth, pop-culture, the public schools first- where age-of-consent and parents aren't around to see what is being pushed on kids. 


On the medical side one also notes that the "majority" of psychiatrists simply "agree" that some condition once considered a mental illness, even a severe one, can, suddenly called "normal" and, in some cases, what once was "normal" can be considered a "condition." The Soviets were infamous for this whereby political opposition was deemed "sluggish schizophrenia," etc.

Not too many decades ago someone who wanted to cut of his sex organ, paraded around in clothes of an another gender, stick all kinds of stuff in his body or 'modify' it even by cutting parts off, or even just be homosexual was seen, at least, as a "fetish" or "mental problem", in some cases a severe one. You can judge but all it took was them to change a book and- wala- totally normal and indeed something to be promoted to school kids who haven't reached puberty yet. On the flipside you already see a lot of articles about being "anti-immigration," Christian, far-right, conservative etc as being an "illness."  And being "straight" or even identifying as one of the two natural genders as "bad" and soon, maybe, a "mental illness." (Because now "it is all a spectrum.") 

Speaking of spectrum the doctors can also expand/contract the "spectrum" of disorders, even real ones, depending on their whim, social pressures, or, maybe due to new science or data (the latter is hopefully the case.)  Of course the expansion of disorders means more jobs in psychology, psychiatry, and drug mfgs. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/amazon-is-working-on-a-wearable-device-that-reads-human-emotions 

https://amazonbodylabs.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8CzQQOcugen9xVb 


 

With the looming threat of involuntary mind reading, I've taken to once a week sticking a shrimp fork in an energized AC outlet while standing barefoot in a 28 gal. washtub with about 5" of water in it.  This works as sort of a high colonic for the brain and trying to read what amounts to a blank slate drives the nosy bastards crazy. 

With the looming threat of involuntary mind reading, I've taken to once a week sticking a shrimp fork in an energized AC outlet while standing barefoot in a 28 gal. washtub with about 5" of water in it.  This works as sort of a high colonic for the brain and trying to read what amounts to a blank slate drives the nosy bastards crazy.
You joke. But if you look at my links I've posted in the thread you'll see experiments have, or are, being done. The brain is fascinating and, hopefully, in most of the cases things are being used for good like rTMS which, I guess, of which you never heard. Maybe you just invented a cheaper version?  ;)   

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/transcranial-magnetic-stimulation/about/pac-20384625 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/psychiatry/specialty_areas/brain_stimulation/tms/faq_tms.html 

What about cell phones (under the currently based systems, not the shorter wave length 5G?)   

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mind-control-by-cell/?redirect=1 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17786925?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum 

Note that much of this stuff might not be about "mind control" but simply to study how the brain works although some also delve into other topics like trying to "read minds," to use a layman's term, or even "mind control" or "body control" by using various methods. For use in war, developing better/real AI, civil unrest, interrogation, identifying potential suspect, etc that raise civil and human rights concerns in some people's view. 




You joke. But if you look at my links I've posted in the thread you'll see experiments have, or are, being done. The brain is fascinating and, hopefully, in most of the cases things are being used for good like rTMS which, I guess, of which you never heard. Maybe you just invented a cheaper version?  ;)   

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/transcranial-magnetic-stimulation/about/pac-20384625 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/psychiatry/specialty_areas/brain_stimulation/tms/faq_tms.html 

What about cell phones (under the currently based systems, not the shorter wave length 5G?)   

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mind-control-by-cell/?redirect=1 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17786925?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum 

Note that much of this stuff might not be about "mind control" but simply to study how the brain works although some also delve into other topics like trying to "read minds," to use a layman's term, or even "mind control" or "body control" by using various methods. For use in war, developing better/real AI, civil unrest, interrogation, identifying potential suspect, etc that raise civil and human rights concerns in some people's view.

Yeah, I'm aware of rTMS and it's potential.  One can see portent for evil in virtually every scientific advancement and sometimes it's realized, but, as best I can tell, it's not being used to steal personal information, control populations or selectively fry brains.  We've known that there is a very real risk to human health from electronic/electrical emissions and powerful magnetic fields for 100 years and having a cell phone pressed against one's ear all day is probably not a good idea. 


I make light of many things, but, in all honesty, I rank the concerns expressed in this thread 247th on the list of things to loose sleep over in today's world. 


Re: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading is Unethical & Degrading
« Reply #42 on: May 26, 2019, 01:51:04 AM »
Certainly true.  But if you read the links I've posted in the past above- some strange stuff was done, and is currently being done.  To what success can be debated but there certainly has been experiments and interests in doing so. 

Also if you consider that Freud, who sort of invented a large part of psychology (or simply identified and sexualized it) was cousins with Bernays. And there is a reason companies, and government, spend billions on advertising and marketing. If it had no effect, often without the express consent of the victims, why would that money be spend. Of course here we are talking about not "reading minds" but influencing behavior, both personal and political. But the victim, or society in general, might not recognize it as such. 


Note currently it is not even about demographics but clearly political in common household ads, television, movies, etc but often they are appealing to what are, in reality, a small minority of consumers or citizens. So why all the homosexual, LBQTI, etc pushed into programs? And how quickly has society and law since this started happening? I will leave it a value judgement for the readers, but the fact is that the "change" happened, and rather quickly.   Without votes, in most cases, until AFTER society was programmed to rethink, or just believe, certain opinions.  That often go after youth, pop-culture, the public schools first- where age-of-consent and parents aren't around to see what is being pushed on kids. 


On the medical side one also notes that the "majority" of psychiatrists simply "agree" that some condition once considered a mental illness, even a severe one, can, suddenly called "normal" and, in some cases, what once was "normal" can be considered a "condition." The Soviets were infamous for this whereby political opposition was deemed "sluggish schizophrenia," etc.

Not too many decades ago someone who wanted to cut of his sex organ, paraded around in clothes of an another gender, stick all kinds of stuff in his body or 'modify' it even by cutting parts off, or even just be homosexual was seen, at least, as a "fetish" or "mental problem", in some cases a severe one. You can judge but all it took was them to change a book and- wala- totally normal and indeed something to be promoted to school kids who haven't reached puberty yet. On the flipside you already see a lot of articles about being "anti-immigration," Christian, far-right, conservative etc as being an "illness."  And being "straight" or even identifying as one of the two natural genders as "bad" and soon, maybe, a "mental illness." (Because now "it is all a spectrum.") 

Speaking of spectrum the doctors can also expand/contract the "spectrum" of disorders, even real ones, depending on their whim, social pressures, or, maybe due to new science or data (the latter is hopefully the case.)  Of course the expansion of disorders means more jobs in psychology, psychiatry, and drug mfgs. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/amazon-is-working-on-a-wearable-device-that-reads-human-emotions 

https://amazonbodylabs.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8CzQQOcugen9xVb
I think these are some very good points.

Re: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading is Unethical & Degrading
« Reply #43 on: May 26, 2019, 10:36:44 AM »
If you consider that Freud, who sort of invented a large part of psychology (or simply identified and sexualized it) was cousins with Bernays. And [that] there is a reason companies, and government, spend billions on advertising and marketing. If it had no effect, often without the express consent of the victims, why would that money be [spent?] Of course here we are talking about not "reading minds" but influencing behavior, both personal and political. But the victim, or society in general, might not recognize it as such.

There's no doubt in my mind, that advertising propogates conformity - if not directly, highly covertly - and this breeds self-hatred and an inner desire for individuals to exercise behaviours that fill them with brief bouts of hollow fulfilment, the faux attainment of enlightenment, self-help hacks and being "masters of their own destiny". All while subconsciously cutting their sense of self off at the knees, and working against any of those things, in fact.

The key to freeing oneself from a lot of these "tourist traps" in the Journey of Life (in my view), is to bypass those messages while appearing to buy in to many of them. This certainly is a daily task that requires much in the way of secrecy to ones family and friends, but ultimately grants them a near impenetrable pass to genuine deliverance.

Note currently it is not even about demographics but clearly political in common household ads, television, movies, etc. but often they are appealing to what are, in reality, a small minority of consumers or citizens. So why all the homosexual, LBQTI, etc. pushed into programs?

I trust the legitimacy of your concerns run deeper than what on their face seem demure, I detect a tone of angst in them, and that's key.

Advertising agencies "shuffle their decks" according to pop culture (and whomever is currently holding office is a large part of what shapes it). Believe it or not, having a cartoonish figurehead like Trump who toys with the stereotypes he does, it stirs a sense of discord in the general public, resulting in the minority having become top of the food chain. Liberty and freedom is often framed as laissez-faire, but in reality, seems to often result in oppositional defiance on a mass scale. That isn't to say there is no value in those ideas. I just think the absence of middle ground festers such things.

And how quickly has society and law since this started happening? I will leave it a value judgement for the readers, but the fact is that the "change" happened, and rather quickly.

I would counter this by saying it was more of a slow build.* But, if there were any reason for the clamp-downs on freedoms, look no farther to the order of the day. Soft racism, bigotry, et al ... BOTH sides being to blame. It never ceases to amaze me how little thought is put into what would otherwise be considered thinking men, nowadays.

*Pertaining to the original post and its core point: beware loose connections!

Without votes, in most cases, until AFTER society was programmed to rethink, or just believe, certain opinions. That often go after youth, pop-culture, the public schools first - where age-of-consent and parents aren't around to see what is being pushed on kids. 

One should always question what appears to be "programming", on a social scale, be brutally honest with oneself, and examine any of the prejudices they carry around. Many of our life experiences shape our views - negative and positive. Mental associations based on those factors alone ignite and proliferate vacuums that are incredibly unhelpful to our freedoms.

Every creed and culture instills the groundwork or base instinct in their young ... Could that be considered "pushing" ways of life and thinking on their youth ... Even IF it is their own?

We must be very careful of what the protection of personal freedoms means to us. And whether guarding those freedoms in ways that violate others is worth it.

On the medical side one also notes that the "majority" of psychiatrists simply "agree" that some condition once considered a mental illness, even a severe one, can, suddenly called "normal" and, in some cases, what once was "normal" can be considered a "condition." The Soviets were infamous for this whereby political opposition was deemed "sluggish schizophrenia," etc.

I have to say, I hardly think "just changing a few lines in a book" resulted in the avalanche of societal conditioning around the LGBTQIA question. That sounds awfully absolutist a statement, and in turn, falls all too closely along the lines of being factually incorrect. This is the great trouble with the freedoms of the elite (blue or red, yes) being put before the average man. When we stroll down the median of easy street like wilful idiots, we must never be appalled at catching a glimpse of our reflection - out of the corner of our eye - and being met with a caricature of ourselves, in full regalia!

Simplifying the agreed upon definitions of medical professionals of the highest order to nothing more than a seat of the pants decision is a bit of an exaggeration, to say the least. Although I too characterised the practice in that fashion in my original post, I'd say its counterproductive in the bigger picture. To explore any idea, we do need to attach some level of validity to aspects of any given exchange at some level ... Otherwise we just spin our wheels and rather shouldn't go there.

While "The Soviets" are a stand-in bogeyman for many a political hack, I'd expect more from a thinking person. However I take your point, with regards to the demonization of those who didn't buy in to Socialism/Communism at the time. Schizophrenia is one of the most widely misunderstood diseases that exist, because its been stigmatized on a level akin to leprosy. I'm not surprised however, that the Soviets termed The Other as sluggish Schizophrenics. It works. Evil to the core, but if you know the symptoms well enough, it works.

Not too many decades ago someone who wanted to cut of his sex organ, paraded around in clothes of an another gender, stick all kinds of stuff in his body or 'modify' it even by cutting parts off, or even just be homosexual was seen, at least, as a "fetish" or "mental problem", in some cases a severe one. You can judge but all it took was them to change a book and- wala- totally normal and indeed something to be promoted to school kids who haven't reached puberty yet. On the flipside you already see a lot of articles about being "anti-immigration," Christian, far-right, conservative etc. as being an "illness."  And being "straight" or even identifying as one of the two natural genders as "bad" and soon, maybe, a "mental illness." (Because now "it is all a spectrum.")

At this point, I feel you're having me on, but I'll do my research before I claim such a thing with any confidence.

Speaking of spectrum the doctors can also expand/contract the "spectrum" of disorders, even real ones, depending on their whim, social pressures, or, maybe due to new science or data (the latter is hopefully the case.)  Of course the expansion of disorders means more jobs in psychology, psychiatry, and drug mfgs.   

I can't seem to determine whether or not you're being facetious, so I'll address the core of your response above from an otherwise neutral, even if anecdotal standpoint.

Having suffered from the most terrifying hallucinations myself, and being plagued by a lot of the personal challenges that come along with experiencing psychosis, I don't see any issue with the "sliding scale"-like manner which is used in the literature detailing these illnesses. It's very much easier to see the DSM-5 and the actions of those who officially represent psychiatry as "things done on a whim", cherry-picking a few articles, and passing judgement. But as a person who has carried the cross so to speak, I possess an unending gratitude that we are treated like people, and not locked away in cold, empty rooms ... Thankful for therapists, newer generation antipsychotics, patience, kindness, understanding and love from family and friends while experiencing such hell.

Re: The Effect of Conspiracy Theories On Mental Health
« Reply #44 on: May 27, 2019, 07:41:40 AM »
Taken from Conspiracy Theory as a Personality Disorder? by Dr. Kerry Bolton (Ph.D.)

While psychiatry as a means of repressing political dissent was well-known for its use the USSR, this occurred no less and perhaps more so in the West, and particularly in the USA. While the case of Ezra Pound is comparatively well-known now not so recognized is that during the Kennedy era in particular there were efforts to silence critics through psychiatry. The cases of General Edwin Walker, Fredrick Seelig and Lucille Miller might come to mind.

As related by Seelig, the treatment meted out to political dissidents in psychiatric wards and institutions could be hellish. Over the past few decades however, such techniques against dissent have become passé, in favor of more subtle methods of social control. While the groundwork was laid during the 1940s by president Franklin Roosevelt calling dissidents to his regime the "lunatic fringe," this became a theme for the social sciences, the seminal study of which is The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno et al. This Zionist-funded study established an "F" scale in which respondents were tested for latent "Fascism." The extent depended on their attitudes towards hitherto what was regarded as traditionally normative values, such as affection for parents and the family, the latter in particular regarded by these social scientists as the seed-bed of "Fascism."

While social mores have been established to make dissidents pariahs, to impose a soft totalitarianism of the Huxleyan Brave New World variety, social scientists remain occupied with creating new approaches for the continuing de-legitimizing of dissident opinions. Among the primary targets are those who have in recent years been termed "conspiracists." The term is used to induce a pavlonian reflex in nullifying dissident views on a range of subjects, like the words "racist," "fascist," "sexist," etc. Any hint of "conspiracism" in a paper is also sufficient to prevent it from even reaching the initial stage of peer review if submitted to a supposedly academic journal, where one might expect a range of views to be debated.

Recently a group of psychologists studying the allegedly contradictory nature of conspiracy beliefs were able to furnish mind-manipulators with a study that can be used to show that anything associated with or labelled as "conspiracy theory" can be relegated to the realm of mental imbalance. The paper was published as Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories. The abstract reads:

Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: A self-sustaining worldview comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated in endorsement. In Study 1 (n ¼ 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n ¼ 102), the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general.

The conclusion is that conspiracy theorists have a generalized suspicion of all authority, and thereby believe that any event is the product of a conspiracy by authority. Several categories were used to score contradictory attitudes in regard to conspiracy. The subjects were chosen from 137 undergraduate psychology students. Five questions were asked regarding conspiratorial beliefs in Princess Diana’s death. The results "suggest that those who distrust the official story of Diana’s death do not tend to settle on a single conspiracist account as the only acceptable explanation; rather, they simultaneously endorse several contradictory accounts."

There are several factors to consider:

1. The small number of subjects drawn from the same background.
2. Whether the belief in contradictory theories is rather the willingness to accept several alternatives rather than being bound to a single explanation.
3. The tests appear to be of a "tick the boxes" character, and do not appear to offer the subjects opportunity to explain their views.
4. The test therefore seems to be nothing other than very limited statistical surveys from which a generalised theory is postulated in regard to "conspiracism."

Other test categories were on 9/11 and the death of Osama bin Laden.

In is of interest that Wood, Douglas and Sutton draw on The Authoritarian Personality in creating a psychological profile of conspiracists that will accord with the Liberal-Left assumptions of "conspiracists" as "fascists" and "anti-Semites": "There are strong parallels between this conception of a monological belief system and Adorno et al’s (1950) work on prejudice and authoritarianism." The purpose of the study can be discerned from this passage:

If Adorno’s explanation for contradictory antisemitic beliefs can indeed be applied to conspiracy theories, conspiracist beliefs might be most accurately viewed as not only monological but also ideological in nature. Just as an orthodox Marxist might interpret major world events as arising inevitably from the forces of history, a conspiracist would see the same events as carefully orchestrated steps in a plot for global domination. Conceptualizing conspiracism as a coherent ideology, rather than as a cluster of beliefs in individual theories, may be a fruitful approach in the future when examining its connection to ideologically relevant variables such as social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism.

Conspiracism is identified as inherently "right-wing authoritarian" ideology. The authors, Wood, Douglas, and Sutton, thereby show themselves to be ideologically biased and agenda-driven; in the same manner as Adorno, et al. Moreover, in ascribing "conspiracism" to "right-wing ideology" there seems to be a remarkable ignorance as to the diversity of "conspiracists."

What is one to make, for example, of Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Harvard and Georgetown University Foreign Service School, whose academic magnum opus Tragedy and Hope, is often quoted by "conspiracists." This includes several dozen pages describing an "international network" of bankers whose aim is to bring about a centralized world political and financial control system. Despite the relatively few pages on this network in Quigley’s 1300 page tome, he regarded the role of this network in history, over the course of several generations, as not only pivotal, but also as laudable (apart from its 'secrecy').

Wood, Douglas and Sutton begin their paper with the definition: "A conspiracy theory is defined as a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal." Based on that definition it would seem difficult to conclude anything other than that Quigley was describing conspiracy, insofar as it is:

1. "Secret," which Quigley laments as being the primary cause of his disagreement with it,
2. Composed of powerful people or organizations,
3. Aims to accomplish a specific goal.

The only question is whether "it" should be considered as "sinister," however Wood, et al state that "conspiracies" are "usually" regarded as "sinister," which presumably means that it is a frequent but not essential ingredient. Obviously, the word "sinister" is subjective. Quigley regarded "it" as being composed of highly cultured and intelligent men of good intentions for the world, although he seemed to have doubts towards the end of his life, when the lecture circuit had been denied to him, and his scholarly Tragedy and Hope was inexplicably suppressed by his publisher.

What can one make also of the "warning" to the American people by Dwight Eisenhower, during his "farewell speech," in which he referred to the "military industrial complex," which became a favorite expression of the Left? Eisenhower pointed out its wide ramifications, not only economic and political but also on moral and cultural levels. He stated of this:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist...

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Here are the primary elements for "conspiracy theory" in Eisenhower's address:

1. There is a threat that is obviously "secret," or at least not above-board, otherwise Eisenhower would not see the need to make it a feature of his final words as
    President.
2. This threat involves a cabal: "the military industrial complex," and a technocratic "elite."
3. The threat involves "the power of money."
4. The threat is that of the accumulation of power by these elites.

During the Cold War John F Kennedy also referred to a global conspiracy, while "extremists" such as The John Birch Society had been saying the same, and were pilloried by the Kennedy administration as dangers to American democracy. Kennedy stated to the Newspaper Publishers Association that they had a duty in the fight against this international conspiracy. He began by referring to Karl Marx having been a writer for the New York Herald Tribune in 1851. The context is important because Kennedy was obviously referring to a "communist conspiracy" although "conspiracists" have often portrayed Kennedy as referring to a conspiracy of a secret society. This is clearly not the case. Nonetheless, this only shows that some "conspiracists," no more or less than anyone else, are not always accurate in how they interpret something. However, Kennedy is nonetheless a "conspiracist," regardless of what "conspiracy" he is describing. He did however refer to the abhorrence Americans have had for "secret societies." He then stated:

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Kennedy used the word "conspiracy." He was a "conspiracist" in today’s derogative terminology.

Are we really to believe that it is mentality questionable to state that the Bilderbergers for example are a "conspiracy" with a globalist agenda when they have all the facets of a "conspiracy," other than to decide subjectively whether such cabals have an evil or a noble intent?

Would Eisenhower score as a "right-wing authoritarian" on Adorno’s personality tests, or as "monological" on the tests of Wood, Douglas and Sutton? Would Quigley? Kennedy? Would Professor Michel Chossudovsky and the large number of academics who are involved with the Centre for Research on Globalization be characterised as "monological" and "right-wing authoritarians" by Wood, Douglas and Sutton? Perhaps what is required is a screening process whereby "conspiracists" of the "Left" are distinguished from "conspiracists" of the "Right," allowing the former to retain their legitimacy, while the latter can be subjected to either public anathema or psychiatric treatment, such as lobotomy, medication, or long-term confinement?

Therefore, it seems that there must be arbiters from on high to determine what "conspiracy theories" are socially and politically acceptable and what are not, reminiscent of the Soviet psychiatric commissions that examined political dissidents and diagnosed mental illness.

Dr. Karen Douglas describes her academic focus:

My primary research focus is on beliefs in conspiracy theories. Why are conspiracy theories so popular? Who believes them? Why do people believe them? What are some of the consequences of conspiracy theories and can such theories be harmful?

The description implies that "conspiracy theorists" are apt subjects for psychological diagnosis, because they are intrinsically "harmful" to society, like Adorno’s suspicion of the family as the seed-bed of "Fascism."

Further reading:

1. Michael J. Wood, Karen M Douglas, Robbie M Sutton, Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories, Social Psychology & Personality Science, 25
    January 2012.
2. Ibid, pages 2, 4, 5 and 6.
3. C. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: The Macmillan co., 1966), page 51.
4. C. Quigley, Ibid, pages 950 to 956.
    See also: K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arkos Media Ltd., 2011), pages 24 to 26.
5. Michael J. Wood, et al, op. cit., page 2.
6. Robert Eringer, The Global Manipulators (Bristol: Pentacle Books, 1980, pages 9 and 10.
    Eringer spoke to Quigley regarding the professor’s predicament after running afoul of the "network".
7. Dwight Eisenhower's "Farewell Speech to the American People", 17th January 1961
8. John F. Kennedy's Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961.
9. The Centre for Research on Globalization, globalresearch.ca
10. Karen Douglas, University of Kent, kent.uk/psychology

Singularity is real

Singularity is coming

vetting must begin

be of harmony

or be nothing
BAAAAH !
The singularity has never been proven to exist.
Big Bang, Black Holes...     Yeah, great for Holly Weird movies, but nothing more than theories. Hawking was wrong. He operated on nothing more than assumptions when it came to the singularity. Einstein was also wrong. That's why their theories are still theories and not physical laws.
Politics got Albert the Nobel prize.
Do you see the cover-up ?
Do some research on Tesla if you want the truth.     ;)
The obfuscation of his work is the true conspiracy.
And where the hell is my flying car ?     ;)

Re: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading is Unethical & Degrading
« Reply #46 on: May 27, 2019, 12:04:55 PM »
God, you’re stupid.

Re: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading is Unethical & Degrading
« Reply #47 on: May 27, 2019, 08:46:10 PM »
God, you’re stupid.
9/10 people don't recommend talking that way to God  ::).

Re: The Effect of Conspiracy Theories On Mental Health
« Reply #48 on: May 27, 2019, 11:11:54 PM »
Taken from Conspiracy Theory as a Personality Disorder? by Dr. Kerry Bolton (Ph.D.)

While psychiatry as a means of repressing political dissent was well-known for its use the USSR, this occurred no less and perhaps more so in the West, and particularly in the USA. While the case of Ezra Pound is comparatively well-known now not so recognized is that during the Kennedy era in particular there were efforts to silence critics through psychiatry. The cases of General Edwin Walker, Fredrick Seelig and Lucille Miller might come to mind.

As related by Seelig, the treatment meted out to political dissidents in psychiatric wards and institutions could be hellish. Over the past few decades however, such techniques against dissent have become passé, in favor of more subtle methods of social control. While the groundwork was laid during the 1940s by president Franklin Roosevelt calling dissidents to his regime the "lunatic fringe," this became a theme for the social sciences, the seminal study of which is The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno et al. This Zionist-funded study established an "F" scale in which respondents were tested for latent "Fascism." The extent depended on their attitudes towards hitherto what was regarded as traditionally normative values, such as affection for parents and the family, the latter in particular regarded by these social scientists as the seed-bed of "Fascism."

While social mores have been established to make dissidents pariahs, to impose a soft totalitarianism of the Huxleyan Brave New World variety, social scientists remain occupied with creating new approaches for the continuing de-legitimizing of dissident opinions. Among the primary targets are those who have in recent years been termed "conspiracists." The term is used to induce a pavlonian reflex in nullifying dissident views on a range of subjects, like the words "racist," "fascist," "sexist," etc. Any hint of "conspiracism" in a paper is also sufficient to prevent it from even reaching the initial stage of peer review if submitted to a supposedly academic journal, where one might expect a range of views to be debated.

Recently a group of psychologists studying the allegedly contradictory nature of conspiracy beliefs were able to furnish mind-manipulators with a study that can be used to show that anything associated with or labelled as "conspiracy theory" can be relegated to the realm of mental imbalance. The paper was published as Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories. The abstract reads:

Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: A self-sustaining worldview comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated in endorsement. In Study 1 (n ¼ 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n ¼ 102), the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general.

The conclusion is that conspiracy theorists have a generalized suspicion of all authority, and thereby believe that any event is the product of a conspiracy by authority. Several categories were used to score contradictory attitudes in regard to conspiracy. The subjects were chosen from 137 undergraduate psychology students. Five questions were asked regarding conspiratorial beliefs in Princess Diana’s death. The results "suggest that those who distrust the official story of Diana’s death do not tend to settle on a single conspiracist account as the only acceptable explanation; rather, they simultaneously endorse several contradictory accounts."

There are several factors to consider:

1. The small number of subjects drawn from the same background.
2. Whether the belief in contradictory theories is rather the willingness to accept several alternatives rather than being bound to a single explanation.
3. The tests appear to be of a "tick the boxes" character, and do not appear to offer the subjects opportunity to explain their views.
4. The test therefore seems to be nothing other than very limited statistical surveys from which a generalised theory is postulated in regard to "conspiracism."

Other test categories were on 9/11 and the death of Osama bin Laden.

In is of interest that Wood, Douglas and Sutton draw on The Authoritarian Personality in creating a psychological profile of conspiracists that will accord with the Liberal-Left assumptions of "conspiracists" as "fascists" and "anti-Semites": "There are strong parallels between this conception of a monological belief system and Adorno et al’s (1950) work on prejudice and authoritarianism." The purpose of the study can be discerned from this passage:

If Adorno’s explanation for contradictory antisemitic beliefs can indeed be applied to conspiracy theories, conspiracist beliefs might be most accurately viewed as not only monological but also ideological in nature. Just as an orthodox Marxist might interpret major world events as arising inevitably from the forces of history, a conspiracist would see the same events as carefully orchestrated steps in a plot for global domination. Conceptualizing conspiracism as a coherent ideology, rather than as a cluster of beliefs in individual theories, may be a fruitful approach in the future when examining its connection to ideologically relevant variables such as social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism.

Conspiracism is identified as inherently "right-wing authoritarian" ideology. The authors, Wood, Douglas, and Sutton, thereby show themselves to be ideologically biased and agenda-driven; in the same manner as Adorno, et al. Moreover, in ascribing "conspiracism" to "right-wing ideology" there seems to be a remarkable ignorance as to the diversity of "conspiracists."

What is one to make, for example, of Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Harvard and Georgetown University Foreign Service School, whose academic magnum opus Tragedy and Hope, is often quoted by "conspiracists." This includes several dozen pages describing an "international network" of bankers whose aim is to bring about a centralized world political and financial control system. Despite the relatively few pages on this network in Quigley’s 1300 page tome, he regarded the role of this network in history, over the course of several generations, as not only pivotal, but also as laudable (apart from its 'secrecy').

Wood, Douglas and Sutton begin their paper with the definition: "A conspiracy theory is defined as a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal." Based on that definition it would seem difficult to conclude anything other than that Quigley was describing conspiracy, insofar as it is:

1. "Secret," which Quigley laments as being the primary cause of his disagreement with it,
2. Composed of powerful people or organizations,
3. Aims to accomplish a specific goal.

The only question is whether "it" should be considered as "sinister," however Wood, et al state that "conspiracies" are "usually" regarded as "sinister," which presumably means that it is a frequent but not essential ingredient. Obviously, the word "sinister" is subjective. Quigley regarded "it" as being composed of highly cultured and intelligent men of good intentions for the world, although he seemed to have doubts towards the end of his life, when the lecture circuit had been denied to him, and his scholarly Tragedy and Hope was inexplicably suppressed by his publisher.

What can one make also of the "warning" to the American people by Dwight Eisenhower, during his "farewell speech," in which he referred to the "military industrial complex," which became a favorite expression of the Left? Eisenhower pointed out its wide ramifications, not only economic and political but also on moral and cultural levels. He stated of this:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist...

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Here are the primary elements for "conspiracy theory" in Eisenhower's address:

1. There is a threat that is obviously "secret," or at least not above-board, otherwise Eisenhower would not see the need to make it a feature of his final words as
    President.
2. This threat involves a cabal: "the military industrial complex," and a technocratic "elite."
3. The threat involves "the power of money."
4. The threat is that of the accumulation of power by these elites.

During the Cold War John F Kennedy also referred to a global conspiracy, while "extremists" such as The John Birch Society had been saying the same, and were pilloried by the Kennedy administration as dangers to American democracy. Kennedy stated to the Newspaper Publishers Association that they had a duty in the fight against this international conspiracy. He began by referring to Karl Marx having been a writer for the New York Herald Tribune in 1851. The context is important because Kennedy was obviously referring to a "communist conspiracy" although "conspiracists" have often portrayed Kennedy as referring to a conspiracy of a secret society. This is clearly not the case. Nonetheless, this only shows that some "conspiracists," no more or less than anyone else, are not always accurate in how they interpret something. However, Kennedy is nonetheless a "conspiracist," regardless of what "conspiracy" he is describing. He did however refer to the abhorrence Americans have had for "secret societies." He then stated:

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Kennedy used the word "conspiracy." He was a "conspiracist" in today’s derogative terminology.

Are we really to believe that it is mentality questionable to state that the Bilderbergers for example are a "conspiracy" with a globalist agenda when they have all the facets of a "conspiracy," other than to decide subjectively whether such cabals have an evil or a noble intent?

Would Eisenhower score as a "right-wing authoritarian" on Adorno’s personality tests, or as "monological" on the tests of Wood, Douglas and Sutton? Would Quigley? Kennedy? Would Professor Michel Chossudovsky and the large number of academics who are involved with the Centre for Research on Globalization be characterised as "monological" and "right-wing authoritarians" by Wood, Douglas and Sutton? Perhaps what is required is a screening process whereby "conspiracists" of the "Left" are distinguished from "conspiracists" of the "Right," allowing the former to retain their legitimacy, while the latter can be subjected to either public anathema or psychiatric treatment, such as lobotomy, medication, or long-term confinement?

Therefore, it seems that there must be arbiters from on high to determine what "conspiracy theories" are socially and politically acceptable and what are not, reminiscent of the Soviet psychiatric commissions that examined political dissidents and diagnosed mental illness.

Dr. Karen Douglas describes her academic focus:

My primary research focus is on beliefs in conspiracy theories. Why are conspiracy theories so popular? Who believes them? Why do people believe them? What are some of the consequences of conspiracy theories and can such theories be harmful?

The description implies that "conspiracy theorists" are apt subjects for psychological diagnosis, because they are intrinsically "harmful" to society, like Adorno’s suspicion of the family as the seed-bed of "Fascism."

Further reading:

1. Michael J. Wood, Karen M Douglas, Robbie M Sutton, Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories, Social Psychology & Personality Science, 25
    January 2012.
2. Ibid, pages 2, 4, 5 and 6.
3. C. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: The Macmillan co., 1966), page 51.
4. C. Quigley, Ibid, pages 950 to 956.
    See also: K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arkos Media Ltd., 2011), pages 24 to 26.
5. Michael J. Wood, et al, op. cit., page 2.
6. Robert Eringer, The Global Manipulators (Bristol: Pentacle Books, 1980, pages 9 and 10.
    Eringer spoke to Quigley regarding the professor’s predicament after running afoul of the "network".
7. Dwight Eisenhower's "Farewell Speech to the American People", 17th January 1961
8. John F. Kennedy's Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961.
9. The Centre for Research on Globalization, globalresearch.ca
10. Karen Douglas, University of Kent, kent.uk/psychology


TL;DR

Re: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading is Unethical & Degrading
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2019, 03:07:38 AM »
9/10 people don't recommend talking that way to God.

Hehe

Re: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading is Unethical & Degrading
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2019, 06:52:04 AM »
9/10 people don't recommend talking that way to God  ::).

OMG.  I'm a 10.   :o

BAAAAH !
The singularity has never been proven to exist.
Big Bang, Black Holes...     Yeah, great for Holly Weird movies, but nothing more than theories. Hawking was wrong. He operated on nothing more than assumptions when it came to the singularity. Einstein was also wrong. That's why their theories are still theories and not physical laws.
Politics got Albert the Nobel prize.
Do you see the cover-up ?
Do some research on Tesla if you want the truth.     ;)
The obfuscation of his work is the true conspiracy.
And where the hell is my flying car ?     ;)
 



Re: Non-Consentual Mind-Reading is Unethical & Degrading
« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2019, 11:05:40 PM »

Curious about the my experiences with clairvoyance, I came across this article on its link with psychosis, on The Weiler Psi.


The Link Between Psychic Ability, Schizophrenia and Psychosis

It is impossible to do research into psychic ability and psychics without coming across stories of psychosis.  And lurking in the background is a connection to schizophrenia, which is far more common in the families of psychic people than in the population at large.  In order to address this issue with any sort of expertise though,  I needed a source of information which clarified the topic.  Well, now I have it.  Cognitive psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman, PhD, is a creativity researcher who wrote an article exploring the link between schizophrenia and highly creative people.

We can use the same information for psychic people because this is basically the same group.  Kaufman acknowledges as much, although he uses the euphemisms, “magical thinking” and “unusual perceptive experience” to describe psi.  It’s annoying, I know.  But at least the data is there.

But there are also documented instances of psychics experiencing psychosis, which are not part of that article  and I want to address that as well, because it happens to a very certain type of psychic under some very specific circumstances.

Psychosis and schizophrenia are not the same thing.  With Psychosis your self control and self awareness will be lower than that of a person with Schizophrenia.  The duration for psychosis is between days and weeks and Schizophrenia occurs for lifetime.  From a psychic’s standpoint you can think of it this way:  Schizophrenia is an ego so out of control it is creating its own reality.  Psychosis is the loss of the protective ego.

Psychics do not get schizophrenia, but they can become psychotic.  Got that?  Good.  Let’s address the issue of schizophrenia.  (The article is about creativity.  I am picking out passages that directly relate to schizophrenia and psychosis.  The links in the quoted area were part of the original article.)   Dr. Kaufman writes in his article:

In a recent study reported in Schizophrenia Bulletin, Nelson and Rawlings propose that a mild form of schizophrenia called schizotypy may be positively associated with the experience of flow. Schizophrenia is a debilitating mental illness that affects roughly 1 percent of the population and involves altered states of consciousness and “abnormal” perceptual experiences. Schizotypy, which is a watered-down version of schizophrenia, consists of a constellation of personality traits that are evident to some degree in everyone.

High levels of schizotypy are typically found in relatives of individuals with full fledged schizophrenia. Some researchers have proposed that the genes that underlie schizophrenia may remain in the human gene pool because of the benefits those with schizotypy receive in terms of creativity; those with schizotypy have the genes that that may contribute to creativity without the debilitating genes that would prevent them from achieving their maximum potential.

Research confirms a link between schizotypy and creative achievement. In particular, “positive” schizotypal traits such as unusual perceptual experiences and magical beliefs tend to be elevated in artists, and “negative” schizotypal traits such as physical and social anhedonia (a feeling of emotional emptiness) and introversion tend to be associated with mathematical and scientific creativity. (Of course, there are scientists with positive schizotypal traits and artists with negative schizotypal traits — I’m only talking relative numbers.)


He goes on to say:

Consistent with prior research, they found that their sample of artists scored higher than the average population (based on norm data) on the schizotypal traits of unipolar affective disturbance (depression) and thin boundaries, as well as the personality traits of openness to experience and neuroticism.

Interestingly, they didn’t replicate research showing elevated levels of bipolar mood disorder in artists. As a possible explanation, the researchers point out that their sample consists of mainly contemporary artists. As they point out, “creativity is a construct that varies not only across fields, but also across styles and artistic movements.”

Indeed, clinical psychologist Louis A. Sass notes in his article, “Schizophrenia, Modernism and the ‘Creative Imagination’: On Creativity and Psychopathology,” that most of the prior work on the link between bipolar and artistic creativity has been based on eminent classical artists from earlier periods, particularly the Romantic period. In his book, “Madness and Modernism: Insanity in the Light of Modern Art, Literature and Thought,” Sass further makes the case that modernistic and postmodern artists report psychotic or schizotypal experiences.


And still more:

These findings are fascinating and beg the question: What mechanism or set of mechanisms account for the association between schizotypy and the experience of flow? The researchers argue that latent inhibition is of particular relevance to understanding this association (also see “Why Daydreamers Are More Creative“).Reduced latent inhibition represents an inability to screen out from awareness stimuli that have previously been tagged as irrelevant. Prior research has shown an association between reduced latent inhibition and psychosis. However, emeritus Professor David R. Hemsley at King’s College, London argues that while this loosening of expectations based on previous experience may cause a disruption in sense of self, this mental process may also confer advantages for creativity. Recent research showing common genetic and neurotransmitter linkages (particularly dopamine) between both schizophrenia and creativity support this association at a biological level.

As the researchers note, the million dollar question is this: What distinguishes the person who, in the Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard‘s phrase, “drowns in possibility” from the person who is able to use his or her reduced latent inhibition in a way that enables heightened levels of creativity?

Some researchers have argued that intelligence and working memory may be factors that protect the individual with creative potential from falling over the edge into madness. Factors such as working memory and high executive functioning (which tend to show activations in the prefrontal cortex of the brain) may enable the individual with reduced latent inhibition to not go mad from the influx of emotions and sensations and make good use of the broad range of novel input. Indeed, researchers have found that the combination of high I.Q. and reduced latent inhibition is associated with creative achievement.


And one more thing:

I reckon that it is this openness to experience aspect (and associated functioning of the dopaminergic neurotransmitter system) that is crucial to understanding the schizotypy/flow connection. Self-reported openness to experience is in fact related to reduced latent inhibition, suggesting that openness to experience is a phenotype that is related to actual information processing.

The idea that a high IQ factors into the ability of psychic people to cope successfully with traits of schizophrenia is not new.  This was also suggested by Dean Radin in his book on the science of parapsychology: “The Conscious Universe.”  I am also inclined to add that having a high Emotional IQ is also protective.

Perhaps schizophrenia is the product of a brain that lacks the ordinary capacity to filter information, both physical and at the level of pure consciousness.  A schizophrenic perhaps deals with this by unconsciously shutting it all down by creating their very own paranoid world to live in.  Fear definitely cuts back on the internal flow of information and that may be its purpose in this situation. Psychics, on the other hand, can and do deal with this information flow from a very early age.  Therefore it does not generate the overwhelming fear response and there is no need for the ego to shut everything off.

(This article clearly articulates this idea. Psychics Who Hear Voices Could Be On to Something.

Psychosis in Psychics

You aren’t psychotic just because you saw a ghost or some other image or had a bad feeling or heard things.  Psychosis includes those things, but you have to look at the overall picture.

Psychosis is not an addition to reality, it’s a break from it.  If you’re seeing ghosts and they’re talking to you for instance, but otherwise, things are normal, this is probably a psychic experience.  An exceptional one, yes, but merely psychic nonetheless.  I don’t claim to know all the reasons for why this stuff suddenly occurs, but when I’ve dug into the backgrounds of people who have related these things to me, they were pretty damned psychic to begin with and had other experiences before that were similar at other times in their lives.  When I’ve done a bit of peer counseling with these people the main problem was a fear of insanity.  When that issue was resolved, it was no longer a problem. A psychotic break is a fear feedback loop that is totally out of control.  I would not attempt peer counseling in this situation because serious help and meds are a good idea at this point.

The incidences of psychosis I have read about turned up in situations where individuals were intensely using their psi over long periods of time, typically doing remote viewing; sometimes for years.  The people involved were handpicked because they demonstrated exceptional psychic ability and they simply lost their grip on reality.

My opinion on this is that it has to do with how these people perceived authority figures and the idea of authority in general.  Most of these people were in service to a government with a strong chain of command; the army for instance.  The problem with that is that activities such as remote viewing require a level of self confidence and a sense of self far beyond what these people possessed.  In the realm of the inner mind, the normal barriers of the ego and whatever it is in our consciousness that holds reality together disappears and we are open to our most subconscious thoughts, which can manifest as real things in the inner mind.  You imagine it, and it’s there instantly.  That includes fear, which in turn increases the fear and pretty soon, you have a feedback loop and the resultant psychosis.

The problem is that you only join the army if you believe in authority more than you believe in yourself.  And keeping your sanity intact during remote viewing requires that your belief in yourself is stronger than your belief in authority.  That is to say, a psychic person who has complete disregard for authority and follows their own path, paying no attention to the counsel of others will be far less likely to cave into any fears that might start developing.  They are far better prepared for remote viewing because they can shoo the boogeymen away.  The idea of authority is that something external is controlling you, but the inner mind doesn’t work that way.  Everything that happens is essentially an inner reflection.  Not being afraid of authority is the same thing as not being afraid of monsters under the bed.  The ability to deal with one carries over to the other.

Curious about the my experiences with clairvoyance, I came across this article on its link with psychosis, on The Weiler Psi.


The Link Between Psychic Ability, Schizophrenia and Psychosis

It is impossible to do research into psychic ability and psychics without coming across stories of psychosis.  And lurking in the background is a connection to schizophrenia, which is far more common in the families of psychic people than in the population at large.  In order to address this issue with any sort of expertise though,  I needed a source of information which clarified the topic.  Well, now I have it.  Cognitive psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman, PhD, is a creativity researcher who wrote an article exploring the link between schizophrenia and highly creative people.

We can use the same information for psychic people because this is basically the same group.  Kaufman acknowledges as much, although he uses the euphemisms, “magical thinking” and “unusual perceptive experience” to describe psi.  It’s annoying, I know.  But at least the data is there.

But there are also documented instances of psychics experiencing psychosis, which are not part of that article  and I want to address that as well, because it happens to a very certain type of psychic under some very specific circumstances.

Psychosis and schizophrenia are not the same thing.  With Psychosis your self control and self awareness will be lower than that of a person with Schizophrenia.  The duration for psychosis is between days and weeks and Schizophrenia occurs for lifetime.  From a psychic’s standpoint you can think of it this way:  Schizophrenia is an ego so out of control it is creating its own reality.  Psychosis is the loss of the protective ego.

Psychics do not get schizophrenia, but they can become psychotic.  Got that?  Good.  Let’s address the issue of schizophrenia.  (The article is about creativity.  I am picking out passages that directly relate to schizophrenia and psychosis.  The links in the quoted area were part of the original article.)   Dr. Kaufman writes in his article:

In a recent study reported in Schizophrenia Bulletin, Nelson and Rawlings propose that a mild form of schizophrenia called schizotypy may be positively associated with the experience of flow. Schizophrenia is a debilitating mental illness that affects roughly 1 percent of the population and involves altered states of consciousness and “abnormal” perceptual experiences. Schizotypy, which is a watered-down version of schizophrenia, consists of a constellation of personality traits that are evident to some degree in everyone.

High levels of schizotypy are typically found in relatives of individuals with full fledged schizophrenia. Some researchers have proposed that the genes that underlie schizophrenia may remain in the human gene pool because of the benefits those with schizotypy receive in terms of creativity; those with schizotypy have the genes that that may contribute to creativity without the debilitating genes that would prevent them from achieving their maximum potential.

Research confirms a link between schizotypy and creative achievement. In particular, “positive” schizotypal traits such as unusual perceptual experiences and magical beliefs tend to be elevated in artists, and “negative” schizotypal traits such as physical and social anhedonia (a feeling of emotional emptiness) and introversion tend to be associated with mathematical and scientific creativity. (Of course, there are scientists with positive schizotypal traits and artists with negative schizotypal traits — I’m only talking relative numbers.)


He goes on to say:

Consistent with prior research, they found that their sample of artists scored higher than the average population (based on norm data) on the schizotypal traits of unipolar affective disturbance (depression) and thin boundaries, as well as the personality traits of openness to experience and neuroticism.

Interestingly, they didn’t replicate research showing elevated levels of bipolar mood disorder in artists. As a possible explanation, the researchers point out that their sample consists of mainly contemporary artists. As they point out, “creativity is a construct that varies not only across fields, but also across styles and artistic movements.”

Indeed, clinical psychologist Louis A. Sass notes in his article, “Schizophrenia, Modernism and the ‘Creative Imagination’: On Creativity and Psychopathology,” that most of the prior work on the link between bipolar and artistic creativity has been based on eminent classical artists from earlier periods, particularly the Romantic period. In his book, “Madness and Modernism: Insanity in the Light of Modern Art, Literature and Thought,” Sass further makes the case that modernistic and postmodern artists report psychotic or schizotypal experiences.


And still more:

These findings are fascinating and beg the question: What mechanism or set of mechanisms account for the association between schizotypy and the experience of flow? The researchers argue that latent inhibition is of particular relevance to understanding this association (also see “Why Daydreamers Are More Creative“).Reduced latent inhibition represents an inability to screen out from awareness stimuli that have previously been tagged as irrelevant. Prior research has shown an association between reduced latent inhibition and psychosis. However, emeritus Professor David R. Hemsley at King’s College, London argues that while this loosening of expectations based on previous experience may cause a disruption in sense of self, this mental process may also confer advantages for creativity. Recent research showing common genetic and neurotransmitter linkages (particularly dopamine) between both schizophrenia and creativity support this association at a biological level.

As the researchers note, the million dollar question is this: What distinguishes the person who, in the Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard‘s phrase, “drowns in possibility” from the person who is able to use his or her reduced latent inhibition in a way that enables heightened levels of creativity?

Some researchers have argued that intelligence and working memory may be factors that protect the individual with creative potential from falling over the edge into madness. Factors such as working memory and high executive functioning (which tend to show activations in the prefrontal cortex of the brain) may enable the individual with reduced latent inhibition to not go mad from the influx of emotions and sensations and make good use of the broad range of novel input. Indeed, researchers have found that the combination of high I.Q. and reduced latent inhibition is associated with creative achievement.


And one more thing:

I reckon that it is this openness to experience aspect (and associated functioning of the dopaminergic neurotransmitter system) that is crucial to understanding the schizotypy/flow connection. Self-reported openness to experience is in fact related to reduced latent inhibition, suggesting that openness to experience is a phenotype that is related to actual information processing.

The idea that a high IQ factors into the ability of psychic people to cope successfully with traits of schizophrenia is not new.  This was also suggested by Dean Radin in his book on the science of parapsychology: “The Conscious Universe.”  I am also inclined to add that having a high Emotional IQ is also protective.

Perhaps schizophrenia is the product of a brain that lacks the ordinary capacity to filter information, both physical and at the level of pure consciousness.  A schizophrenic perhaps deals with this by unconsciously shutting it all down by creating their very own paranoid world to live in.  Fear definitely cuts back on the internal flow of information and that may be its purpose in this situation. Psychics, on the other hand, can and do deal with this information flow from a very early age.  Therefore it does not generate the overwhelming fear response and there is no need for the ego to shut everything off.

(This article clearly articulates this idea. Psychics Who Hear Voices Could Be On to Something.

Psychosis in Psychics

You aren’t psychotic just because you saw a ghost or some other image or had a bad feeling or heard things.  Psychosis includes those things, but you have to look at the overall picture.

Psychosis is not an addition to reality, it’s a break from it.  If you’re seeing ghosts and they’re talking to you for instance, but otherwise, things are normal, this is probably a psychic experience.  An exceptional one, yes, but merely psychic nonetheless.  I don’t claim to know all the reasons for why this stuff suddenly occurs, but when I’ve dug into the backgrounds of people who have related these things to me, they were pretty damned psychic to begin with and had other experiences before that were similar at other times in their lives.  When I’ve done a bit of peer counseling with these people the main problem was a fear of insanity.  When that issue was resolved, it was no longer a problem. A psychotic break is a fear feedback loop that is totally out of control.  I would not attempt peer counseling in this situation because serious help and meds are a good idea at this point.

The incidences of psychosis I have read about turned up in situations where individuals were intensely using their psi over long periods of time, typically doing remote viewing; sometimes for years.  The people involved were handpicked because they demonstrated exceptional psychic ability and they simply lost their grip on reality.

My opinion on this is that it has to do with how these people perceived authority figures and the idea of authority in general.  Most of these people were in service to a government with a strong chain of command; the army for instance.  The problem with that is that activities such as remote viewing require a level of self confidence and a sense of self far beyond what these people possessed.  In the realm of the inner mind, the normal barriers of the ego and whatever it is in our consciousness that holds reality together disappears and we are open to our most subconscious thoughts, which can manifest as real things in the inner mind.  You imagine it, and it’s there instantly.  That includes fear, which in turn increases the fear and pretty soon, you have a feedback loop and the resultant psychosis.

The problem is that you only join the army if you believe in authority more than you believe in yourself.  And keeping your sanity intact during remote viewing requires that your belief in yourself is stronger than your belief in authority.  That is to say, a psychic person who has complete disregard for authority and follows their own path, paying no attention to the counsel of others will be far less likely to cave into any fears that might start developing.  They are far better prepared for remote viewing because they can shoo the boogeymen away.  The idea of authority is that something external is controlling you, but the inner mind doesn’t work that way.  Everything that happens is essentially an inner reflection.  Not being afraid of authority is the same thing as not being afraid of monsters under the bed.  The ability to deal with one carries over to the other.
Who is the author?


Who is the author?

Literally three seconds of websearch led me to the answer. Do you wipe back to front as well? Pathetic.

Literally three seconds of websearch led me to the answer. Do you wipe back to front as well? Pathetic.
I don't wipe for fellow posters. Quotation marks weren't used, and I can't tell which editorial comments are Azzy's. 

Literally three seconds of websearch led me to the answer. Do you wipe back to front as well? Pathetic.

Sometimes I think she doesn't have a Master of Library Science degree as she has claimed.