How can I convince my friend he's being nuts?
March 24, 2006 9:29 PM Subscribe
Help me deprogram a friend.
About a week ago, I was talking with a friend who mentioned he had been doing some reading about conspiracy theories. He then went on to tell me, with perfect seriousness, about the long range plot to take over the world by reptilian aliens who had interbred with humans during prehistory. He named prominent politicians that he said were shapeshifting pedophiles, argued that certain Jews had orchestrated the Holocaust (I'm not sure why, but presumably to kickstart Zionism, which he claimed was a plot to take over the Middle East), and that the CIA could control people's minds with sound waves.
Oddly enough, I do not think this person is crazy by the usual definition of the word; I have noted in the past that he is simply completely credulous about anything he reads, particularly anything claiming to be True Secrets They Want To Hide From You. But I'm worried, because it strikes me that this one could get really troubling really fast.
Clearly he's been reading the works of David Icke, which I'm somewhat familiar with (having leafed through some of them for a laugh), and also some of the more out-there MKUltra stuff. I told him I found a lot of what he said "dubious", but did not outright say they were completely nuts, as I thought that would be counter-productive and simply make him stop listening to me.
My main question is - can anyone recommend a book, books, or authors that debunks Icke as if Icke were worth being debunked (e.g., not "if you believe this, you are a loony", but actually checking out the claimed facts and such) that I can recommend to this person to read as an "interesting counterargument"? Also, can anyone make any other suggestions as to a good way to approach this?
About a week ago, I was talking with a friend who mentioned he had been doing some reading about conspiracy theories. He then went on to tell me, with perfect seriousness, about the long range plot to take over the world by reptilian aliens who had interbred with humans during prehistory. He named prominent politicians that he said were shapeshifting pedophiles, argued that certain Jews had orchestrated the Holocaust (I'm not sure why, but presumably to kickstart Zionism, which he claimed was a plot to take over the Middle East), and that the CIA could control people's minds with sound waves.
Oddly enough, I do not think this person is crazy by the usual definition of the word; I have noted in the past that he is simply completely credulous about anything he reads, particularly anything claiming to be True Secrets They Want To Hide From You. But I'm worried, because it strikes me that this one could get really troubling really fast.
Clearly he's been reading the works of David Icke, which I'm somewhat familiar with (having leafed through some of them for a laugh), and also some of the more out-there MKUltra stuff. I told him I found a lot of what he said "dubious", but did not outright say they were completely nuts, as I thought that would be counter-productive and simply make him stop listening to me.
My main question is - can anyone recommend a book, books, or authors that debunks Icke as if Icke were worth being debunked (e.g., not "if you believe this, you are a loony", but actually checking out the claimed facts and such) that I can recommend to this person to read as an "interesting counterargument"? Also, can anyone make any other suggestions as to a good way to approach this?
The only real way to deprogram someone like this is to try and introduce enough cognitive dissonance that they eventually come to their senses and gain a little bit of introspection. It's not easy, especially without some sort of willingness to listen on the zealot's part.
If he believes anything he reads then you could always just start lending him books about normal, non-crazy topics by authors who aren't wack-jobs.
posted by bshort at 10:07 PM on March 24, 2006
If he believes anything he reads then you could always just start lending him books about normal, non-crazy topics by authors who aren't wack-jobs.
posted by bshort at 10:07 PM on March 24, 2006
But wouldn't someone who believes these sorts of things look at any counterargument as more proof that These Are Big Secrets that The Man is trying to hide?
Find a shrink for your friend.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:16 PM on March 24, 2006
Find a shrink for your friend.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:16 PM on March 24, 2006
Well, first of all, nothing abou MK-ULTRA is likely to be far-out (unless they're talking about aliens). The CIA has done some weird shit.
Other than that, maybe link him to skepdic.com?
posted by borkingchikapa at 10:28 PM on March 24, 2006
Other than that, maybe link him to skepdic.com?
posted by borkingchikapa at 10:28 PM on March 24, 2006
I'd agree that your friend needs a shrink (IANAS). In the shorter term though, the best way to deal with this will likely depend on where he's getting his information from. If, as a knee-jerk guess would suggest, he reads most of it on the internet, it might be useful for him to spend time socializing with non-internet people who are still interested in those general issues (politics, history, etc). If there's a local university that has public speakers on stuff like this, maybe you could take him to some talks. Or get him involved in some local activism or volunteering.
posted by gsteff at 10:30 PM on March 24, 2006
posted by gsteff at 10:30 PM on March 24, 2006
First of all, if any of the conspiracy elements start to be described as real events in your friend's life -- his boss or coworkers turn out to be shapeshifting pedophiles, his suspicion of "certain Jews" turns into Jews screwing him over left and right, or he is directly mind controlled by the CIA -- then this suddenly stops being a lark and becomes a psychiactric situation that you are not qualified to deal with. If it goes that direction, get him some help.
However, for the situation as you've presented it, you'll want to employ Jan Harold Brunvand's Polite Persistent Questioning" technique.
Examples:
S: "There's a plot by aliens to take over the world that's been going on since human prehistory."
Q: "Why would it take them that long? Doesn't that seem to be a needlessly complex way to operate?"
S: "Several big name politicians are shapeshifting pedophiles."
Q: "Would they risk being pedophiles, having so much to hide? All it would take is one child speaking up and the whole conspiracy would be blown..."
S: "The CIA can control people's minds with sound waves."
Q: "That would be a useful tool. I wonder why they let Castro live then, if they could have made him commit suicide. Or if they can do it en masse, why they bother to hide it. They would totally be in control."
In short, there's no need to contradict him. Just help him work out the logical conclusions of the theories he's reading, and guide him towards the places where they contradict themeselves.
posted by tkolar at 11:21 PM on March 24, 2006
However, for the situation as you've presented it, you'll want to employ Jan Harold Brunvand's Polite Persistent Questioning" technique.
Examples:
S: "There's a plot by aliens to take over the world that's been going on since human prehistory."
Q: "Why would it take them that long? Doesn't that seem to be a needlessly complex way to operate?"
S: "Several big name politicians are shapeshifting pedophiles."
Q: "Would they risk being pedophiles, having so much to hide? All it would take is one child speaking up and the whole conspiracy would be blown..."
S: "The CIA can control people's minds with sound waves."
Q: "That would be a useful tool. I wonder why they let Castro live then, if they could have made him commit suicide. Or if they can do it en masse, why they bother to hide it. They would totally be in control."
In short, there's no need to contradict him. Just help him work out the logical conclusions of the theories he's reading, and guide him towards the places where they contradict themeselves.
posted by tkolar at 11:21 PM on March 24, 2006
Or possible "themselves", depending on how you feel about spelling.
posted by tkolar at 11:30 PM on March 24, 2006
posted by tkolar at 11:30 PM on March 24, 2006
[...] argued that certain Jews had orchestrated the Holocaust
Ever notice that conspiracies are always traceable back to the Jews? I think it's one of those Kevin Bacon things. You know, like "x conspiracy has 3 degrees of seperation from the Jews" or whatever.
For some advice on how to deal with your friend, see this AskMe thread.
posted by Afroblanco at 11:31 PM on March 24, 2006
Ever notice that conspiracies are always traceable back to the Jews? I think it's one of those Kevin Bacon things. You know, like "x conspiracy has 3 degrees of seperation from the Jews" or whatever.
For some advice on how to deal with your friend, see this AskMe thread.
posted by Afroblanco at 11:31 PM on March 24, 2006
Try the "Demon Haunted World" or "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time".
May not work: some people are just wired for supernatural explanations. Some are loony too.
posted by lalochezia at 11:40 PM on March 24, 2006
May not work: some people are just wired for supernatural explanations. Some are loony too.
posted by lalochezia at 11:40 PM on March 24, 2006
Response by poster: If I give him something like "Demon Haunted World" or "Why People Believe Weird Things", I'm worried he'll take it as me basically saying, "Here. You've gone insane. Read this." And proceed to get offended and ignore it. I was hoping for something a little subtler, although that may not be possible.
The polite but persistent questioning sounds like a good idea, as do many of the other suggestions, but unfortunately we live in different cities so it'd be hard for me to take him to talks, etc. That's why I was hoping to point him towards a book ... and I'm fairly sure he's getting most of his info from books rather than the internet, although I could be wrong.
I do not think a shrink is called for yet, as it is definitely at the "government controls people's minds" rather than the "government controls *my* mind" stage.
A book that Afroblanco's link led me to was "Them: Adventures With Extremists" (written by the same guy who wrote "The Men Who Stare At Goats"), and that in turn led me to "A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Vision in Contemporary America". Both touch specifically on Icke to some extent. Has anyone read either? If so, would you recommend them for this?
posted by kyrademon at 12:01 AM on March 25, 2006
The polite but persistent questioning sounds like a good idea, as do many of the other suggestions, but unfortunately we live in different cities so it'd be hard for me to take him to talks, etc. That's why I was hoping to point him towards a book ... and I'm fairly sure he's getting most of his info from books rather than the internet, although I could be wrong.
I do not think a shrink is called for yet, as it is definitely at the "government controls people's minds" rather than the "government controls *my* mind" stage.
A book that Afroblanco's link led me to was "Them: Adventures With Extremists" (written by the same guy who wrote "The Men Who Stare At Goats"), and that in turn led me to "A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Vision in Contemporary America". Both touch specifically on Icke to some extent. Has anyone read either? If so, would you recommend them for this?
posted by kyrademon at 12:01 AM on March 25, 2006
Watch the Skies!: A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth
This book blew me away. Totally debunks every UFO-aliens-MKUltra-Reptilian overlord story in the book.
The best part was the history of how we're all still sharing a mythology of aliens in flying saucers that was almost completely invented by a single pulp fiction writer in the 40s. Sure, people had been seeing things in the skies before, but until Raymond Palmer came around, no one had so popularly made the connection that lights in the skies = aliens.
posted by frogan at 12:08 AM on March 25, 2006
This book blew me away. Totally debunks every UFO-aliens-MKUltra-Reptilian overlord story in the book.
The best part was the history of how we're all still sharing a mythology of aliens in flying saucers that was almost completely invented by a single pulp fiction writer in the 40s. Sure, people had been seeing things in the skies before, but until Raymond Palmer came around, no one had so popularly made the connection that lights in the skies = aliens.
posted by frogan at 12:08 AM on March 25, 2006
Conspiracies are dangerous when you belive you have the one true story. I suggest you have your friend expand his data base and read Jeff Wells rigorous Intuition,Dave Emory For The Record,Taking Aim with Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone, ETEMENANKI Goroadachi, Noam Chomsky,Robert Anton Wilson, Eustace Mullens(friend of Ezra Pound) John Gorenfield,Robert Parry. Mae Brussells and Sherman Skolnick.....just off the top of my head. if only one tenth of what is suggested by the writers above is true, then the world is weirder and wider than the new age palingenetic ravings of Mr Icke. lots of conflicting confusing views to consider before swallowing the serpent bloodline stuff, fascinating as genetic memories could be.
posted by hortense at 12:17 AM on March 25, 2006
posted by hortense at 12:17 AM on March 25, 2006
I think your friend may have the beginnings of a mental illness. You should urge him to seek medical help.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:15 AM on March 25, 2006
posted by Ironmouth at 6:15 AM on March 25, 2006
what truly amazes me about this country is how people will latch on to truly ridiculous conspiracy theories at the same time there are many very well documented conspiracies taking place in plain sight. I've yet to attend a dinner party where some wacko has pulled me aside to explain to me about the devious secret plan by the Republicans to isolate every lobbyist in Washington who doesn't subscribe to their right wing extreme fundamentalist view of how the world should function. You know why? Because it's true, it's called the K-Street Project and has been well documented by multiple credible sources. People have no interest in true conspiracies - because then they would have to do something about them. It's much easier to talk about reptiles and UFO's. Turn your friend on to the real conspiracies happening right underneath his nose and then challenge him to take some action instead of reading fiction and feeling helpless.
posted by any major dude at 6:44 AM on March 25, 2006
posted by any major dude at 6:44 AM on March 25, 2006
it's just a side effect of some of the other beliefs that are floating around these days ... such as little green pieces of paper are actually worth something more than pieces of paper ... such as acquiring certain things can actually make a person feel good about themselves ... such as there are people who are (or could be) in political or financial positions who could actually control the fate of the world ... such as the things we see on tv and the daily paper are actually things that are part of our personal reality that we are involved in and can change ... such as there are actual abstractions, such as flags and animal totems, that are worth killing other people for, because they represent "us" and "we" are under attack ... such as we as individuals are actually awake, aware and in control of ourselves and our destinies
if someone believes much of that, it's only a short step to believing in reptilian aliens
such absurd stories serve the purpose of distracting those who sense the unreality of much of what we see and crave an easier explanation than "consensus hallucination" ... not that those who put forth these weird explanations are deliberately misleading people for any other reason than that of making a lot of green pieces of paper ... and it's more than possible that they believe their own absurdities, too
truth is, people's reptilian brains are being acted upon ... and motivating us ... on a daily basis ... truth is, a sort of primitive mind control is going on, but it's only semi-effective because the people who are doing it don't realize what they are doing, or, if they do, they don't realize what all the effects are
think of mr icke as someone who has developed a metaphor or allegory unconsciously ... factually, he's full of crap ... but much of what he says has an emotional resonance to it that speaks to our times
i don't know how you convince your friend that he's got a view of the world that isn't reasonable ... but i don't know how to convince your neighbors that the car in their driveway is more likely to kill them than the terrorists are, either, in a way that they feel emotionally, rather than knowing as an abstract fact
much of what we "know" is mass assumptions ... your friend has taken the path of finding other assumptions to believe, rather than realizing that he will always be participating in some kind of assumption making to explain a world he is too small to understand ... as we all are
so it goes ...
posted by pyramid termite at 6:51 AM on March 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
if someone believes much of that, it's only a short step to believing in reptilian aliens
such absurd stories serve the purpose of distracting those who sense the unreality of much of what we see and crave an easier explanation than "consensus hallucination" ... not that those who put forth these weird explanations are deliberately misleading people for any other reason than that of making a lot of green pieces of paper ... and it's more than possible that they believe their own absurdities, too
truth is, people's reptilian brains are being acted upon ... and motivating us ... on a daily basis ... truth is, a sort of primitive mind control is going on, but it's only semi-effective because the people who are doing it don't realize what they are doing, or, if they do, they don't realize what all the effects are
think of mr icke as someone who has developed a metaphor or allegory unconsciously ... factually, he's full of crap ... but much of what he says has an emotional resonance to it that speaks to our times
i don't know how you convince your friend that he's got a view of the world that isn't reasonable ... but i don't know how to convince your neighbors that the car in their driveway is more likely to kill them than the terrorists are, either, in a way that they feel emotionally, rather than knowing as an abstract fact
much of what we "know" is mass assumptions ... your friend has taken the path of finding other assumptions to believe, rather than realizing that he will always be participating in some kind of assumption making to explain a world he is too small to understand ... as we all are
so it goes ...
posted by pyramid termite at 6:51 AM on March 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
Easy solution (aka The X-Files Solution): give him a bigger conspiracy to supplant the one he currently believes.
For instance, who's to say that all the MK-ULTRA/MAJESTIC-12/ETC. stuff isn't just carefully planted diversionary FUD to get the hounds off of trail of the real plan?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:05 AM on March 25, 2006
For instance, who's to say that all the MK-ULTRA/MAJESTIC-12/ETC. stuff isn't just carefully planted diversionary FUD to get the hounds off of trail of the real plan?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:05 AM on March 25, 2006
I'm afraid that people sometimes become convinced of complete crap and there is not much you can do about it.
I once met a man who had suffered an episode of schizophrenia and had been left with encapsualted delusions (ie his though processes were now normal but he had been left with an 'island of delusion').
In his case the delusion was that he was God.
I had a very pleasant conversation with him over pizza (I was researching a TV documentary) during which I attempted without success to convince him that he wasn't God, and he drew me some very detailed diagrams of the topography of heaven and hell.
When I asked him where his disciples were (he had a Jesus thing going on) he smiled knowingly and said "Well, you're here, aren't you?"
His wife was refreshingly normal. When I asked her if she believed her husband was God she smiled and said, to his face, "do I fuck". He smiled back. They seemed happy.
posted by unSane at 7:31 AM on March 25, 2006
I once met a man who had suffered an episode of schizophrenia and had been left with encapsualted delusions (ie his though processes were now normal but he had been left with an 'island of delusion').
In his case the delusion was that he was God.
I had a very pleasant conversation with him over pizza (I was researching a TV documentary) during which I attempted without success to convince him that he wasn't God, and he drew me some very detailed diagrams of the topography of heaven and hell.
When I asked him where his disciples were (he had a Jesus thing going on) he smiled knowingly and said "Well, you're here, aren't you?"
His wife was refreshingly normal. When I asked her if she believed her husband was God she smiled and said, to his face, "do I fuck". He smiled back. They seemed happy.
posted by unSane at 7:31 AM on March 25, 2006
Them, by Jon Ronson, might be too lighthearted for your buddy, but explains the whole paranoid thing quite well.
posted by scruss at 8:56 AM on March 25, 2006
posted by scruss at 8:56 AM on March 25, 2006
In his case the delusion was that he was God.
namaste
posted by pyramid termite at 9:48 AM on March 25, 2006
namaste
posted by pyramid termite at 9:48 AM on March 25, 2006
(I'm a family physician)
Without knowing your friend's other beliefs, education, drug history, etc. it's hard to say for sure, but it sounds like the problem's more than his belief in a wild conspiracy theory, rather he may have bipolar disease or schizophrenia. Is this a sudden change from his usual personality?
I know you are asking more about reasoning with him to debunk his belief system (and not making a psychiatric diagnosis) but it's important to make the distinction between crazy ideas and crazy. Trying to reason with someone who is chemically imbalanced is very likely to fail and will possible make him feel more isolated, or worse, that you are personally in on the conspiracy and trying to harm him.
That's not to say that it's time to cut off all ties with him, call the ambulance and put him in a straight jacket. Believe it or not, there are many people with bipolar tendencies and delusional belief systems who are functional adults who never seek help for their illness. Whether someone is treated as a mentally ill person depends on whether the person himself defines it as a problem (can't hold down a job, maintain relationships, feels anxious or uncomfortable) or whether the people around him define it as a problem (is your friend abusive, commiting crimes, etc?).
I think (and this is just an opinion), that you need to either accept his crazy conspiracies and hope that it doesn't get in the way of your friendship, or you have to be prepared to help him get medical care.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:03 AM on March 25, 2006
Without knowing your friend's other beliefs, education, drug history, etc. it's hard to say for sure, but it sounds like the problem's more than his belief in a wild conspiracy theory, rather he may have bipolar disease or schizophrenia. Is this a sudden change from his usual personality?
I know you are asking more about reasoning with him to debunk his belief system (and not making a psychiatric diagnosis) but it's important to make the distinction between crazy ideas and crazy. Trying to reason with someone who is chemically imbalanced is very likely to fail and will possible make him feel more isolated, or worse, that you are personally in on the conspiracy and trying to harm him.
That's not to say that it's time to cut off all ties with him, call the ambulance and put him in a straight jacket. Believe it or not, there are many people with bipolar tendencies and delusional belief systems who are functional adults who never seek help for their illness. Whether someone is treated as a mentally ill person depends on whether the person himself defines it as a problem (can't hold down a job, maintain relationships, feels anxious or uncomfortable) or whether the people around him define it as a problem (is your friend abusive, commiting crimes, etc?).
I think (and this is just an opinion), that you need to either accept his crazy conspiracies and hope that it doesn't get in the way of your friendship, or you have to be prepared to help him get medical care.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:03 AM on March 25, 2006
kyrademon wrote...
I was hoping to point him towards a book ...
In that case, I think hortense got it right here. If your friend wants to believe in things that They Don't Want Him To Know, there is no lack of books on the topic, most of them contradicting each other.
posted by tkolar at 10:50 AM on March 25, 2006
I was hoping to point him towards a book ...
In that case, I think hortense got it right here. If your friend wants to believe in things that They Don't Want Him To Know, there is no lack of books on the topic, most of them contradicting each other.
posted by tkolar at 10:50 AM on March 25, 2006
Tell him that if there really is a such vast human flesh-eating reptilian government Nazi hollow Earth Jew conspiracy as outlined by Icke and others, there's really jack squat he can do about it, and he might as well go about his life as normal as possible and have a good time.
Paranoids seem to look for this kind of stuff to give their lives some kind of meaning, conflict, drama or whatever.
And if it's true, and if he's really some kind of superhero here to save the world from becoming an enslaved race of tasty meatsnacks, he best keep quiet about it anyway.
posted by loquacious at 11:28 AM on March 25, 2006
Paranoids seem to look for this kind of stuff to give their lives some kind of meaning, conflict, drama or whatever.
And if it's true, and if he's really some kind of superhero here to save the world from becoming an enslaved race of tasty meatsnacks, he best keep quiet about it anyway.
posted by loquacious at 11:28 AM on March 25, 2006
kyrademon wrote...
...could control people's minds with sound waves.
As a side note, I just wanted to point out that this technology already exists and is in widespread usage. It's called "talk radio", and if you want a good example try arguing with a Rush Limbaugh fan some time...
posted by tkolar at 11:34 AM on March 25, 2006
...could control people's minds with sound waves.
As a side note, I just wanted to point out that this technology already exists and is in widespread usage. It's called "talk radio", and if you want a good example try arguing with a Rush Limbaugh fan some time...
posted by tkolar at 11:34 AM on March 25, 2006
What tkolar said. Great response.
I'd recommend not just recommending books -- pick up the titles upthread that sound most interesting to you, read them first, and then pass them along to him. First of all, it's more friendly-like. Second of all, it's easier access to the information.
Besides, recommending a book on the premise that it's going to contradict this theory that he's gotten into would be less effective, IMO, than pointing out that there's more to this than Icke says there is.
Hey, being a bit paranoid isn't totally nuts, considering our president's position on survelliance and the FBI going back to Vietnam-era-esque investigations of dissenters. So yeah, there's crazy shit going on, and it's a lot more of an imminent threat than the supposed Zionist conspiracy.
posted by desuetude at 12:48 PM on March 25, 2006
I'd recommend not just recommending books -- pick up the titles upthread that sound most interesting to you, read them first, and then pass them along to him. First of all, it's more friendly-like. Second of all, it's easier access to the information.
Besides, recommending a book on the premise that it's going to contradict this theory that he's gotten into would be less effective, IMO, than pointing out that there's more to this than Icke says there is.
Hey, being a bit paranoid isn't totally nuts, considering our president's position on survelliance and the FBI going back to Vietnam-era-esque investigations of dissenters. So yeah, there's crazy shit going on, and it's a lot more of an imminent threat than the supposed Zionist conspiracy.
posted by desuetude at 12:48 PM on March 25, 2006
I really doubt tkolar's method is going to be effective. This is not a rationally derived belief to begin with. It will not be dissolved rationally. In fact, it seems to me that by treating it as arguable you are only more likely to validate it. there are plenty of answers your friend could give to the questions posed above, all easily as credible as the original premises (which is to say, not credible, but you give them credibility by accepting them as starting points). My guess is that if you try to argue with him you are just going to be frustrated. [consider the recent 9/11 conspiracy thread - in the end people just talk past each other]
What is 'crazy by the usual definition of the word'? People with mental illness don't all behave the same way; they just lose touch with reality and with the accepted social constructs (as pyramid termite pointed out above). The beliefs you outline above are far enough outside of the mainstream that he has lost touch with enough of reality to be in a difficult place. He may be functional, but beliefs affect things, and it could get worse. Also, even if his actual beliefs don't develop or affect his behavior, remember that not everyone will be as forgiving as you are. If he mentions this to new people he meets, or on the job, he may just come across as really unstable, prejudiced, or just generally 'better avoided'. I think your options are, as Slarty Bartfast said, either to ignore it or get him to a psychiatrist.
I told him I found a lot of what he said "dubious", but did not outright say they were completely nuts, as I thought that would be counter-productive and simply make him stop listening to me.
to me, this suggests maybe you do think he's mentally unstable, on some level. If a normal friend of mine started saying stuff like that, I'd laugh, then be incredulous - would not be able to control saying they were being crazy. If someone I thought was a little loopy anyway started saying it, I'd back away slowly with the 'dubious' language. It sounds like you are already treating him like he's not 100%. Do you know any of his family members who you could talk to about this?
posted by mdn at 2:07 PM on March 25, 2006
What is 'crazy by the usual definition of the word'? People with mental illness don't all behave the same way; they just lose touch with reality and with the accepted social constructs (as pyramid termite pointed out above). The beliefs you outline above are far enough outside of the mainstream that he has lost touch with enough of reality to be in a difficult place. He may be functional, but beliefs affect things, and it could get worse. Also, even if his actual beliefs don't develop or affect his behavior, remember that not everyone will be as forgiving as you are. If he mentions this to new people he meets, or on the job, he may just come across as really unstable, prejudiced, or just generally 'better avoided'. I think your options are, as Slarty Bartfast said, either to ignore it or get him to a psychiatrist.
I told him I found a lot of what he said "dubious", but did not outright say they were completely nuts, as I thought that would be counter-productive and simply make him stop listening to me.
to me, this suggests maybe you do think he's mentally unstable, on some level. If a normal friend of mine started saying stuff like that, I'd laugh, then be incredulous - would not be able to control saying they were being crazy. If someone I thought was a little loopy anyway started saying it, I'd back away slowly with the 'dubious' language. It sounds like you are already treating him like he's not 100%. Do you know any of his family members who you could talk to about this?
posted by mdn at 2:07 PM on March 25, 2006
Kyrademon,
Could you please post some follow up in the future, I really want to hear where this situation heads? Good luck.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:32 PM on March 25, 2006
Could you please post some follow up in the future, I really want to hear where this situation heads? Good luck.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:32 PM on March 25, 2006
Last year my next door neighbour came out with the full David Icke shebang to me - just as you describe above. I am perfectly certain he is not mad but he is a fairly bright guy who has had little education. What struck me was that this conspiracy theory immediately gave him a sense of superiority - he knew better than the university educated 'experts' who had spent years studying history or politics or economics. All he had to do was read the magic book and - poof!- he was an expert who knew what they didn't.
It's the same with my non-university educated but very bright father who believes fantastical nonsense about Knights templars. I have spent years as a historian learning my trade properly, he reads a piece of crap by some sub- 'Da Vinci Code' pseudo historian and suddenly - poof! - he knows secret things that I don't and he can preen himself on it - instant ego boost.
This is why you'll have a tough time reasoning your friend out of these beliefs, he isn't mad or delusionary. He lacks some critical skills in reading, which he was presumably never taught, and he's found something which in some way meets a need in his personality- it could be to feel powerful ( I know the truth the experts don't!) or special (with this knowledge I can help thwart the conspiracy!) or victimised (they're all out to get us - that's why my world is so bad). You know him better than me, you'll likely have more of a clue as to what need this stuff meets in him. Unless you address that, then sending him a book debunking Icke is unlikely to have much effect.
I reasoned with both my father and my neighbour pointing out huge holes in their arguments and it did no good because of their large emotional investment in their crackpot theories. It's the same as arguing with Creationists. They believe these theories because they make them feel special - so if you attack the theories it's experienced as a 'feel-bad' personal attack and they tend to prefer their 'feel good' theories. It's very difficult to reason people out of these positions.
posted by Flitcraft at 2:51 PM on March 25, 2006
It's the same with my non-university educated but very bright father who believes fantastical nonsense about Knights templars. I have spent years as a historian learning my trade properly, he reads a piece of crap by some sub- 'Da Vinci Code' pseudo historian and suddenly - poof! - he knows secret things that I don't and he can preen himself on it - instant ego boost.
This is why you'll have a tough time reasoning your friend out of these beliefs, he isn't mad or delusionary. He lacks some critical skills in reading, which he was presumably never taught, and he's found something which in some way meets a need in his personality- it could be to feel powerful ( I know the truth the experts don't!) or special (with this knowledge I can help thwart the conspiracy!) or victimised (they're all out to get us - that's why my world is so bad). You know him better than me, you'll likely have more of a clue as to what need this stuff meets in him. Unless you address that, then sending him a book debunking Icke is unlikely to have much effect.
I reasoned with both my father and my neighbour pointing out huge holes in their arguments and it did no good because of their large emotional investment in their crackpot theories. It's the same as arguing with Creationists. They believe these theories because they make them feel special - so if you attack the theories it's experienced as a 'feel-bad' personal attack and they tend to prefer their 'feel good' theories. It's very difficult to reason people out of these positions.
posted by Flitcraft at 2:51 PM on March 25, 2006
mdn wrote...
I think this is a very good point. If one of my friends came to me with these ideas, I would very quickly be saying "Dude, you have gone right off the deep end."
Maybe you should be listening to your intincts here.
posted by tkolar at 3:05 PM on March 25, 2006
I told him I found a lot of what he said "dubious", but did not outright say they were completely nuts, as I thought that would be counter-productive and simply make him stop listening to me.To me, this suggests maybe you do think he's mentally unstable, on some level. If a normal friend of mine started saying stuff like that, I'd laugh, then be incredulous...
I think this is a very good point. If one of my friends came to me with these ideas, I would very quickly be saying "Dude, you have gone right off the deep end."
Maybe you should be listening to your intincts here.
posted by tkolar at 3:05 PM on March 25, 2006
Flitcraft raises an excellent point about the sense of superiority -- I see this in my relatives as well.
I HAVE had discussions that succeeded in getting people to consider the other side of some theories/issues. But they were discussions, not my superior world-view is better than your superior world-view deprogramming sessions. (Flitcraft -- I'm not saying that this was your attitude with your dad and neighbor.)
posted by desuetude at 3:25 PM on March 25, 2006
I HAVE had discussions that succeeded in getting people to consider the other side of some theories/issues. But they were discussions, not my superior world-view is better than your superior world-view deprogramming sessions. (Flitcraft -- I'm not saying that this was your attitude with your dad and neighbor.)
posted by desuetude at 3:25 PM on March 25, 2006
I'd recommend two books by Robert Anton Wilson: Masks of the Illuminati and Illuminatus! (aka The Illuminatus! Trilogy, co-written with Robert Shea).
Both of these have such a wide array of conspiracy theories, counter-conspiracy theories, and hard-nosed sense at the bottom, that they should be able to get someone to a more agnostic point of view ("Nobody really knows what the fuck is going on"). It might drive them a little off the deep edge while they're reading them though...
A better author might be Jacques Vallee, who writes about UFOs from a refreshing perspective -- he's agnostic and inquisitive (although he has a pretty strong case against "nuts and bolts" spaceships being involved, he's convinced something weird is happening, in our brains and/or reality).
Dimensions documents a number of sightings/encounters, highlights the more surreal aspects of the phenomenon (often left out by witnesses already fearing ridicule), and historical parallels with biblical, mythical and documented "religious" incidents (such as succubi, faery abductions and Fatima).
Confrontations covers more direct interaction with physical effects, usually not benign.
Messengers of Deception makes the point that whatever one thinks about the phenomenon, the belief in UFOs itself is very real, and can be and has been manipulated for various purposes. It documents some instances of government/psyops involvement with UFO groups and sightings, which admittedly is a bit of a pro-conspiracy thing...
This trilogy of books might have a soothing influence; it did on me. The guy writes in a calm and lucid manner, and does not rush to conclusions; instead he often has a wait-a-second, let's think this through attidude. E.g. he asks someone who claims to have worked at a massive underground facility at Area 51 with aliens and ufos and all, and a staff of thousands -- "Who takes out the trash?" and stumps him. All in all I came away convinced some weird shit is going on, but noone really knows what -- and anybody who claims to is full of shit. Which, again, is a good sort of stance to have IMO.
And then there are more "sensible", or at least "sensible sounding" conspiracy theories out there. The Yankee and Cowboy War lays out a USA ruled behind the scenes by two competing groups locked in perpetual struggle: the Europe-aligned, internationalist, educated, old-money North-Eastern establishment and the isolationist, action-not-words, new-/oil-money, good old Southern boys. Written almost 30 years ago and it still makes a lot of sense to me, even if at times it overstates its case. A book like this might help bring some perspective, e.g., yes, there are conspiracies, but they are not all-powerful; they consist of ordinary (well, rich and powerful, but human) people.
The Alchemical Braindamage series on the blog of the same name (and its successor blog) has some very helpful things to say, IMO, but is very occult-practice oriented.
Finally, I'm not sure Philip K. Dick would help or hurt in a case like this, but a site like deoxy.org might.
posted by cps at 4:19 PM on March 25, 2006
Both of these have such a wide array of conspiracy theories, counter-conspiracy theories, and hard-nosed sense at the bottom, that they should be able to get someone to a more agnostic point of view ("Nobody really knows what the fuck is going on"). It might drive them a little off the deep edge while they're reading them though...
A better author might be Jacques Vallee, who writes about UFOs from a refreshing perspective -- he's agnostic and inquisitive (although he has a pretty strong case against "nuts and bolts" spaceships being involved, he's convinced something weird is happening, in our brains and/or reality).
Dimensions documents a number of sightings/encounters, highlights the more surreal aspects of the phenomenon (often left out by witnesses already fearing ridicule), and historical parallels with biblical, mythical and documented "religious" incidents (such as succubi, faery abductions and Fatima).
Confrontations covers more direct interaction with physical effects, usually not benign.
Messengers of Deception makes the point that whatever one thinks about the phenomenon, the belief in UFOs itself is very real, and can be and has been manipulated for various purposes. It documents some instances of government/psyops involvement with UFO groups and sightings, which admittedly is a bit of a pro-conspiracy thing...
This trilogy of books might have a soothing influence; it did on me. The guy writes in a calm and lucid manner, and does not rush to conclusions; instead he often has a wait-a-second, let's think this through attidude. E.g. he asks someone who claims to have worked at a massive underground facility at Area 51 with aliens and ufos and all, and a staff of thousands -- "Who takes out the trash?" and stumps him. All in all I came away convinced some weird shit is going on, but noone really knows what -- and anybody who claims to is full of shit. Which, again, is a good sort of stance to have IMO.
And then there are more "sensible", or at least "sensible sounding" conspiracy theories out there. The Yankee and Cowboy War lays out a USA ruled behind the scenes by two competing groups locked in perpetual struggle: the Europe-aligned, internationalist, educated, old-money North-Eastern establishment and the isolationist, action-not-words, new-/oil-money, good old Southern boys. Written almost 30 years ago and it still makes a lot of sense to me, even if at times it overstates its case. A book like this might help bring some perspective, e.g., yes, there are conspiracies, but they are not all-powerful; they consist of ordinary (well, rich and powerful, but human) people.
The Alchemical Braindamage series on the blog of the same name (and its successor blog) has some very helpful things to say, IMO, but is very occult-practice oriented.
Finally, I'm not sure Philip K. Dick would help or hurt in a case like this, but a site like deoxy.org might.
posted by cps at 4:19 PM on March 25, 2006
Just to clarify, all of the books I mentioned are about conspiracies and/or UFOs, and are well-written and interesting. You should be able to get your friend to read them without much difficulty.
So they shouldn't come across as deprogramming or debunking material; the end result aimed at here would be a more agnostic, critical thinking attitude. One where he asks questions like "does this story make any sense?" and "what is this author's motive for selling me this line?". And maybe has a perspective that "there are multiple conspiracies contending in the night", not a single over-all one.
A more directly absurd/humorous, but probably too pointed at this stage, book would be The Book of the Subgenius.
posted by cps at 4:30 PM on March 25, 2006
So they shouldn't come across as deprogramming or debunking material; the end result aimed at here would be a more agnostic, critical thinking attitude. One where he asks questions like "does this story make any sense?" and "what is this author's motive for selling me this line?". And maybe has a perspective that "there are multiple conspiracies contending in the night", not a single over-all one.
A more directly absurd/humorous, but probably too pointed at this stage, book would be The Book of the Subgenius.
posted by cps at 4:30 PM on March 25, 2006
You know, substitute the content of his offensive beliefs for any other logically inconsistent set of facts and the shrink and straight-jacket crowd appear to be equally 'off the deep end'. This person is your friend? Let him believe whatever he wants to believe. His ideas are dangerous? Are they like thought crimes? He has an imagination. If you want to have some fun, feed it. Hortense got it right. And anyone who calls a doctor on him is obviously part of the conspiracy, if you don't get that already. I've got some privledged information here delivered to me through Church of the SubGenius that your good friend could use, I'm sure. Start here.
posted by airguitar at 4:33 PM on March 25, 2006
posted by airguitar at 4:33 PM on March 25, 2006
Tell him that if there really is a such vast human flesh-eating reptilian government Nazi hollow Earth Jew conspiracy as outlined by Icke and others, there's really jack squat he can do about it, and he might as well go about his life as normal as possible and have a good time.
This comment rings true to me. I once had to deal with a conspiracy-monger in my life. After hearing him go on and on, day after day about all the conspiracies around us (and yes, some of them did involve the Jews), I finally had to ask him, "Ok, so given that THEY are all out to get us, what can we do about it?"
His answer?
Silence.
He had absolutely no answer at all.
Ultimately, I think that he was drawn to conspiracy theories because they explained his dissatisfaction with life in a way that absolved him from doing anything about it.
posted by Afroblanco at 4:56 PM on March 25, 2006
This comment rings true to me. I once had to deal with a conspiracy-monger in my life. After hearing him go on and on, day after day about all the conspiracies around us (and yes, some of them did involve the Jews), I finally had to ask him, "Ok, so given that THEY are all out to get us, what can we do about it?"
His answer?
Silence.
He had absolutely no answer at all.
Ultimately, I think that he was drawn to conspiracy theories because they explained his dissatisfaction with life in a way that absolved him from doing anything about it.
posted by Afroblanco at 4:56 PM on March 25, 2006
Response by poster: "Let him believe whatever he wants to believe"
To clarify a couple of things: this is not the first goofy (in my opinion) set of beliefs this friend has mentioned to me, and in general, I have taken just that "who cares" attitude. But ... it's difficult for me not to take the "a secret cabal of Jews were actually responsible for the Holocaust" stuff a bit more seriously. Call me inconsistent, but there's a part of me that really wants to put the brakes on that one posthaste.
As to those who say my friend is definitely already crazy and needs medical help ... no, I disagree. Plenty of people have weird beliefs, sometimes even shared by a large group of other people. I've known plenty of genuinely crazy people, and there is a definite difference between "I believe in this nutty religion" and "I believe I am this nutty religion's messiah."
However, for the reasons I've just mentioned, this particular belief system I find more than usually misguided, offensive, and possibly even dangerous, so if I can find a friendly way to get them going down a different track, I'd like to.
I've sent a few book recommendations based on the info in this thread ... I'll post follow-ups, if there's any follow-up that comes of it.
posted by kyrademon at 5:02 PM on March 25, 2006
To clarify a couple of things: this is not the first goofy (in my opinion) set of beliefs this friend has mentioned to me, and in general, I have taken just that "who cares" attitude. But ... it's difficult for me not to take the "a secret cabal of Jews were actually responsible for the Holocaust" stuff a bit more seriously. Call me inconsistent, but there's a part of me that really wants to put the brakes on that one posthaste.
As to those who say my friend is definitely already crazy and needs medical help ... no, I disagree. Plenty of people have weird beliefs, sometimes even shared by a large group of other people. I've known plenty of genuinely crazy people, and there is a definite difference between "I believe in this nutty religion" and "I believe I am this nutty religion's messiah."
However, for the reasons I've just mentioned, this particular belief system I find more than usually misguided, offensive, and possibly even dangerous, so if I can find a friendly way to get them going down a different track, I'd like to.
I've sent a few book recommendations based on the info in this thread ... I'll post follow-ups, if there's any follow-up that comes of it.
posted by kyrademon at 5:02 PM on March 25, 2006
This reminds me of Dan Savage's recent column where a reader writes in to ask what they can do to change their 18-year-old little sister's mind about her decision to marry an older man, thrice divorced, with a LONG criminal record. Of course, despite similarities, this situation is different, but... Thought I'd share :)
posted by mojabunni at 9:22 PM on March 25, 2006
posted by mojabunni at 9:22 PM on March 25, 2006
This reminds me of Dan Savage's recent column
totally off topic ... but make sure you read the last letter and his response to it ... real funny ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:00 PM on March 25, 2006
totally off topic ... but make sure you read the last letter and his response to it ... real funny ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:00 PM on March 25, 2006
I can't imagine there's anything at all you could do to help. If his beliefs are noxious to you, then you should deal with the situation as you would with someone else who has beliefs you find repugnant.
People that believe really wacky conspiracy theories are not merely credulous—if they're even credulous at all. It takes a lot of swimming upstream to maintain such beliefs and a disbelieving of a great many other (conventional) things. The problem is not being credulous. The real problem here is the need to be privy to some secret knowledge and wisdom. We're all that way, I think, at least in regard to having a sense of how the world works, but also probably just being "in the know". The conventional path for satisfying this need is to actually work pretty hard to learn about the world in one respect or another. Scientists do that, journalists do that. Conspiracy theorists are unwilling to do the work. (And probably people who eagerly embrace certain revelatory religious belief systems.)
And the thing is, for the most part, understanding these sorts of things are not necessary for a functional daily life. If it were, then people that are nutty wouldn't be able to maintain their beliefs. (And, beyond some point, severe cases have exactly this problem.) So what the conspiracy nut gets for being a little odd is the relief and satisfaction of knowing how the world, or a part of it, really is. Without doing any hard work. They have no incentive to discard these crazy beliefs aside from the price they pay for being seen as odd. If they are selective who they reveal these beliefs to, then they can keep that price very low.
If someone's made it to real adulthood, say late-20s, while continuing to believe these sorts of things, then I really don't think they're going to change.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:42 AM on March 29, 2006
People that believe really wacky conspiracy theories are not merely credulous—if they're even credulous at all. It takes a lot of swimming upstream to maintain such beliefs and a disbelieving of a great many other (conventional) things. The problem is not being credulous. The real problem here is the need to be privy to some secret knowledge and wisdom. We're all that way, I think, at least in regard to having a sense of how the world works, but also probably just being "in the know". The conventional path for satisfying this need is to actually work pretty hard to learn about the world in one respect or another. Scientists do that, journalists do that. Conspiracy theorists are unwilling to do the work. (And probably people who eagerly embrace certain revelatory religious belief systems.)
And the thing is, for the most part, understanding these sorts of things are not necessary for a functional daily life. If it were, then people that are nutty wouldn't be able to maintain their beliefs. (And, beyond some point, severe cases have exactly this problem.) So what the conspiracy nut gets for being a little odd is the relief and satisfaction of knowing how the world, or a part of it, really is. Without doing any hard work. They have no incentive to discard these crazy beliefs aside from the price they pay for being seen as odd. If they are selective who they reveal these beliefs to, then they can keep that price very low.
If someone's made it to real adulthood, say late-20s, while continuing to believe these sorts of things, then I really don't think they're going to change.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:42 AM on March 29, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Bear at 9:51 PM on March 24, 2006