4 ms·

I think you overestimate how many of us agree with you.

by hodwik 11y ago

williamcotton 11y ago
It seems like many people on this forum would be considered by many psychiatric professionals to be suffering from delusions about the government, but perhaps there is a silent majority of HackerNews readers who are not as overtly paranoid about government surveillance. I doubt the actual levels of paranoia as well. These are Internet comment boards. There's a lot of huffing and puffing and general stage theatrics.
- jkyle 11y ago
  > It seems like many people on this forum would be considered by many psychiatric professionals to be suffering from delusions about the government, The way the OP framed the therapist's response, sure. Of course, they're telling their perspective on what the therapist responded. Having worked with therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and studied it to some degree in my early college including internships the more typical concern of a therapist is not the veracity of your beliefs (they're largely irrelevant), but the degree to which they are causing distress and if that distress is to a level that it interferes with your ability to function in society and form meaningful relationships With 'meaningful' defined by your personal satisfaction with the relationships and the satisfaction of those you have relationships with. This is the criteria for all behaviors in the DSM that causes a spectrum of behaviors or beliefs to shift on the continuum of 'normal' to 'abnormal' for the purpose of diagnosis. In practice, that means they could care less if you think the government (or God, or FSM, or Xenu) is watching your every move...but only if that keeps you from leaving your house or causes you significant distress. Or kept you from forming relationships because you thought they were government agents. For example, here is the definition of delusion from the DSM V Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture* (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.* Emphasis mine. The point is by virtue of most people in the subculture of hackers believe this way means that, by definition, it is not delusional. But again, if it keeps you from getting to the grocery store it would likely be worth considering medication. ;)
pessimizer 11y ago
That the government collects all of our data and wants to take away encryption that it can't break? You also agree with that, or you are in radical opposition to the government's opinion on its own positions.
- solipsism 11y ago
  Maybe this is too fine a point for this discussion, but "the government" is not a single entity. It's many different entities, often with differing points of view on any given topic. Some parts of the government want to backdoor all encryption. Others state publicly that that would be a horrible idea.
  - zo1 11y ago
    When people say "the government", they mean the specific institution or individuals that this applies to and form part of the government. When it comes to the powers of "government institutions", it seldom makes a difference that only "parts" of the government believe/do what is being discussed. To say otherwise, I believe, is to try detract from the actual implications and make them seem more benign and less dangerous. I.e. "Oh, don't worry that the CIA is spying on you, the 'supreme court' will make sure your rights are upheld!"
    - solipsism 11y ago
      it seldom makes a difference that only "parts" of the government believe/do what is being discussed If you believe that, then it doesn't seem like you understand the basic concept of checks and balances very well. The fact that checks and balances can be perverted and subverted and are imperfect doesn't imply they are completely ineffective and irrelevant. The fact that the FBI is fighting in court for the ability to command Apple to hack the iPhone is a perfect example of this. "The government" wants to force Apple. O..K... "the government" isn't going to let "the government" do that. This is a useful way to talk about things to you?
      - zo1 11y ago
BEEdwards 11y ago
It is a fact though, you disagree with it and you disagree with the statements and actions of our government. The question is how existentially frightening you think that fact is.

I think you overestimate how many of us agree with you.

by hodwik 11y ago

I think you overestimate how many of us agree with you.

It seems like many people on this forum would be considered by many psychiatric professionals to be suffering from delusions about the government, but perhaps there is a silent majority of HackerNews readers who are not as overtly paranoid about government surveillance. I doubt the actual levels of paranoia as well. These are Internet comment boards. There's a lot of huffing and puffing and general stage theatrics.

jkyle 11y ago
> It seems like many people on this forum would be considered by many psychiatric professionals to be suffering from delusions about the government, The way the OP framed the therapist's response, sure. Of course, they're telling their perspective on what the therapist responded. Having worked with therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and studied it to some degree in my early college including internships the more typical concern of a therapist is not the veracity of your beliefs (they're largely irrelevant), but the degree to which they are causing distress and if that distress is to a level that it interferes with your ability to function in society and form meaningful relationships With 'meaningful' defined by your personal satisfaction with the relationships and the satisfaction of those you have relationships with. This is the criteria for all behaviors in the DSM that causes a spectrum of behaviors or beliefs to shift on the continuum of 'normal' to 'abnormal' for the purpose of diagnosis. In practice, that means they could care less if you think the government (or God, or FSM, or Xenu) is watching your every move...but only if that keeps you from leaving your house or causes you significant distress. Or kept you from forming relationships because you thought they were government agents. For example, here is the definition of delusion from the DSM V Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture* (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.* Emphasis mine. The point is by virtue of most people in the subculture of hackers believe this way means that, by definition, it is not delusional. But again, if it keeps you from getting to the grocery store it would likely be worth considering medication. ;)

pessimizer 11y ago

That the government collects all of our data and wants to take away encryption that it can't break? You also agree with that, or you are in radical opposition to the government's opinion on its own positions.

solipsism 11y ago
Maybe this is too fine a point for this discussion, but "the government" is not a single entity. It's many different entities, often with differing points of view on any given topic. Some parts of the government want to backdoor all encryption. Others state publicly that that would be a horrible idea.
- zo1 11y ago
  When people say "the government", they mean the specific institution or individuals that this applies to and form part of the government. When it comes to the powers of "government institutions", it seldom makes a difference that only "parts" of the government believe/do what is being discussed. To say otherwise, I believe, is to try detract from the actual implications and make them seem more benign and less dangerous. I.e. "Oh, don't worry that the CIA is spying on you, the 'supreme court' will make sure your rights are upheld!"
  - solipsism 11y ago
    it seldom makes a difference that only "parts" of the government believe/do what is being discussed If you believe that, then it doesn't seem like you understand the basic concept of checks and balances very well. The fact that checks and balances can be perverted and subverted and are imperfect doesn't imply they are completely ineffective and irrelevant. The fact that the FBI is fighting in court for the ability to command Apple to hack the iPhone is a perfect example of this. "The government" wants to force Apple. O..K... "the government" isn't going to let "the government" do that. This is a useful way to talk about things to you?
    - zo1 11y ago

BEEdwards 11y ago

It is a fact though, you disagree with it and you disagree with the statements and actions of our government. The question is how existentially frightening you think that fact is.