5 ms·

I will probably not be convinced to believe these group of people, but I am troubled by the fact that the author has written this article with the pre-assumptio

I will probably not be convinced to believe these group of people, but I am troubled by the fact that the author has written this article with the pre-assumption that these people are absolutely, without any doubt, sick and being paranoid. When you are covering a story where there are conflicting views, it is not nice to pick one side and see the opposing view as an illness that needs to be treated. It is just not right, no matter how absurd the opposing view sounds to you.

danmaz74 10y ago
The author isn't saying that "these people are absolutely, without any doubt, sick and being paranoid". What he actually said is: "A large number appear to have delusional disorder or schizophrenia, psychiatrists say."
- paradite 10y ago
  At a glance, yes, the author did cover both sides of the story. But if you do read carefully, you would notice the wording and tone clearly suggest the author's opinion and pre-assumption. The whole article resembles an interview of a group of patients and their doctors. Some quotes that reveals the author's view: "For the few specialists who have looked closely, these individuals represent an alarming development in the history of mental illness: thousands of sick people, banded together and demanding recognition on the basis of shared paranoias." "The vast majority of people with psychosis never resort to violence. Still, studies suggest that a small number of those experiencing psychotic episodes — especially paranoid thoughts, accompanied by voices making commands — are more likely to act on hostile urges than people without a mental illness." "The big hope is that society will wake up to what’s happening and put a stop to it, those who feel targeted say. In some cases, they do seek psychiatric help. In others, the delusions subside. For the rest, the prognosis isn’t good, psychiatrists say. Many contemplate suicide." "One thing he is certain of though, he says: He’s not crazy."
Retric 10y ago
Always trying to present a 'balanced' view is an extreme form of bias. 10 million well informed people on one side 10 fools on the other. Let's give them equal air time. Someone is always going to disagree and trying to accommodate extreme fringe beliefs basically prevents you from communicating accurately. Worse it adds a fake air of legitimacy to every wack-job out there.
- LionessLover 10y ago
  > 10 million people on one side 10 people on the other. 10 million who are not involved in the slightest and would not even know about this without seeing it in the news. So your argument is, since x billion (not just million) people don't know something we can already conclude it doesn't exist. I'm attacking your numbers argument, nothing else. And your "someone will always disagree" is completely out of place - it's true about about something not present in this story at all. So by throwing in some random true fact you made your 2nd argument. Last, the comparison with "climate deniers" (others in this thread) is bogus too: The difference is that topic was WAS discussed at great length - and the "deniers" did get heard. So yes, after hearing all sides there is no need to give everyone equal time. In this story however we hear about it for the very first time, and while I certainly don't expect to give them equal time for their views, and personally would not bother one iota, it makes me wonder: What happens when we hear such stories and always automatically assume they are wrong? For me it's not about this one single story, but how we handle such stories in general. Always throwing the "majority opinion" view around seems misguided. I'm not much concerned about this particular case, but about the generalities thrown around here like the the "10 million people" argument above. Just because those people are sick doesn't make your justification/reasoning correct - somebody else being wrong doesn't make you right automatically!
  - notahacker 10y ago
    There's a whole bunch of different heuristics we can use to make a judgement on this one. "Most people don't believe this" is a pretty poor standard for evidence. "No logical reason for these particular people to be stalked has been identified, the only people that believe this activity is actually taking place appear to be those claiming to actually suffer from it; experts in mental illness who have studied some of the individuals claiming to experience the phenomena note that they are exhibiting well-established symptoms of mental illnesses" is a pretty good standard of evidence. Unlike most almost-certainly-incorrect beliefs, it also appears that those who come to adopt this one genuinely suffer from it, so I'm not even convinced the assumption that we should consider it pretty plausible and encourage both sides of the argument to publicise their case would be a benign one. (A corollary of this is that even in the staggeringly unlikely event that independent evidence can be found that some shadowy group actually is attempting to unsettle a particular individual by sending out minions to gas stations to mimic their actions, they'd probably feel even more intimidated for receiving that confirmation)
jboynyc 10y ago
If you were to report on climate change deniers, would you not focus on the fact that they are denying something that overwhelming scientific evidence attests to? Or if somebody claimed the earth was flat, would your report say, "gee, there's an opposing view, guess we'll never know who's right"?
- ams6110 10y ago
  I think if you were to write a report on such a topic you would have to honestly examine their arguments and to what extent they have any credible basis. Otherwise, to write a report about a subject where supposedly there is already an overwhelming agreement seems a waste of time. Who would you be trying to convince?
- salgernon 10y ago
  In American that is exactly what the climate change deniers and young earth creationists demand - that we give equal time to their ideas. "Teach the controversy." The controversy only exists in the mind of that minority, and their extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (Thanks, Carl Sagan) - the birthers, climate change deniers, creationists trump supporters and spoon benders fail to meet the minimum criteria, but their bombastic temperaments make for good press coverage, which keeps them in the headlines and in our collective consciousness.
  - brador 10y ago
    We should not be teaching blindly following an absolute in any science. There is always doubt, and if counter evidence exists it should be presented not swept under the rug because a majority disagree. Equal time? No. Should it be discussed? Absolutely yes.
    - salgernon 10y ago
      No, it shouldn't be, in the context of studying science. Creationism has no more validity than any other creation myth. It should be dismissed from science as readily as Zeus, Ra, or Xenu. The appropriate place to study mythology is in a mythology class - until and unless that mythology offers falsifiable evidence to support moving it into the sphere of reality.
capitalsigma 10y ago
I don't know if you've ever experienced psychosis, but this story sounds very familiar to those who have. It would be like reporting on people in rehab and writing under the assumption that maybe no one really has a problem with heroin and it would be fine to shoot up just a little bit from time to time.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

danmaz74 10y ago

The author isn't saying that "these people are absolutely, without any doubt, sick and being paranoid". What he actually said is: "A large number appear to have delusional disorder or schizophrenia, psychiatrists say."

paradite 10y ago
At a glance, yes, the author did cover both sides of the story. But if you do read carefully, you would notice the wording and tone clearly suggest the author's opinion and pre-assumption. The whole article resembles an interview of a group of patients and their doctors. Some quotes that reveals the author's view: "For the few specialists who have looked closely, these individuals represent an alarming development in the history of mental illness: thousands of sick people, banded together and demanding recognition on the basis of shared paranoias." "The vast majority of people with psychosis never resort to violence. Still, studies suggest that a small number of those experiencing psychotic episodes — especially paranoid thoughts, accompanied by voices making commands — are more likely to act on hostile urges than people without a mental illness." "The big hope is that society will wake up to what’s happening and put a stop to it, those who feel targeted say. In some cases, they do seek psychiatric help. In others, the delusions subside. For the rest, the prognosis isn’t good, psychiatrists say. Many contemplate suicide." "One thing he is certain of though, he says: He’s not crazy."

Retric 10y ago

Always trying to present a 'balanced' view is an extreme form of bias. 10 million well informed people on one side 10 fools on the other. Let's give them equal air time. Someone is always going to disagree and trying to accommodate extreme fringe beliefs basically prevents you from communicating accurately. Worse it adds a fake air of legitimacy to every wack-job out there.

LionessLover 10y ago
> 10 million people on one side 10 people on the other. 10 million who are not involved in the slightest and would not even know about this without seeing it in the news. So your argument is, since x billion (not just million) people don't know something we can already conclude it doesn't exist. I'm attacking your numbers argument, nothing else. And your "someone will always disagree" is completely out of place - it's true about about something not present in this story at all. So by throwing in some random true fact you made your 2nd argument. Last, the comparison with "climate deniers" (others in this thread) is bogus too: The difference is that topic was WAS discussed at great length - and the "deniers" did get heard. So yes, after hearing all sides there is no need to give everyone equal time. In this story however we hear about it for the very first time, and while I certainly don't expect to give them equal time for their views, and personally would not bother one iota, it makes me wonder: What happens when we hear such stories and always automatically assume they are wrong? For me it's not about this one single story, but how we handle such stories in general. Always throwing the "majority opinion" view around seems misguided. I'm not much concerned about this particular case, but about the generalities thrown around here like the the "10 million people" argument above. Just because those people are sick doesn't make your justification/reasoning correct - somebody else being wrong doesn't make you right automatically!
- notahacker 10y ago
  There's a whole bunch of different heuristics we can use to make a judgement on this one. "Most people don't believe this" is a pretty poor standard for evidence. "No logical reason for these particular people to be stalked has been identified, the only people that believe this activity is actually taking place appear to be those claiming to actually suffer from it; experts in mental illness who have studied some of the individuals claiming to experience the phenomena note that they are exhibiting well-established symptoms of mental illnesses" is a pretty good standard of evidence. Unlike most almost-certainly-incorrect beliefs, it also appears that those who come to adopt this one genuinely suffer from it, so I'm not even convinced the assumption that we should consider it pretty plausible and encourage both sides of the argument to publicise their case would be a benign one. (A corollary of this is that even in the staggeringly unlikely event that independent evidence can be found that some shadowy group actually is attempting to unsettle a particular individual by sending out minions to gas stations to mimic their actions, they'd probably feel even more intimidated for receiving that confirmation)

jboynyc 10y ago

If you were to report on climate change deniers, would you not focus on the fact that they are denying something that overwhelming scientific evidence attests to? Or if somebody claimed the earth was flat, would your report say, "gee, there's an opposing view, guess we'll never know who's right"?

ams6110 10y ago
I think if you were to write a report on such a topic you would have to honestly examine their arguments and to what extent they have any credible basis. Otherwise, to write a report about a subject where supposedly there is already an overwhelming agreement seems a waste of time. Who would you be trying to convince?
salgernon 10y ago
In American that is exactly what the climate change deniers and young earth creationists demand - that we give equal time to their ideas. "Teach the controversy." The controversy only exists in the mind of that minority, and their extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (Thanks, Carl Sagan) - the birthers, climate change deniers, creationists trump supporters and spoon benders fail to meet the minimum criteria, but their bombastic temperaments make for good press coverage, which keeps them in the headlines and in our collective consciousness.
- brador 10y ago
  We should not be teaching blindly following an absolute in any science. There is always doubt, and if counter evidence exists it should be presented not swept under the rug because a majority disagree. Equal time? No. Should it be discussed? Absolutely yes.
  - salgernon 10y ago
    No, it shouldn't be, in the context of studying science. Creationism has no more validity than any other creation myth. It should be dismissed from science as readily as Zeus, Ra, or Xenu. The appropriate place to study mythology is in a mythology class - until and unless that mythology offers falsifiable evidence to support moving it into the sphere of reality.

capitalsigma 10y ago

I don't know if you've ever experienced psychosis, but this story sounds very familiar to those who have. It would be like reporting on people in rehab and writing under the assumption that maybe no one really has a problem with heroin and it would be fine to shoot up just a little bit from time to time.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]