How Gravity Works - Delusion Derail

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Never mind Gardner, this seems to fit:

The following can indicate a delusion:

1.The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2.That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
8.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his or her psyche.
9.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10.Individuals who know the patient will observe that his or her belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

The following features are found:

1.It is a primary disorder.
2.It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.
3.The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.
4.The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.
5.The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.
6.The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.

Anyone else thinking that the last part of point 7 is simply a sop to religious apologists? Take that out of the equation and you have every religion I have ever come across to a T.

I guess you can't diagnose 90% of the world as delusional without making the rest of us seem like the sick ones!

[Twiglet]

There's a caveat about religion, and all belief systems which fit with the conventional thinking of the society the individual lives in. Your point about religion is entirely correct, and covered in the link provided. Here's the part which applies:

"The DSM-IV, and psychologists, generally agree that personal beliefs should be evaluated with great respect to complexity of cultural and religious differences since some cultures have widely accepted beliefs that may be considered delusional in other cultures.[3] Specifically, in order to fall under the definition of a "delusion," a belief must be sustained despite what almost everyone else believes, and not be one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith)."

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Sounds like fudging to me. If you believe in some rubbish that is absurd and obviously bollocks to anyone not of your 'culture', you need to re-evaluate your culture. Easier said than done of course. And I notice that the DSM IV use the 'R' word in that passage you just quoted - the world's biggest fudge.

OK. Your religion believes that the moon is made of magic cheese, and therefore you have the right to behead jews on a Saturday for spitting at pigeons - I disagree in principal but I will respect your right to that opinion.

Who are these DSM IV anyway? Are they like the Birmingham IV, or the Chicago VII? Well wherever they are locked up, I say leave them there. Bloody respecters!

And yes, this is a derail. And yes, I should know better. And no, I'm not really bothered - but I will split it to a new thread if anyone wants me to?

[Twiglet]

Sounds like fudging to me. If you believe in some rubbish that is absurd and obviously bollocks to anyone not of your 'culture', you need to re-evaluate your culture. Easier said than done of course. And I notice that the DSM IV use the 'R' word in that passage you just quoted - the world's biggest fudge.

OK. Your religion believes that the moon is made of magic cheese, and therefore you have the right to behead jews on a Saturday for spitting at pigeons - I disagree in principal but I will respect your right to that opinion.

Who are these DSM IV anyway? Are they like the Birmingham IV, or the Chicago VII? Well wherever they are locked up, I say leave them there. Bloody respecters!

And yes, this is a derail. And yes, I should know better. And no, I'm not really bothered - but I will split it to a new thread if anyone wants me to?

I think the argument is simple enough - if your belief is widely mirrored in the culture you are raised in, then it is not delusional, it's normal. The point is not unique to religion, for example, determinism, or the sun orbitting the Earth were normal beliefs. In fact, there are many beliefs which would be considered non-functional in modern times, but that alone is not enough to qualify them as delusional.

I think the key point is that holding a culturally normative belief excludes it from being classified as delusion (if X, not Y) but... holding a culturally atypical belief only opens up the possibility the belief is delusional. (if Z, then possibly Y).

The belief that time is a function of space is not, of itself, delusional, (bringing the thread back on topic...) but the pathology with which that belief is presented seems to be, as illustrated.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Sounds like fudging to me. If you believe in some rubbish that is absurd and obviously bollocks to anyone not of your 'culture', you need to re-evaluate your culture. Easier said than done of course. And I notice that the DSM IV use the 'R' word in that passage you just quoted - the world's biggest fudge.

OK. Your religion believes that the moon is made of magic cheese, and therefore you have the right to behead jews on a Saturday for spitting at pigeons - I disagree in principal but I will respect your right to that opinion.

Who are these DSM IV anyway? Are they like the Birmingham IV, or the Chicago VII? Well wherever they are locked up, I say leave them there. Bloody respecters!

And yes, this is a derail. And yes, I should know better. And no, I'm not really bothered - but I will split it to a new thread if anyone wants me to?

I think the argument is simple enough - if your belief is widely mirrored in the culture you are raised in, then it is not delusional, it's normal. The point is not unique to religion, for example, determinism, or the sun orbitting the Earth were normal beliefs. In fact, there are many beliefs which would be considered non-functional in modern times, but that alone is not enough to qualify them as delusional.

I think the key point is that holding a culturally normative belief excludes it from being classified as delusion (if X, not Y) but... holding a culturally atypical belief only opens up the possibility the belief is delusional. (if Z, then possibly Y).

The belief that time is a function of space is not, of itself, delusional, (bringing the thread back on topic...) but the pathology with which that belief is presented seems to be, as illustrated.

Argumentum ad populum by the back door if you ask me. That certain beliefs are widely, if not almost ubiquitously, held does not make them correct - merely popular.

A delusion is a delusion if it flies in the face of reason and logic, no matter how many people share it. Belief that the world is flat when nobody in your village has ever left it nor had contact with anyone outside is reasonable - because it fits with observed facts. Maintaining that belief after 50 years of cultural integration and despite a college education and access to the internet is delusional.

Similarly, believing that the world was created a few thousand years ago by an omnipotent sky-fairy that demands your foreskin in return for forbidding you bacon and masturbation is delusional bollocks in the modern age - no matter that you were raised in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Oklahoma.


btw - I moved the derail - it's far too interesting to leave where it is - I don't think that lifting these threads has affected your original point in the gravity thread.

[Twiglet]

Theres a distinction between whether a person is delusional, and whether a belief is.

The psychology stuff is about whether the personal has a delusional personality disorder. Whether a belief is delusional is rather subjective. I don't see how it can be better defined, can you?

Believing the universe operates like a clockwork mechanism between 1700 and 1900 was a pretty rational way to look at things, does that make them delusional? I don't see that it does, even though modern ideas suggest the belief is delusional.

Argumentum ad populum by the back door if you ask me. That certain beliefs are widely, if not almost ubiquitously, held does not make them correct - merely popular.

I'd say it's by the front door, not the back door. I agree with your second point too. A society suffering under a mass delusion is not (necessarily) composed of delusional PD citizens. Just deluded ones.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Theres a distinction between whether a person is delusional, and whether a belief is.

I would disagree. If the belief is delusional, the person holding that belief is also delusional. What differs in the case of societal and cultural values is the cause of the delusion, which is usually childhood conditioning and societal reinforcement. It's still delusional if the belief is irrational.

The psychology stuff is about whether the personal has a delusional personality disorder. Whether a belief is delusional is rather subjective. I don't see how it can be better defined, can you?

I would say that a belief was delusional if there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary that was ignored by the believer. There is a degree of subjectivity, of course, but only in marginal cases - I wouldn't call religious fundamentalism marginal - it's clear-cut bonkers.

Believing the universe operates like a clockwork mechanism between 1700 and 1900 was a pretty rational way to look at things, does that make them delusional? I don't see that it does, even though modern ideas suggest the belief is delusional.

That belief system was based upon the best available evidence. Furthermore, it was subject to change - as is borne out by the gradual paradigm shift to our modern perspective - a perspective that may well prove equally invalid once more data becomes available.

A working model of the universe that is based upon best evidence and is willing to change should better evidence present is not delusional.
A working model that is based upon dogmatically held views that one stubbornly clings to despite growing conflicting evidence is definitely delusional.

Prior to the ideas put forward in The Origin of Species, it was perfectly reasonable to hold that species were immutable.
Today, with mountains of evidence backing up Darwin's work and more appearing almost daily, it is delusional to dispute his ideas and to cling to earlier models.
The period immediately following the publication of The Origin is where the grey area lies. Who can say when the immutability of species exactly became delusional? What we can say though is that refusing to examine evidence to the contrary makes an idea delusional - even, paradoxically, if it turns out to be right!

Argumentum ad populum by the back door if you ask me. That certain beliefs are widely, if not almost ubiquitously, held does not make them correct - merely popular.

I'd say it's by the front door, not the back door. I agree with your second point too. A society suffering under a mass delusion is not (necessarily) composed of delusional PD citizens. Just deluded ones.

I said 'by the back door' because I do see a difference. Argumentum ad pop. is an appeal to truth based on popularity. My objection to the DSM IV fudge was that it was an appeal to exemption from diagnosis due to popularity. Analogous but not identical.

[Twiglet]

But it isn't an appeal to truth by popularity, it says nothing about what's true. Because saying what's true is too hard, and can't always be agreed on.

The original list sets out conditions for a personality disorder, and whether an opinion is commonly held is only one facet of that list. If someone holds a popular belief, they might be dogmatic or open to change. There are probably a great many people who would be classed as PD were it not for the fact the particular belief they hold onto is normal for their culture. Maybe thats why the DSM makes the exclusion, because so many people would be classed as crazy.

I think the degree of attachment with religion is pretty important... if we leave aside the cultural condition, I think someone who selectively reads the bible, takes some moral messages from the parables and thinks evolution is probably the way of things - doesn't seem crazy. You might argue they aren't very Christian either, but that belief set probably describes a good number of British Christians. They sort of believe, pay lip service and aren't especially invested in the whole thing.

The other 9 points in the list are pretty important. It seems to me you've just focused on one point, which as far as I can tell - has been made for the pragmatic reason that it's pretty unhelpful to label 20-30% of the population batshit crazy.....

[Xamonas Chegwé]

But it isn't an appeal to truth by popularity, it says nothing about what's true. Because saying what's true is too hard, and can't always be agreed on.

The original list sets out conditions for a personality disorder, and whether an opinion is commonly held is only one facet of that list. If someone holds a popular belief, they might be dogmatic or open to change. There are probably a great many people who would be classed as PD were it not for the fact the particular belief they hold onto is normal for their culture. Maybe thats why the DSM makes the exclusion, because so many people would be classed as crazy.

Exactly. If most of the population exhibits the same symptoms, they become normality. Sanity ad popularum. The thing about delusional behaviour is that it is only a problem when the subject is an extreme case and proves to be a danger to themselves or others. Most religious people don't fly into buildings - when they do, they are called fanatics, extremists, fundamentalists and are most certainly considered delusional. But they are simply one end of a spectrum of religious delusion.

I think the degree of attachment with religion is pretty important... if we leave aside the cultural condition, I think someone who selectively reads the bible, takes some moral messages from the parables and thinks evolution is probably the way of things - doesn't seem crazy. You might argue they aren't very Christian either, but that belief set probably describes a good number of British Christians. They sort of believe, pay lip service and aren't especially invested in the whole thing.

The other 9 points in the list are pretty important. It seems to me you've just focused on one point, which as far as I can tell - has been made for the pragmatic reason that it's pretty unhelpful to label 20-30% of the population batshit crazy.....

1.The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. Fits religion.
2.That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. Fits religion.
3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it. Suspicion definitely. Question an adherent's faith, no matter how politely, and you are accused of attacking them, disrespecting their beliefs and being a militant, raving atheist. There is also a huge amount of fudging around the 'difficult' areas of the religion. Another tick
4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief. I present exhibit A - Rapture Ready.com
5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly. Definitely religion.
6.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. See 3.
7.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background. Would be true if it weren't for the caveat at the end.
8.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his or her psyche. Another tick. Again, it's a spectrum.
9.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs. Otherwise loving parents happily give up their son/daughter to be circumcised. People walk through the streets flagellating themselves. Need I go on.
10.Individuals who know the patient will observe that his or her belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien. Possibly the only fail - but only due to the lack of anything to compare against. Remember, with religion we are dealing with a delusion that is implanted and reinforced shortly after birth.

So you see, I wasn't singling out a single point. The only reason I concentrated with that one was that I saw it as a deliberate exclusion of one of the worst and most destructive shared delusions on the planet.

[Twiglet]

[quote="Xamonas Chegwé


1.The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. Fits religion.[/quote]

Some do, but how many? Maybe in the S. US Bible belt it's a big percentage, but in the UK & Australia, I've only found out people are Christian by chance after knowing them for years, sometimes.

2.That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. Fits religion.

Again, it can, but it often doesn't.

3.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it. Suspicion definitely. Question an adherent's faith, no matter how politely, and you are accused of attacking them, disrespecting their beliefs and being a militant, raving atheist. There is also a huge amount of fudging around the 'difficult' areas of the religion. Another tick

What about just shrugging shoulders and saying "well, it feels right to me"?

4.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief. I present exhibit A - Rapture Ready.com

For sure, but how many are of the raving Pat Robertson variety?

5.There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly. Definitely religion.

Though many seem to have crisis of faith (attacks of reason?)

So you see, I wasn't singling out a single point. The only reason I concentrated with that one was that I saw it as a deliberate exclusion of one of the worst and most destructive shared delusions on the planet.

No, but you are generalising massively. Taking people who self identify as Christian, case by case, I don't think (in the uk) all that many would present as against all those conditions. I think most would be shoulder-shrugging "it works for me" types.

[charlou]

I think the argument is simple enough - if your belief is widely mirrored in the culture you are raised in, then it is not delusional, it's normal. The point is not unique to religion, for example, determinism, or the sun orbitting the Earth were normal beliefs. In fact, there are many beliefs which would be considered non-functional in modern times, but that alone is not enough to qualify them as delusional.

It may be normal within a culture, but it's quite a leap from that to saying it's therefore not delusional.

It's saying that what is delusional is subjective and relative ... I disagree. What's considered delusional may be subjective and relative, but what actually is delusional isn't. Just because a group of people (the number of the group is irrelevant) share a common belief doesn't mean their world view is objectively correct. None of us can be absolutely certain our world view is correct, though there are vast numbers of people who believe so.

[colubridae]

Isn't this coming down to the operational definition of the word delusion.?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No, but you are generalising massively. Taking people who self identify as Christian, case by case, I don't think (in the uk) all that many would present as against all those conditions. I think most would be shoulder-shrugging "it works for me" types.

I don't think I am generalising. I have qualified my arguments by insisting that religious delusion is a spectrum. Between the bloke that barely thinks about religion in his daily life but still has his children christened and gets married in a church because he wants to 'do it proper' and the speaking-in-tongues, rapture-ready, frothing-at-the-mouth, born-again, take-me-now-lord nutjob, there is every shade of grey imaginable.

It is exactly comparable with other delusions. Some are mild and unobtrusive unless directly challenged and the deluded are perfectly functional people. Some are debilitating conditions that leave the afflicted unable to interact meaningfully with others.

Compare UFO abduction delusions with religious delusions and you will see direct parallels in the ranges of severity and the effects upon those deluded.

It is also worth pointing out that, as with any psychiatric diagnosis, it is not necessary to tick all of the boxes to be diagnosed with a delusion. There is usually some kind of scoring involved based on which boxes are ticked and to which level of severity. You would expect to see most of the 10 behaviours exhibited to some degree by most persons suffering from delusion but not necessarily all of them in all cases.

[jamest]

There are all kinds of delusion, not just religious delusion. Indeed, to label anyone as deluded implies that you know the truth... which sounds a little delusional, don't you think?
There are also many kinds of reaction associated with their delusion: positive, negative and indifferent. Perhaps the cheesy-positive pose less of a danger to society?

This thread just seems like an excuse to berate Xians.

[colubridae]

There are all kinds of delusion, not just religious delusion. Indeed, to label anyone as deluded implies that you know the truth... which sounds a little delusional, don't you think?
There are also many kinds of reaction associated with their delusional: positive, negative and indifferent. Perhaps the cheesy positive pose less of a danger to society?

This thread just seems like an excuse to berate Xians.

Excuse not needed. They believe in a sky-daddy and his little pixies.