Author Topic: Shamima Begum - undue influence over the Internet  (Read 520 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Faith

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
  • Respect: +24
Re: Shamima Begum - undue influence over the Internet
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2019, 12:37:15 PM »
+1
Elucidated
If she had been allowed to return to Britian I think that she could have helped people to understand how teenagers may be influenced by the internet or other factors that lead to her radicalization. 

Now, another innocent baby is dead...

Elucidated

  • Kallipolis Agitator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +212
Re: Shamima Begum - undue influence over the Internet
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2019, 01:05:43 PM »
0
Elucidated
If she had been allowed to return to Britian I think that she could have helped people to understand how teenagers may be influenced by the internet or other factors that lead to her radicalization. 

Now, another innocent baby is dead...
I agree

Marc Moïni

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Respect: +57
    • marcmoini.com
Re: Shamima Begum - undue influence over the Internet
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2019, 10:08:00 AM »
0
Whilst these professionals appear highly credible, the model you have presented is not an evidenced study and there are no links to any published papers. However, I am not disputing that childhood trauma causes any or all of the problems listed, this is not my argument. I am taking about susceptibility to influence and I fail to see any mention of  it in anything you’ve presented.

I see I didn't provide enough details on what the chart shows, thank you for pointing it out. It's the second line, Boundaries. Mellody explains that one kind of functional boundary this treatment helps develop, is being able to evaluate someone's words before accepting them as true. This is what she calls the intellectual boundary. I don't recall her specifically mentioning undue influence, but it's clear to me that it is an instance of having trouble to "Is able to both protect and contain his/her self", and the associated presenting problems of "Enmeshment, Control Issues" (last 2 columns).

Do you accept that this does indicate that an abusive childhood makes someone more susceptible to influence?

The last column "The Functional Adult", lists skills that people develop during the course of treatment. With these skills in place, I'm curious what evidence you can present for how undue influence would still be a danger.
My thread began by drawing comparisons between Shamima Begum and the people in the SPE.There was no mention of selecting people with or without trauma for the SPE, but they were screened for any mental health issues or contra-indicative factors before being allowed to take part. i.e they were ‘normal’ and ‘stable’.

Milgram’s obedience to authority is another example of ‘normal’ people being prepared to cause horrible suffering and even death to others on someone else’s say-so. People in the SPE and the Obedience to Authority experiments, obviously did not undergo Pia Melodie’s treatment program. So unless someone had carried out such experiments on people who had under gone it, then there is no evidence in existence for me to present.

In the SPE paper, I see that participants received a questionaire, and then they were interviewed by one or two experimenters. I doubt Zimbardo, Haney, and Banks had enough knowledge of Complex PTSD (aka childhood trauma, codependence) to be able to screen for it. In Milgram's paper I don't even see a questionaire mentioned.

I like your idea of doing a study similar to those, but with only people who have recovered from the effects of childhood trauma. If the results turn out how I think they will, this might be a big step in making childhood trauma more visible, and helping more people free themselves from the extremely handicapping effects on life satisfaction.

And, ok, you're saying you're not aware of any evidence you deem valid, to show that even with a healthy sense of self-love, healthy boundaries, and the 3 other skills in Melody's model, people can still be vulnerable to undue influence.

The onus is on you to prove otherwise as you are the one making the link. I am saying there is no link.

This claim already puzzled me when I first read it on the fdr board. How is it that the situation is not symmetric, with you also needing to provide evidence for what you claim? You say there is no link, and you expect people to just accept this??

If I were to take an intuitive stab-in-the-dark, I would say that someone who had been abused or neglected as a child would have trust issues and would be less likely to be manipulated. A quick Google turned up this:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/nurturing-resilience/201603/horrible-true-early-abuse-can-create-strength


I don't see where this article supports "trust issues reduce likeliness to be manipulated".

Trust issues can show up both ways. They can also make people trust excessively, i.e. trust someone who is being deceitful.

I appreciate your interest in this. If I'm projecting, I'd like to know!
Have you considered it?

As best I can, yes. I'll be grateful for anything you can point out, to help me see any blind spots I have.

Oh, and about Molyneux, yes, he used to talk about child abuse and neglect contributing to most of the ills of society. But him saying that doesn't necessarily make it untrue, isn't it? Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
Yes, Molyneux must be correct at least some of the time, but my point is that he brings almost everything anyone says around to childhood trauma, and I feel both that that is incorrect and that you seem to be doing the same. Perhaps you might consider that not everyone suffered childhood trauma, and that childhood trauma isn't the only reason for things going wrong in people's lives, even though it is the case for some, and as you've indicated previously, for you yourself.

I too dislike Molyneux's all-or-nothing claims, because I think his caricatures turn away people who try to look at things rationally.

My own opinion, is that the incidence of childhood trauma is around 95%. I'm basing this on the fact that I see pretty much everyone around me, manifesting symptoms such as drinking, smoking, emotional eating, binge-watching TV, various other addictive behaviors, and similar apparent attempts to soothe uncomfortable feelings. And the fact that anti-depressants are in the top 5 medications prescribed. I could go on.

And yes, having been through this myself, is very useful for recognizing it in others. I see my friends being defensive like I used to be, at any suggestion that there might be something bothering them. It's interesting, and discouraging as well, to see how strong denial can be. How they insist that the events in their childhood that they admit were very difficult for them, are now in the past, and have no effect on their life today.

Also, this matches the estimates I hear from experts, such as those at the treatment centers I linked, although they don't splash that on their front page, I guess because the sort of studies you would like to see haven't been done yet. I'm convinced that once the DSM is updated to include C-PTSD, the number of cases diagnosed will skyrocket. The facts are already there for everyone to see, it just takes time for institutions to catch up.
lessons from my journey out of confusion and despair:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEy_JSW_saSvsiG6wFnB8DeYUzT26-bA6

Elucidated

  • Kallipolis Agitator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +212
Re: Shamima Begum - undue influence over the Internet
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2019, 05:24:23 PM »
0
I see I didn't provide enough details on what the chart shows, thank you for pointing it out. It's the second line, Boundaries. Mellody explains that one kind of functional boundary this treatment helps develop, is being able to evaluate someone's words before accepting them as true. This is what she calls the intellectual boundary. I don't recall her specifically mentioning undue influence, but it's clear to me that it is an instance of having trouble to "Is able to both protect and contain his/her self", and the associated presenting problems of "Enmeshment, Control Issues" (last 2 columns).

Do you accept that this does indicate that an abusive childhood makes someone more susceptible to influence?
I can see that evaluating someone's words before accepting them would help protect them against manipulation.

In the SPE paper, I see that participants received a questionaire, and then they were interviewed by one or two experimenters. I doubt Zimbardo, Haney, and Banks had enough knowledge of Complex PTSD (aka childhood trauma, codependence) to be able to screen for it. In Milgram's paper I don't even see a questionaire mentioned.
No, and by your 'estimation' of 95% of people having suffered childhood trauma / abuse then this would be a significant factor, but I dispute your estimation. If I were to say I thought it closer to 5%, my opinion would be no more or less valid than yours without any evidence. Even if it were 50%, the results of the studies would still indicate that untraumatised people can be susceptible.


And, ok, you're saying you're not aware of any evidence you deem valid, to show that even with a healthy sense of self-love, healthy boundaries, and the 3 other skills in Melody's model, people can still be vulnerable to undue influence.
I am saying that such evidence can't really exist as most people have not been through Melody's therapy. 

The onus is on you to prove otherwise as you are the one making the link. I am saying there is no link.
This claim already puzzled me when I first read it on the fdr board. How is it that the situation is not symmetric, with you also needing to provide evidence for what you claim? You say there is no link, and you expect people to just accept this??

It's like asking someone to prove there's no such thing as fairies. The absence of any evidence that there are fairies is the only possible 'evidence' there can be. It's not possible to prove the absence of a link whereas if there where a link it may be provable.


I don't see where this article supports "trust issues reduce likeliness to be manipulated".
Yes, I see now my link is also tenuous


My own opinion, is that the incidence of childhood trauma is around 95%. I'm basing this on the fact that I see pretty much everyone around me...


Have you considered confirmation bias? Or perhaps this opinion reflects the group of people in your circle of aquaintance. I'm not saying that it does or doesn't, just asking have you considered it.


And yes, having been through this myself, is very useful for recognizing it in others. I see my friends being defensive like I used to be, at any suggestion that there might be something bothering them. It's interesting, and discouraging as well, to see how strong denial can be. How they insist that the events in their childhood that they admit were very difficult for them, are now in the past, and have no effect on their life today.
It could be that they are in denial, but also perhaps they are correct in their assertions. I have no way of knowing, just something to consider as my own observations of those around be lead me to very different conclusions.


Also, this matches the estimates I hear from experts, such as those at the treatment centers I linked, although they don't splash that on their front page, I guess because the sort of studies you would like to see haven't been done yet. I'm convinced that once the DSM is updated to include C-PTSD, the number of cases diagnosed will skyrocket. The facts are already there for everyone to see, it just takes time for institutions to catch up.
Coming back to my main points;
  • I still assert that anyone, regardless of childhood experience can be manipulated. The SPE and Obedience to authority are evidence for this, along with subsequent studies along those lines. Cult experts, such as Alexandra Stein, Robert Lifton, Steven Hassan, all agree cultic / undue influence / manipulation can happen to anyone.
  • there is no evidence that a non-abusive childhood prevents a person from influence.
  • Your assertion that "the reason almost everyone is so susceptible to situations and influence by others, is that most people encounter big obstacles while growing up, in the form of abuse and/or neglect" is unsubstantiated.
I think that as long as you believe that 95% of people suffered childhood trauma, any studies I may present based on 'normal' or randomly selected people, would by your interpretation be invalid so I think we may be at an impasse.


Elucidated

  • Kallipolis Agitator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +212
Re: Shamima Begum - undue influence over the Internet
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2019, 05:34:34 PM »
0
As a side note - it's so sad to hear that this has resulted in the death of her baby (I believe her 3rd child to die)...
I wonder if the British government has any regrets about their decision.

My comment about her mental health was because she knowingly joined a terrorist organization (not just a cult)...so she went into this with an intent to harm people. This indicates she was not thinking rationally.
Interestingly, regarding the mental health issue, I found this report from the Home Office:

"...individuals who engage in Al Qa'ida-influenced violent extremism are no more likely to suffer from mental illness or personality disorders than the general population."

Faith

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
  • Respect: +24
Re: Shamima Begum - undue influence over the Internet
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2019, 06:43:24 PM »
0
Do you think that's accurate? If you realize that a person who joins a terrorist organization is basically saying that they want to harm people, are they thinking rationally at the time they join? Is that a type of mental illness?

I think it is, but it could also be temporary,  especially when the person is very young.

Its difficult to define mental illness. Usually we think of people who are severely  delusional or paranoid to the point of not being able to function, or those  severely depressed and suicidal. But should we also include people like Alex Jones, Roger Stone , Molyneux,  Ezra Levant?  These are all examples of narcissistic people who knowingly lie for the purpose of hurting others - but they arent diagnosed as mentally ill.

Elucidated

  • Kallipolis Agitator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +212
Re: Shamima Begum - undue influence over the Internet
« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2019, 04:41:57 AM »
0
Do you think that's accurate? If you realize that a person who joins a terrorist organization is basically saying that they want to harm people, are they thinking rationally at the time they join? Is that a type of mental illness?

I think it is, but it could also be temporary,  especially when the person is very young.

Its difficult to define mental illness. Usually we think of people who are severely  delusional or paranoid to the point of not being able to function, or those  severely depressed and suicidal. But should we also include people like Alex Jones, Roger Stone , Molyneux,  Ezra Levant?  These are all examples of narcissistic people who knowingly lie for the purpose of hurting others - but they arent diagnosed as mentally ill.

Yes, I guess it does come down to defining mental illness, we are all on a continuum and I suppose sometimes the boundaries may become blurred.


Marc Moïni

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Respect: +57
    • marcmoini.com
Re: Shamima Begum - undue influence over the Internet
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2019, 10:50:09 AM »
0
I can see that evaluating someone's words before accepting them would help protect them against manipulation.


Ok, at least we agree this part does make some sense.

No, and by your 'estimation' of 95% of people having suffered childhood trauma / abuse then this would be a significant factor, but I dispute your estimation. If I were to say I thought it closer to 5%, my opinion would be no more or less valid than yours without any evidence. Even if it were 50%, the results of the studies would still indicate that untraumatised people can be susceptible.


Seems to me that if the incidence was something like 30%, or 50%, or 70%, then the effect would have appeared in those studies. There would be two clear types of response to the situation, instead of everyone appearing to be susceptible to influence just the same as everyone else. So the fact that this wasn't detected, I take to mean it's probably either 5% or 95%.

And, ok, you're saying you're not aware of any evidence you deem valid, to show that even with a healthy sense of self-love, healthy boundaries, and the 3 other skills in Melody's model, people can still be vulnerable to undue influence.

I am saying that such evidence can't really exist as most people have not been through Melody's therapy.


How so? I think it's possible to do studies to the SPE and Milgram's, with people who have been through whatever kind of therapy (or other experience) that helped them develop those skills. This would show whether or not these skills protect against undue influence.

The onus is on you to prove otherwise as you are the one making the link. I am saying there is no link.
This claim already puzzled me when I first read it on the fdr board. How is it that the situation is not symmetric, with you also needing to provide evidence for what you claim? You say there is no link, and you expect people to just accept this??


It's like asking someone to prove there's no such thing as fairies. The absence of any evidence that there are fairies is the only possible 'evidence' there can be. It's not possible to prove the absence of a link whereas if there where a link it may be provable.


Thanks for explaining. I think when talking about high susceptibility to influence, or if you prefer, extreme difficulty of sticking to one's principles in stressful situations, it's not true that there are no people who have been able to stick to their principles. Which shows that no, not everyone is susceptible to undue influence just the same as everyone else.

My own opinion, is that the incidence of childhood trauma is around 95%. I'm basing this on the fact that I see pretty much everyone around me...

Have you considered confirmation bias? Or perhaps this opinion reflects the group of people in your circle of aquaintance. I'm not saying that it does or doesn't, just asking have you considered it.


Sorry, I mean everyone I see, in real life and online. Not just the people I know. And yes, it could be I'm misinterpreting what I observe. In my opinion, noticing such distortions in oneself is extremely difficult. I do try to look for them. And I appreciate that you're trying to help me see any there might be. It would help if you could point more specifically to anything you see, please.

It could be that they are in denial, but also perhaps they are correct in their assertions. I have no way of knowing, just something to consider as my own observations of those around be lead me to very different conclusions.


My reply here is the same as to your preceding point.

Coming back to my main points;
  • I still assert that anyone, regardless of childhood experience can be manipulated. The SPE and Obedience to authority are evidence for this, along with subsequent studies along those lines. Cult experts, such as Alexandra Stein, Robert Lifton, Steven Hassan, all agree cultic / undue influence / manipulation can happen to anyone.
  • there is no evidence that a non-abusive childhood prevents a person from influence.
  • Your assertion that "the reason almost everyone is so susceptible to situations and influence by others, is that most people encounter big obstacles while growing up, in the form of abuse and/or neglect" is unsubstantiated.
I think that as long as you believe that 95% of people suffered childhood trauma, any studies I may present based on 'normal' or randomly selected people, would by your interpretation be invalid so I think we may be at an impasse.


"The SPE and Obedience to authority are evidence for this": You hold on to this opinion, despite my point that they didn't screen for people showing issues with the core skills those treatment centers focus on?

And yes, I see any study which fails to take that into account, as non-conclusive.

There is evidence that most people do suffer abuse and/or neglect, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_Childhood_Experiences_Study#Education :
"ACEs exposure is widespread in the US, one study from the National Survey of Children’s Health reported that approximately 68% of children 0–17 years old had experienced one or more ACEs."

(And, yes, Molyneux has caricatured ACEs to death, saying that anyone who disagrees with him does so because they're unable to think clearly due to ACEs)

What you are questioning is that this is in large part what makes people susceptible to undue influence, if I understand correctly. I've given some indication of the links and the how and why, used by recovery and rehabilitation experts.

So it does seem like we are at impasse right now, if all you will accept is studies and experts specifically saying "untreated abuse and/or neglect in childhood is the largest factor making people susceptible to undue influence", and if I don't have this evidence.

In any case, I'm grateful to you for this discussion, I think it does help, to talk about these issues calmly and with mutual respect.

I'm also grateful because when initially reading your last reply, it reminded me of Molyneux's listener conversations, and how I think he used these to influence the caller as well as the listeners. And that reminded me of a project a friend wanted to see done, a show where people could call-in for free and get help for whatever problem they were having. Basically what Molyneux was pretending to do, except he was mixing in a lot of really damaging stuff, I think. And I realized that I can now see myself doing this. So I've started this, and I'm very happy because I'm hoping it will help a lot of people. Thank you for helping me remember this project!

Here's the link, for the curious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qYw5N42jo
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
lessons from my journey out of confusion and despair:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEy_JSW_saSvsiG6wFnB8DeYUzT26-bA6