True Believer Syndrome

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by PsychoticEpisode, Mar 24, 2010.

  1. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    I think this is worth talking about. Especially in light of recent activity in this sub-forum.

    Coined by a very interesting guy, Lamar Keene. Good book, sad but funny. In seclusion last I heard, death threats. I guess He didn't see that coming. Maybe he does cartoons for a Danish newspaper, I don't know.

    Is he on target? Is it a disorder? Are psychics those who have fallen prey to the syndrome?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    No, not real psychics, but it's a common syndrome in new age constellations, like a religion.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    From wiki
    and then about this 'interesting guy'....

    IOW he was himself a true believer.

    He also made a living as a fraud medium. So he gets rich pretending he has certain abilities he than later claims he does not have. He writes a book about certain people he considers gullible and then later in another book admits he is one of these people.

    It should also be noted that according to Wiki true believer syndrome refers to people refers

    There are not that many people who have been through such an experience.

    I dunno, seems pretty easy to write this guy and his idea off, which it seems is what psychologists and psychiatrists and the committee that puts together the DSM have done also.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    from the citation:
    (italics mine.)

    so, to be clear, the syndrome would apply only to those who continue to believe in a particular event, after it had been proven to have been staged. note my inclusion of "particular": this is not in the original wiki description, but i conclude that such was intended on the basis of what appears further down the page:
    IOW, a very particular event or phenomenon is established as fraudulent, and the "true believer" will continue to believe in the event or phenomenon even after such is established.

    it seems that this postulated "syndrome" applies only to a very narrow subset of individuals: those who continue to believe in something after this something has been established as fraudulent.

    "is he on target?" honestly, i'm not entirely clear as to what you are asking here.

    "is it a disorder?" not according to the DSM, or any other important diagnostic text with which i am familiar.

    "are psychics those who have fallen prey to the syndrome?" i suppose that some might be; although, from the information provided, i gather that this hypothesized "syndrome" is intended to apply more to those who believe in the claims of a particular psychic (for instance), even after these claims are revealed to be willfully fabricated--as in the case of mr. alvarez's "carlos."

    obviously, the notion of "proof" is a little suspect here--and i suspect that, as is often the case, the wiki entry is inadequate here and one probably ought look to keene's text, the psychic mafia, for clarification on this matter. seriously, what constitutes adequate "proof" here?

    as but one example, i will use randian's (that is, adherents of ayn rand--not james randi), or those who "believe" in laissez faire capitalism: these individuals often contest that even the slightest departure from "true" laissez faire capitalism is an abomination, and they use this to explain why things seems quite far from perfect in every existing capitalistic system. IOW the multitude of problems encountered within every single existing capitalistic system can in no way be conceived as an indictment of capitalism, for it is only when the ideal is achieved that such problems will be remedied.

    but there is no ideal l.f. capitalistic economy, and there never has been, so how can they possibly know this? and that they are inclined to perceive problems intrinsic to capitalistic economies, i.e. evidence, as in no way pertinent or relevant suggests that they continue to believe in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. is this an instance of the "true believer syndrome"?

    i think the phenomenon, whether or not one chooses to call it a "syndrome," somewhat interesting, though limited in scope, as it pertains only to very particular scenarios and does not in any way address more general "beliefs."
     
  8. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    Whether or not it is officially recognized, there is no doubt that there are some people who just refuse to break from their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence that it is fraudulent. No one will ever convince me that these people are thinking normal. Gee....I wonder if that makes me a candidate?

    In another thread, schizoid behavior was presented as normal when subject to the culture of an era but I can't envision there ever being a time when it would be acceptable to believe something that's obviously been proven to not be true. So I think it safe to include true believer syndrome as a disorder despite its illegitimacy.

    It appears that the entire population of the world is one step away from potentially being labeled a true-believer.
     
  9. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    This is definitely recognized, that people do this. Every mental health professional recognizes this pattern. But to call it a syndrome is only OK in non-professional contexts. Something a reporter might come up with for example.

    Aside from that as pointed out Lamar Keene himself believed in things you consider delusional and lived much of his life as a fraud.

    Not only have most of the beliefs you consider delusional not been proven to be false, this is not what the true believer sydrome refers to. If you read your own link it is even more stringent a category than this: it refers to people who are shown that they believed something was real EVEN AFTER they are shown it was staged. IOW people intentionally manipulated them and then revealed that they did this and nevertheless those duped continued to believe that it had been real.
     
  10. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    I realize it is non professional nomenclature and I also realize Keene believes in psychic phenomena, ability, etc., but that is next to impossible to render 100% fraudulent with proof to back it up. He only took advantage of people and in doing so was quite intrigued by the true believers in his midst.

    You have no idea what I believe. In the context of myself, I try to never mention the word 'believe' or its derivatives and if you look closely I almost always use the words "I think" since they are non-committal. If I use the word "believe" it is because I might have done so in haste, perhaps seeing the word so often causes me to inject it here or there in a moment of inattention to detail.

    So if you believe I have beliefs and I counter by saying they are not beliefs, only thoughts, then are your beliefs in my thinking fraudulent? Remember, the internet is a stage where I can act out any persona I desire. I am telling you that you are wrong, however it does me no good since I can't prove it. So how much of belief by any person in anything of a human quality is truly fraudulent ? ...Well there's no way of telling because of the vagaries of human cultural and social interaction.

    If I told you that today was my birthday would you believe it? Not likely but you might check my profile to see if it is true. If you do check then it will say that it is yet you cannot be 100% sure. The tendency would be to believe it is my birthday knowing that it might not truly be, especially after reading this.

    When I start waxing philosophic I start to sound like LG so I`ll quit right here.

    This is a science forum. I would think that science has done more to reveal the fraudulent than any other discipline. Yet when it encroaches upon the human mind it suddenly is no longer the purveyor of truth. I think this is fair since we are basically in the stone age as far as knowing how the mind works. Thus any conclusions reached are not proof of much yet.

    I was hoping someone might have brought this up to counter my claim that no era contained culturally induced falsehoods. The Sun for a number of centuries was accepted as a god. Has science dispelled this truth? I would think so. Would you consider those who started or perpetuated the divine solar belief be classified as manipulators? The people who still believe in the sun god, are they delusional and suffering from a mental illness? Are they true believers?
     
  11. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    so when a person states that he thinks such-and-such is delusional repeatedly, does this in no way suggest to you that the person believes such-and-such to be delusional?

    or, for instance, consider this example from a post previous in this thread:

    i would have to review this other thread to get a sense of what was being said, but two possibilities emerge for me:

    1) was this sentiment regarding schizoid behavior expressed more in a laingian sense? if so, then i can't even understand what you are trying to say here.

    2) was the sentiment expressed with respect to application of schizoid personality dx made from outside of the culture? IOW were western diagnostic models being used in discussing a hypothetical dx for an individual or individuals in a culture far removed, in respects obviously important here, from western cultures?

    in either scenario--and i could be wrong here, i am speculating that one or the other might have been the sense in which the claim to allude to was stated--i'm not sure how your concluding remark would be pertinent: "I can't envision there ever being a time when it would be acceptable to believe something that's obviously been proven to not be true."

    like i stated, i'm just speculating upon the senses in which that opening sentiment could have been intended, and i would have to look at the original thread. but with respect to either 1 or 2, the implication that the "schizoid" individual or individuals believe(s) something "obviously been proven to not be true" seems to miss the mark. but it also begs the question: what particular things have been "proven not to be true," in such a case?

    again, i would suggest that your insistent claim that you think certain things are "fraudulent" does suggest that you believe they are fraudulent.

    generally, i assume most people are at least making the effort to be honest. so when a person says, "today is my birthday," i tend to believe them.

    i largely agree with you here (minor quibbles with respect to phrasing, but...), but i think it important to note a couple of things: there is an awful lot of irresponsible science, unfortunately; there is also an awful lot of misconstrual of science by non-scientists drawing ridiculous conclusions, which bear little proximity to the claims of the original.

    i think the notion that there have been cultures which worship the sun as god a somewhat suspect one, and i am not so sure that there is much evidence to support this.

    as to people who presently believe that the sun is god, well, one cannot really say much at all about them without knowing what exactly this means to them: are they somehow suggesting that the sun is a "supernatural" entity? or, do matters of gods and such--for them--not really have much at all to do with the supernatural? if we deign to judge from the perspective of not really knowing what it means for something to be "god," we can't really conclude that they are delusional about anything.
     
  12. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    The DSM does not use the term 'true believer syndrome' but it does recognize 'delusion':

    "A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, "incorrect" dogma, stupidity, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception."

    Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1917 book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

    Certainty (held with absolute conviction)

    Incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)

    Impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

    These criteria still continue in modern psychiatric diagnosis. The most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines a delusion as:

    A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

    From the information that you have added this is a guy who is delusional and realizes that he, even with evidence he has proven to himself as contradictory to his belief, he remains a 'true believer'. In short he is admitting he suffers from delusion even if its simply self-delusion.

    There is very little difference in what he calls a syndrome and what the DSM refer to as 'delusion'.
     
  13. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    Definitely suggestive. I can think it all I want but how can I be 100% certain if I'm not 100% certain of any role psychic ability might play for instance. I'm flexible, just show me some evidence and I will think differently. Aren't most of us?

    Heliocentric said earlier in another thread, I'm paraphrasing, that certain personality disorders were dependent on historical eras. (ie schizophrenics as normal psychic mediums in ancient times.) I was hoping someone would give an example of a time when basically an entire culture , society, or civilization believed in something they knew had been proven false. I couldn't really think of one. I was going to try and take whatever was given and see if I could work it into an argument against his/her idea. Galileo, the Earth, Solar System and the church perhaps, don't know if that qualifies. Looks like I lose that one. I still think an illness is an illness no matter what time it is...that's all.

    You like to use "I think" also. It's not so much worshiping the Sun it's how did the people realize it was false and stop. I'm not sure whether that group would have used real scientific proof or used lack of evidence. That 's where I was heading...can lack of evidence be considered real proof? Never got there. I'm the one guilty of trying to manipulate.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  14. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    ok, i know which thread you a referring to now--i'll read through that one.

    first off, you mention a personality disorder but in your example you cite a psychiatric disorder (and previously you had mentioned schizoid personality, for which delusions are not even a factor--were you thinking schizophreniform?)--both designations are products of just the past century or so, but the notion of "personality disorder" is a far more recent innovation than notions of "psychiatric disorders." and, to my knowledge, even within western culture, americans are inclined to make much ado about these supposed "personality disorders," whereas europeans seem less concerned over these "personality disorders."

    as far as an example in which "an entire culture , society, or civilization believed in something they knew had been proven false": i'm not sure what this has to do with heliocentric's claim (which so far as i can tell is correct).

    what i was suggesting was that i am not confident that there is substantial evidence for cultures which worshiped the sun as a god--though i'm receptive to the possibility, and certainly open to evidence for such. it's just that the stuff i've encountered strikes me as tenuous at best.

    the problem here is that we are getting into areas which are matters of concern to anthropologists, and a few "issues" present: methodology--are we to entertain the "conclusions" of structuralists, or post-structuralists? (my inclinations here are probably somewhat clear from what i write; at the same time, i am not beholden to any particular methodology.); given only fragmentary evidence, interpretations vary enormously--even amongst those who tend to abide a similar methodology; and the inadequacy of translation, both of languages and cultural modes.

    "can lack of evidence be considered real proof?" apparently, to a lot of people it can; though i can't see how for the life of me (and it certainly doesn't seem very "scientific"). moreover, even the supposed lack of evidence is questionable when the parties making the claim suffer for a profound lack of understanding for what the parties making the counter-claim (which n this case, would be the positive assertion) intend by what it is for which there is a supposed lack of evidence.


    edit: as an example for how immense confusion might arise surrounding a simple claim, consider aleister crowley's definition for magick*--and keep in mind that crowley was english, wrote in english, and was addressing a largely english-speaking (or western, at least) audience--and confusion still does arise:

    the science and fine art of causing change to occur with accordance to will.

    well, i do that all the time--and i am fairly confident that most sentient types do this all the time. of course, one has to keep in mind that "will" is not all that clearly defined a notion--i'm not even sure that nietzsche "defined" it, rather he pointed to ways in which such is to be conceived--and, further reading will reveal, that crowley employed "will" in his own unique sense. and so, maybe i don't do that (magick) all the time.

    * i can't recall whether magick was to be distinguished from magic (i can't find my copy of martin booth's excellent biography), or if crowley was just being crowley and thought it looked cool to add a "k" to the posterior end.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  15. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    I also had you mixed up with Helio there for awhile. I had to re-edit real fast on that last post just to fix that up. I can't remember if he & I were talking delusions or not, rather if a disorder resembling schizophrenia was an illness. Plus how does the psychic world fit in and trying to keep it all together. Either way I think disorders, mental & personality, are illnesses. But that`s another thread.

    Why would someone continue to believe in something when its been proven fraudulent? Why is the mind made up? I have to remember that the persons who are doing the believing are not psychic, they only believe that there are psychics. Would such people be seeking a psychic if they themselves were psychic? How would they know how it works? In this vein I think that all of us who believe one thing or another may someday have to face irrefutable proof that what we believe in is false. It`s how you handle that revelation that determines having a true believer label attached.

    The simplest reason I can see is that they`ve experienced success from previous psychic consultations. It may be impossible to debunk it if the believer thinks it works for them. Is there a mechanism within our mind that covets or protects a proven survival technique, a good thing or even a perceived cure. I wish I could come up with an analogy, I keep thinking placebo effect but not sure if it fits.
     
  16. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    I guess schizophrenic as medium would be a fair example for the purposes of this thread. Although i think historically mediums/mystics/gurus have tended to fall more within the schizoid spectrum - almost pathologically introverted to the extent of almost shutting out outside life altogether. For a modern day example think of the infamous 'Buddha Boy' of Nepal.

    As i said before though, the problem with any of these diagnoses is that measuring mental illness is ultimately culturally dependent and very much at odd with fundamental science - i.e. while the speed of light is constant and not subject to cultural overhaul, mental illnesses are. E.g. 'homosexuality' which while now generally accepted as a healthy 'pathology' in most psychiatric, circles was listed as a mental illness on the DSM up until the early 70s.
     
  17. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    And right off the bat we have a very significant difference. A syndrome is a whole pattern creating suffering in an individual. A delusion is a single belief, which may or may not cause suffering. In fact it may even be positive for the person - placebos for example. So without even getting into the issue of whether what PE thinks are delusions, we already have a huge difference in the category of phenomenon we are dealing with.

    So basically what this guy came up with was a fairly non-relevent category - people who have been intentionally fooled by others who when this is revealed still think what happened was some form of supernatural phenomenon. Sure this happens on TV sometimes and some magicians do this, but most people, even those who believe in contested phenomena, are willing to admit that people can be fooled on occasion, and would not continue to say that on this particular instance it was a supernatural event. So they are not merely deluded, according to whatever authority rules out the phenomenon, but they maintain this delusion despite the revelation that they were duped by the dupers. That is a very small category of believers.

    The ironies about the person who proposed this syndrome I presented above.

    None of this is to say that I think the DSM is correct in all ways. I think many parts of it are very naive philosophically and further that the book is influenced both by the culture and historical period it is being written AND by profit issues.

    However, if a skeptic wants to start claiming that this or that person is mentally ill, then they need to run the same gauntlet they expect believers to run. And this syndrome fails to make it through.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2010
  18. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    The only real example i can think of people continuing to believe inspite of clear evidence to the contrary, was an example of a cult i remember reading about in a psychology book a few ago. The cult believed that the world would end on a predetermined date, when the date came and went without the world coming to an end however none of them would give up their beliefs. In fact if i remember right, their counter argument was simply to say that their prayers to halt the destruction of the world had obviously worked - e.g. we were right all along! I guess that's about as good an example of an unfalsifiable claim as youre likely to get.

    Anyway, why do people continue to believe past the point of rational defense? I think the simple answer is that if there's a choice between being wrong and admitting to being a fool, most people will happily continue in their error; It's the ego going into self-protection mode.

    The only real way to avoid this (to my mind) is to hold only provisional beliefs, rather than beliefs which are inflexible to new information that might arise. For instance; while i probably err on the side of psychic phenomenon being valid (at least some of the time) i don't have any real attachment to the idea of ESP being valid, so it's not going to harm my ego if tomorrow it all turns out to be false.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2010
  19. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Actually you still do not understand the syndrome. They were only true believers if he revealed to them that he had fooled them AND THEY STILL kept believing what they had experienced with him had been in some way what is called supernatural. I doubt he did this much since he was making money off fooling them. Since they were not confronted with his revelation we do not know if they fit his category or not. Nor do we know if he does, himself. We know he was a believer, that's all.

    Most people would consider what someone thinks is true to be their beliefs. I can also draw conclusions about your beliefs from how you reason, what you consider evidence or logic, etc. I may make mistakes, but you are definitely asserting beliefs here.

    Oh, of course. You could be someone who believes in ESP and God and all sorts of things who finds the challenge interesting. I can only comment on the arguments and reasoning you put down here. I could qualify every post by saying

    if you are lying about your beliefs than when I refer to your beliefs what I really mean is the beliefs presented as yours in the posts you write or someone else writes using this membership. But, gee, that seems a bit silly.

    If you like you can think of my responses as me responding to someone who would honestly write what you write here.
    yes, it all seemed rather irrelevent to me.

    I agree with this claim.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2010
  20. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Schizophrenics - or really I should say people who get and continue to get a diagnosis of schizophrenia are generally not capable of managing things like a medium business or an ashram. They tend to have a lot of trouble getting through everyday life, holding down jobs etc. At least without medication. The gurus and mediums I have met tended, actually to be rather social. I know there are some who do not have much of what we would call interpersonal interactions - other than bopping people with holy feathers and the like - but the others I met were quite capable of communicating on a lot of levels and had complicated social lives.

    (not always benevolent ones, but that is another issue).
     
  21. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    And even that doesn't qualify for the true believer syndrome. At least if Wiki is correct someone has to have specifically duped them that something supernatural has happened, then the duper reveals that he or she fooled them. After that despite the confession and demonstration of how it was done, the people keep on believing something supernatural happened. I mean, that has to be rare.


    I really don't think this is possible, unless we are unsure. I think the conscious mind can say it has provisional beliefs and we can communicate that way. But we live our beliefs and when push comes to shove we have beliefs even if we have meta-belief that our beliefs should be provisional. Speaking of which, how do we keep the meta-belief provisional?
     
  22. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    No??? I am quite aware of all that. I'm trying to figure out how or why somebody becomes a true believer. Plus I think the 'syndrome' is more diverse, there are similar or related comparisons to other quirks in human behavior.

    True believers obviously couldn't care less if the truth hit them smack in the forehead. For whatever reason they tend to ignore it. We receive a lot of information in our daily lives. Some we may believe to be true even if we've been shown it isn't. Every work environment I've ever been associated with is constantly changing. Yet there are those who still believe the old ways are better even when confronted with statistical data indicating otherwise. I don't see how this situation strays too far off the path towards true believer status.
     
  23. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Well, you didn't really respond to the objection I made about Keene being in the midst of these true believers. He may have been, but I don't know how you know this. As a fraud it seems unlikely to me he told his victims he had fooled them....and so on with the rest of the argument I made above.

    If you want to change the syndrome to something else, that's fine, but it would seem, from your link, to be your proposal and not Keene's.

    Disclaimer: I know that the views put forward in your post may part of the roll playing performed by someone who does not hold these views. My response is AS IF it were the case the person writing this post, here name Psychotic Episode, does in fact have these views.

    (or maybe my responses have been roll playing all along)
     

Share This Page