Is ‘Crank Magnetism’ a new form of mental illness?

kavanap2

I am interested to hear people’s opinions on the condition of ‘Crank magnetism’. Is it just simple eccentricity or a more serious mental condition.

For anyone not familiar with this condition, as I’m sure most people are not, its describes people that fervently believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories to the point that they live their lives according to these bizarre theories. (Jim Corr and David Ike are excellent examples).

For more detailed info, please check out these links:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

The reason I am asking is because I have been in a relationship with somebody who fits this profile exactly. At first I thought it was just a bit of fun (conspiracy theories, New World Order etc...) not to be taken too seriously, but as I got to know the person more I realised that it had more serious consequences. She spent many hours a day browsing the internet reading all of this type of stuff and believed everything she read. As a result she didn’t trust conventional medicine because she believed that every major disease was created by the pharmaceutical industry to make money. As a result she bought alternative medicine called ‘miracle mineral solution’ over the internet which claims to cure every known disease including AIDS and cancer! I googled the product and found very disturbing articles including a FDA warning not to use it because it produces a potent bleach:

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm220756.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/15/miracle-mineral-solutions-mms-bleach

When I explained to her what I had found she totally rejected my concern and said that the FDA is also in on the conspiracy! It shocked me to see how gullible she was and that she couldn’t see how damaging this solution is. When she started to feel ill she told me that ‘removing all the toxins and bad bacteria from my system’ and this was proof that it was working! I pleaded with her to see sense but to no avail. I asked her if she would also give it to her hypothetical children and she said yes! This worried me. She also believed in the most bizarre conspiracy theories – for instance, that the British Royal family were secretly ‘Reptilians’ from another planet. I could go on but I think you get the drift. This type of behaviour and belief system put an incredible amount of pressure on the relationship. And there was no reasoning with her, it was like she was brainwashed. I probably don’t even know the half of it, she is very secretive, who knows what else she capable of doing. I wonder if this is a new form of mental illness that, so far, has not been recognised?

JuliusCaesar

It's very close to paranoia, which turns out to be fairly rife among the population, according to Daniel Freeman.

The Skeptics Society recently had a talk given by a staff member of Sense About Science, which is full of interesting information, especially on the topic of "toxins".

Here's more, and more.

cranks

Nothing new there OP bar a new name for an age old inclination.

Curing all diseases - pah! such claims are as old as the hills. Conspiracy theories - ya-de-ya-de-ya-da! Bloody crusades were waged on such folly. Check out William Mackay's 1841 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'. Covers all this lark. The chapter on The Magnetisers' might interest you - substitute 'crank' for 'quack' (as used by Mackay) and you'll be in the flow of things pretty quickly. A great book to have on your shelf but in the interim here's a Project Guttenberg link to that chapter. The whole book is worth a read, BTW.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/dvi.html#magnetisers

No cures offered in this book - just maybe a little insight. Enjoy.

Gingermagic

You want to label her with a mental illness because she believes differently to you and some of society.

I wonder if you think foreigners should be labelled the same....as being "mentally ill", there beliefs are not your, there medicines would be different, and their belief in history would also be different.

Granted she should not be buying pills n potions off the internet, that is just silly, however if her interest is alternative medicine, suggest she do a course. Also suggest that if she finds info that is NOT from a conspiriacy to show you. Problem with people who go on these sites and follow the links it only links them to other conspiriacy sites.....so the original "truth" is nigh impossible to find.

She has an interest, and if she is spending all her time on the internet, friend you are doing something wrong....especially if you have no children;)

To treat it like an illness is wrong in my opinion

JuliusCaesar

Gingermagic wrote: »

You want to label her with a mental illness because she believes differently to you and some almost all of society....

FYP

Gingermagic wrote: »

To treat it like an illness is wrong in my opinion

Ok, Gingermagic, lets hear the rationale for your opinion.... this is Psychology and not After Hours... JC

krd

kavanap2 wrote: »

This worried me. She also believed in the most bizarre conspiracy theories – for instance, that the British Royal family were secretly ‘Reptilians’ from another planet. I could go on but I think you get the drift.

This type of behaviour and belief system put an incredible amount of pressure on the relationship. And there was no reasoning with her, it was like she was brainwashed. I probably don’t even know the half of it, she is very secretive, who knows what else she capable of doing. I wonder if this is a new form of mental illness that, so far, has not been recognised?

It depends - some people are into all this nonsense because, it's an entertaining hobby. Like some people who are into the paranormal - but they're not nuts, don't believe ghost stories, they just like doing it for the heebee jeebies.

Then there are other people who just have strange beliefs. You can't really blame them. When I was a child, I used to believe in virgin births, people ressurecting from the dead, and flying off into outer space.

The 911 conspiracy nuts are a little sickening. They dismiss the official story - which is plausible. And then they piece together an incongruous and contradictory patch work of absurdity. If you argue with them, they present a piece of "evidence". When you debunk the "evidence", they move onto to another piece of "evidence" (which is often based on a faulty premise) when you debunk that, they keep going, until you're back at the original piece of "evidence" that was debunked earlier. And they start in their circle again.

A few days ago on a comment board I was on. A 911 nut came on it. Claiming there was scientific evidence for a controlled demolition - from reputable scientists. There were engineers and even scientists on the board, who were able to debunk every point. His reputable scientists turned out to be highly disreputable kranks. But he keeps going, in a circle - eventually coming back to the point of there being unchallenged scientific evidence for a a controlled demolition, from reputable scientists.

I don't know if the kranks are insane. But they have a very disturbing tendency to believe the most outlandish claims, and totally disregard the more plausible explanations - or they believe things there is absolutely no evidence for - and then use these beliefs to challenge the official story. Also the contradictions in their beliefs. One minute they'll believe it's the freemasons behind everything, then it's the knights templar and the illuminati, then it's the Elders of Zion, then it's the New World Order. The only consistency in their beliefs, is that each element must be absurd - it doesn't matter if the elements contradict each other. As long as they're mad as bag of cats, they fit them into their minds without dissonance.


Then there's mania. When people are actually developing mental illness - a manifestation could be in strange religious beliefs or beliefs in the supernatural - if they're receiving communications from the spirit world, it's a good sign of schizophrenia. Paranoia is also a sign of schizophrenia.

steoin

Gingermagic wrote: »

You want to label her with a mental illness because she believes differently to you and some of society.

I wonder if you think foreigners should be labelled the same....as being "mentally ill", there beliefs are not your, there medicines would be different, and their belief in history would also be different.

Am..... why exactly would "foreigners" beliefs be different to "yours" and he never said this...... you made this connection and i find it a little condescendingly and immature


medicines different, is that not common in every culture? alternative medicine reki etc i find it difficult to understand how being foreign would mean a completely different viewpoint on medicine it may look at the thread on psychoanalysis and you will see plenty of disagreement between different schools of though.

Their "beliefs in history" how would their beliefs in history be different? tbh this gets on my nerves as i find it and the last few points to be dishonest

Granted she should not be buying pills n potions off the internet, that is just silly, however if her interest is alternative medicine, suggest she do a course. Also suggest that if she finds info that is NOT from a conspiriacy to show you. Problem with people who go on these sites and follow the links it only links them to other conspiriacy sites.....so the original "truth" is nigh impossible to find.


Excellent point but adding to this I feel any site that refutes the claim is either misinformed or part of the conspiracy

She has an interest, and if she is spending all her time on the internet, friend you are doing something wrong....especially if you have no children;)

To treat it like an illness is wrong in my opinion
Ok but it can hardly be viewed as healthy behaviour.

I can however appreciate your accepting stance but the defending of behaviour that is dangerous for the sake of individuality i cannot agree with the man has asked whether she would give this to her children which she would and that is IMHO nothing short of abuse.

Valmont

The way the mental illness industry is going, I'd say Catholicism will be a mental illness by 2025. Labelling someone as mentally ill on the basis of political beliefs is very lazy -- I'd wager that my libertarian views would probably elicit similar diagnoses from some of you of a more left-wing persuasion.

The politics of psychology!

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Ok, Gingermagic, lets hear the rationale for your opinion.... this is Psychology and not After Hours... JC

I think the burden of proof rests on those who proclaim it is an illness in the first place.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

It's very close to paranoia, which turns out to be fairly rife among the population, according to Daniel Freeman.

The Skeptics Society recently had a talk given by a staff member of Sense About Science, which is full of interesting information, especially on the topic of "toxins".

Here's more, and more.

I've read these links and I'm slightly curious: what would lead a psychologist to a 'diagnosis' of paranoia? What if someone expresses the idea that J.F.K was killed by elements within the U.S. government? Would that suffice?

I'm only suspicious of all this talk of paranoia (:pac:) and 'crank magnetism' because once you strip away the medical jargon, you essentially have some differing opinions regarding what constitutes evidence and some judgements by psychologists on people perceived to be inferior in some way (i.e. not buying the AGW narrative). My question is what use is labelling differences of opinion as paranoia or mental illness? How does this help anyone? It seems to be a convenient way of labelling those with differing opinions as mad or deranged, nothing more.

JuliusCaesar

Valmont wrote: »

The way the mental illness industry is going, I'd say Catholicism will be a mental illness by 2025. Labelling someone as mentally ill on the basis of political beliefs is very lazy -- I'd wager that my libertarian views would probably elicit similar diagnoses from some of you of a more left-wing persuasion.

:rolleyes:

Valmont wrote: »

I think the burden of proof rests on those who proclaim it is an illness in the first place.

Who has proclaimed it an illness? I don't think you'll find it in the DSM or ICD.

Valmont wrote: »

I've read these links and I'm slightly curious: what would lead a psychologist to a 'diagnosis' of paranoia?......
My question is what use is labelling differences of opinion as paranoia or mental illness? How does this help anyone?

Paranoia is generally quite clear - when a person suffers from delusions of persecution. That is, they think certain people are out to get them - not some general conspiracy theory. There's room for general eccentricity, divergent views, crank beliefs, being odd as two left feet, without people receiving a psychiatric diagnosis.

What sometimes is a hazy line is that between self-consciousness and paranoia - the kind of extreme self-consciousness found sometimes in social phobia for example.

Look at the difference between delusions, overvalued ideas, and unusual beliefs - there's quite a lot written on this subject.

Valmont

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Who has proclaimed it an illness? I don't think you'll find it in the DSM or ICD.

Nobody has proclaimed anything (my error) but the OP is asking whether it should be included. And looking the rate of increase in new illnesses included in the DSM, I don't I'm being too unreasonable in predicting that something along the lines of crank magnetism personality disorder being included in the near future.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Look at the difference between delusions, overvalued ideas, and unusual beliefs - there's quite a lot written on this subject.

Could you recommend a starting point? Do you think there is a point where overvalued beliefs or unusual beliefs constitute an illness?

JuliusCaesar

Overvalued ideas - here's a paper by Veale; a couple by Mullen.

I'd be inclined to the continuum idea, rather than seeing them as seperate categories altogether.

I think that the USA will be adopting the ICD in future, which may put a halt to the gallop of new diagnoses of new illnesses, never recognised before. Which everyone suspects of being driven by pharmaceutical companies. But that may be a delusion, an over-valued idea, paranoia, or pure crackpot conspiracy theory!

krd

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Paranoia is generally quite clear - when a person suffers from delusions of persecution. That is, they think certain people are out to get them - not some general conspiracy theory. There's room for general eccentricity, divergent views, crank beliefs, being odd as two left feet, without people receiving a psychiatric diagnosis.

Never forget Martha Mitchell though.

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

Psychologist Brendan Maher named the effect after Martha Beall Mitchell.Mrs. Mitchell was the wife of John Mitchell, Attorney-General in the Nixon administration. When she alleged that White House officials were engaged in illegal activities, her claims were attributed to mental illness. Ultimately, however, the relevant facts of the Watergate scandal vindicated her and hence attracted to her the title of "Cassandra of Watergate".



Also when I was just searching for stuff there, I saw the title of a paper. Something like, Misdiagnosis by paranoia, by psychiatrists in the cases of mobbing. .....Sometimes, they, are, really out to get you.

I think paranoia might be a healthy alarm mechanism - that just gets out of hand under the influence of certain substances, and with people with mental health problems.

Say if you're experiencing a problem with a passive aggressive person. You may be aware something has been done - as in someone has done something. Your paranoia may be on the button. Then again, a person may be trying to destabilise a workplace or social group through creating paranoia in its members.

Paranoia is horrible.

JuliusCaesar

I've posted this before but it's worth posting again: Paranoia research study.

krd

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I've posted this before but it's worth posting again: Paranoia research study.

That's interesting. I would like to see if there was more depth to it.

I think paranoia, is one of those interesting things, that the more you look at it, more complicated it gets.

My personal experience. If I'm in a hostile environment, or going through a hostile experience, my paranoia goes through the roof - and it's very unpleasant (and experience has taught me, that on occasions I have not been paranoid enough). But if I'm in an environment that is not hostile, the paranoia vanishes. I'm less concious of strangers - and don't even really care about them.

But if you're in a hostile environment, it is unhealthy and dangerous not to be paranoid. You may need to err on the side of caution, when it comes to reading facial expressions. Simply, a predator, will try to sneak up on you. So, a smile is not always a smile. A smile, may be an attempt to mask hostility. A smile can betray hostility - a smile can be a sneer. A blank face...especially a completely blank face, is hiding something - you have to look harder. If the muscles in the face are relaxed it's just listlessness, if there is a little tension (usually you'll spot the eyes are just a little too wide ) then the blank face is false. Of course, that won't tell you whether the face is hiding hostility, fear, or disgust.


There's no such thing as a neutral social situation. There can't be such a thing as neutral social situation. The blank faces, and stares off into space, you'll see on faces on crowded trains, are actually, explicit requests for no social interaction - they are social interactions.

If there was such a thing as a neutral social situation, the people with autism wouldn't have so much trouble in life.

Even the irrationality of paranoid fantasies may be essential. Person X is introduced to your social or work group. They seem nice, charming and friendly. They are even exceptionally friendly to you. Then..after a short time, you begin having problems in your social interactions - sudden inexplicable froideur - you even catch someone giving you a side glance of disgust or even fear - none of this has any explanation. Paranoia kicks in. The new person is still being very nice to you - even more friendly than before. You run through fantasies - trying to create narratives to understand why your social situation is turning sour. You line up the suspects. Investigate, eliminate people from your enquiry - reintroduce them. You keep coming back to Mr. Nice - but this seems irrational - he's always so nice to you. You do some further investigation - have some luck - someone in your social group tells you Mr. Nice is ridiculing you behind your back, spreading lies, gathering a mob. Now, you're in a position of awareness, and you can make moves to counteract them. All this has been arrived through paranoia. Not pleasant, but some people just are not that pleasant.

One single malicious person, can sour an entire social group and turn a workplace toxic. They may even create an atmosphere of paranoia to help them along.

In the clip Daniel Freeman says at one point
"Some people who feel a little paranoid, often act in a way, some very timidly, that illicits different reactions from the people"

Bullies, rapists, etc, have a way of picking their targets. Though these people would probably not be able to verbalise what they're looking for with absolute clarity. What they are looking for is people who have been victims of violence and rape etc. I really don't like the way Freeman puts this statement - it's really back to the idea that the victim illicits the attack - that they bring it on themselves. The predator, the bully, the arsehole, is the instigator - they read facial expressions, social cues, looking for a victim - they're looking for a wound (there may be just enough anxiety there to expose the wound), and then they attack. They attack, because they enjoy the suffering of others, not because their victim invited them. An anxious victim is a more pleasurable victim.

You can't really tell a woman, who has been attacked and raped at a train station, not to show anxiety when they are riding trains in the future, as this could "provoke" another attack. I was in a discussion recently with a group of women who had all experienced varying degrees of sexual assault on public transport in London. I was really shocked. Most of them had had experiences again and again and again. Their anxiety and paranoia, is not surprising.