gangstalking from a paranoid schizophrenics view

[sadhatter]

Having grown up with a schizophrenic sibling who seemed to think in the same way, I don't find it hard to believe at all.

That is, you'd expect there to be difficulty with abstract thinking and understanding other people's intentions.

That's either the real thing or an absolutely brilliant impersonation.

The vibe seems authentic.

And i grew up with friends who liked to troll the net, and actors. And i can tell you this is no brilliant impersonation. It is a high school level, " read 2 internet pages on schizophrenia." bit of trollin.

Just like when someone is pretending to regress into childhood and they are really displaying an adult persona overlayed with childish actions. This person is very obviously sane and going through a list of schizophrenia symptoms in order to fuel their trollin.

It is impossible to diagnose something over the net, but it is rather easy to spot acting if you know where and how to look.

If this is brilliant acting to you i really hope your a film producer and if so, i would really like to set up a meeting.

 

[calebprime]

Well, can you speak to "when and how to look"?

I'd actually be reassured if you're right.

 

[sadhatter]

Well, can you speak to "when and how to look"?

I'd actually be reassured if you're right.

Not a problem, i've actually played a few people with mental illness in my time.

Give me, an hour or two though i am about to shower. You caught me in my " have a cigar and wake up" phase of the day.

( this is not an excuse post in which i will never come back, i will be back soon, lol.)

 

[sadhatter]

Well, can you speak to "when and how to look"?

I'd actually be reassured if you're right.

So you got me back early, lol.

I will be using many pop and non pop culture references, not because they are correct, but because they are incorrect and illustrate the difference between real and acted mental illness. Also i will get into a bit of technical aspects of acting, if i am jargoning it up too much feel free to ask me to clarify, like the military acting leaves you jargon encrusted sometimes.

The first thing i would point out is that when acting as someone with a mental illness, communication takes precedence over accuracy. If you cannot get ideas to the audience, it doesn't matter that your performance is 100% spot on. Your goal is to get a reaction out of the audience.

Trollin, is more like stage acting than film. You have a level of interaction with the audience, and by a bit of research you can gauge what kind of reactions you will get from what kind of statements. This is a key point, as you will notice certain dead give aways of playing to the audience.

In stage, it is knowing the local area. To see a great example of this, go view some of the " Bottom live" series of stage performances. ( yes indeed this is not a play about mental illness, but it is a golden example of how one plays to an audience.) And notice how in each , when Rik Mayal is looking to get a negative reaction from the audience, he tailors it to what would **** off the locals. Talk about Arsenal in a town that hates arsenal, make fun of a local accent , etc. And it works. People, at some level know that Rik did a bit of wikipedia beforehand, but it doesn't matter.

In the net " The locals" are the forumites, and as much as i hate to say it, there are some very obvious hotspots to hit if you want to cause a reaction. One is mental illness ( causes conversations like this.), another is not seeking medical advice ( look at how often someone is told to seek medical help, and for good reason here.) and these are not nearly the only topics someone like myself could exploit to get a reaction. Both of these concepts are ham fistedly wedged into the posts in this thread.

Getting back to communication.

Notice how when the poster is making statements, ideas that he would want to be clear ( in order to get a reaction. ) are indeed clear, and understanding problems, only seem to come in when they would cause a reaction. ( for example the complete misunderstanding of analogies. An easy way to get textual eye rolls.) This would indicate that someone is, for lack of a better term " writing" a schizophrenic character. With real mental illness there is a real lack of ability to communicate, that doesn't come and go when it is convenient for the person. But when one is trying to portray mental illness, the lack of ability to communicate is only effective when used sparingly.

The problem in pointing to a specific event and saying " see they are acting." is that it is more of a conglomeration of evidence , than a single event. And takes a bit of experience to pick out. the same way a scientist can be fooled by a magician, a seasoned rationalist forumite can be fooled by ( and i hate to use the term in regards to trolls.) an actor.

And the reasons are very similar. A scientist does not know what to look for because an atom doesn't try to trick them, and a person without acting doesn't know specifically what to look for because, in general, while people may lie, seldom do people attempt to act as a completely different person, and beyond that , they seldom have the ability to do research and find out what would " convince" someone.

This person knows your looking for trends A B and C. So their goal is to present trends A B and C without being too obvious about it. The problem comes in that obvious to someone without acting experience and with, are two totally different things. And this works out for the person trollin, because their goal is to cause a reaction, and a conversation between two people about the likelyhood of someone being insane is a reaction.

To give a bit more of an in depth summary of what one looking to act insane would do if they wanted to mess about on the jref. Here is how i would do it...

First get a list of symptoms of schitzophrenia, don't throw them all in one post because it is going to be obvious. Maybe toss in a few grammatical errors to get people thinking " poor mental state". Communicate an idea in a way that will entice people, don't make it too directly offensive, make it more silly or pathetic. Now when people reply is a perfect situation to throw in mental disconnection as a symptom. Pretend not to understand a basic concept, but show that you have read the post. Mention the mental illness as much as possible, this will assure that even new people entering the thread will see it and toss out a " Well your insane." post, leading to more springboards to display more symptoms.

But as much as possible keep the posts coherent to the audience. If you get too real with the symptoms, the posts are not going to make sense, and if done poorly this is a way that most people can catch on that your yanking their chain. Not making sense and trying not to make sense contrast with each other quite a bit.

Think of it like wrestling. If the Heel wanted to cause some real hatred the plot would be that he would shank the face, thereby killing him. But that is not what you want to do to get an audience reaction. You want to play to what they want to see, you want to try and keep it a bit subtle ( a chair to the back in this case versus a screwdriver to the throat.) , and above all you want to have some kind of hook, that keeps people reacting to you even though you are unpleasant.

And once you take away, body language, inflection, and all the other things that give away acting in real life, getting people to believe your part of a certain group is easy as pie. Essentially internet trolls are playing at the game of acting with a corked bat. Streamlining every aspect down to text, thereby eliminating many ways of people being able to tell it is a put on.

I know it is a rather long post, but i would be more than happy to elaborate upon more of the intricacies of acting if anything came off as unclear. And please, take my movie producer comment as the lighthearted put on it was intended as. As opposed to a veiled way of saying " are you an idiot?". I would no more think someone less intelligent than i for not knowing the nuances of a performance than not knowing the nuances of knife throwing.

 

[Pup]

This person is very obviously sane and going through a list of schizophrenia symptoms in order to fuel their trollin.

I can understand someone trolling a forum or two just to stir people up, draw attention to themselves, and so forth, but what would motivate someone who's not mentally ill, to post with a consistent mentally ill persona for years, in a wide variety of places and contexts, including many unremarkable, benign posts not designed to get any kind of reaction?

To me, that kind of breadth and depth in a posting background is enough to tip the balance to "not troll." If a troll's goal is to get a reaction, it's too much work for too little reward, and is totally unnecessary, when a few carefully targeted inflammatory posts would provide easier, quicker and better results.

 

[calebprime]

So you got me back early, lol.

I will be using many pop and non pop culture references, not because they are correct, but because they are incorrect and illustrate the difference between real and acted mental illness. Also i will get into a bit of technical aspects of acting, if i am jargoning it up too much feel free to ask me to clarify, like the military acting leaves you jargon encrusted sometimes.

The first thing i would point out is that when acting as someone with a mental illness, communication takes precedence over accuracy. If you cannot get ideas to the audience, it doesn't matter that your performance is 100% spot on. Your goal is to get a reaction out of the audience.

Trollin, is more like stage acting than film. You have a level of interaction with the audience, and by a bit of research you can gauge what kind of reactions you will get from what kind of statements. This is a key point, as you will notice certain dead give aways of playing to the audience.

In stage, it is knowing the local area. To see a great example of this, go view some of the " Bottom live" series of stage performances. ( yes indeed this is not a play about mental illness, but it is a golden example of how one plays to an audience.) And notice how in each , when Rik Mayal is looking to get a negative reaction from the audience, he tailors it to what would **** off the locals. Talk about Arsenal in a town that hates arsenal, make fun of a local accent , etc. And it works. People, at some level know that Rik did a bit of wikipedia beforehand, but it doesn't matter.

In the net " The locals" are the forumites, and as much as i hate to say it, there are some very obvious hotspots to hit if you want to cause a reaction. One is mental illness ( causes conversations like this.), another is not seeking medical advice ( look at how often someone is told to seek medical help, and for good reason here.) and these are not nearly the only topics someone like myself could exploit to get a reaction. Both of these concepts are ham fistedly wedged into the posts in this thread.

Getting back to communication.

Notice how when the poster is making statements, ideas that he would want to be clear ( in order to get a reaction. ) are indeed clear, and understanding problems, only seem to come in when they would cause a reaction. ( for example the complete misunderstanding of analogies. An easy way to get textual eye rolls.) This would indicate that someone is, for lack of a better term " writing" a schizophrenic character. With real mental illness there is a real lack of ability to communicate, that doesn't come and go when it is convenient for the person. But when one is trying to portray mental illness, the lack of ability to communicate is only effective when used sparingly.

The problem in pointing to a specific event and saying " see they are acting." is that it is more of a conglomeration of evidence , than a single event. And takes a bit of experience to pick out. the same way a scientist can be fooled by a magician, a seasoned rationalist forumite can be fooled by ( and i hate to use the term in regards to trolls.) an actor.

And the reasons are very similar. A scientist does not know what to look for because an atom doesn't try to trick them, and a person without acting doesn't know specifically what to look for because, in general, while people may lie, seldom do people attempt to act as a completely different person, and beyond that , they seldom have the ability to do research and find out what would " convince" someone.

This person knows your looking for trends A B and C. So their goal is to present trends A B and C without being too obvious about it. The problem comes in that obvious to someone without acting experience and with, are two totally different things. And this works out for the person trollin, because their goal is to cause a reaction, and a conversation between two people about the likelyhood of someone being insane is a reaction.

To give a bit more of an in depth summary of what one looking to act insane would do if they wanted to mess about on the jref. Here is how i would do it...

First get a list of symptoms of schitzophrenia, don't throw them all in one post because it is going to be obvious. Maybe toss in a few grammatical errors to get people thinking " poor mental state". Communicate an idea in a way that will entice people, don't make it too directly offensive, make it more silly or pathetic. Now when people reply is a perfect situation to throw in mental disconnection as a symptom. Pretend not to understand a basic concept, but show that you have read the post. Mention the mental illness as much as possible, this will assure that even new people entering the thread will see it and toss out a " Well your insane." post, leading to more springboards to display more symptoms.

But as much as possible keep the posts coherent to the audience. If you get too real with the symptoms, the posts are not going to make sense, and if done poorly this is a way that most people can catch on that your yanking their chain. Not making sense and trying not to make sense contrast with each other quite a bit.

Think of it like wrestling. If the Heel wanted to cause some real hatred the plot would be that he would shank the face, thereby killing him. But that is not what you want to do to get an audience reaction. You want to play to what they want to see, you want to try and keep it a bit subtle ( a chair to the back in this case versus a screwdriver to the throat.) , and above all you want to have some kind of hook, that keeps people reacting to you even though you are unpleasant.

And once you take away, body language, inflection, and all the other things that give away acting in real life, getting people to believe your part of a certain group is easy as pie. Essentially internet trolls are playing at the game of acting with a corked bat. Streamlining every aspect down to text, thereby eliminating many ways of people being able to tell it is a put on.

I know it is a rather long post, but i would be more than happy to elaborate upon more of the intricacies of acting if anything came off as unclear. And please, take my movie producer comment as the lighthearted put on it was intended as. As opposed to a veiled way of saying " are you an idiot?". I would no more think someone less intelligent than i for not knowing the nuances of a performance than not knowing the nuances of knife throwing.

I've read this, and I appreciate the effort. I agree that if someone were trolling, they would do it in the way you describe.

As an example of someone who clearly can reason abstractly just fine, but whose posts on religion leave people scratching their heads, take Epix. From his performance in Doronshadmi's math thread, it's obvious that he can speak coherently about math. It's therefore clear that the cryptic nature of his other posts is due to some cultural differences, and perhaps because he's simply angry at atheists. It's a case of someone who just wants to tell many of the people here to **** off, but is beating around the bush. So no, he's not crazy, or at least that doesn't account for the cryptic nature of many of his posts.

I also agree that there's a slightly over-the-top quality to MNBrant's (Men in Black rant?) posts.

But I'm not aware of any post where he slips up, so to speak, and shows his hand. (Including the "I probably invented trolling" remark.)

I disagree, also, that the poster in question is especially clear, or any more clear than my sister was, when she was non-psychotic and when she was talking about things she understood. Those were fairly concrete things.

It's true, it's harder to tell if you can't see someone in person.

When in doubt, I'd rather try to be kind. If someone claims to be mentally ill, I'd rather treat them politely but without engaging with their ideas too much.

Because you seem convinced, I'm going to go back over all the posts.

I'm sorry, btw, if this is bad form to discuss other posters here this way, but I'm not trying to insult anyone. It's an interesting question. I've always prided myself on having good antennae, but I'm sure I could be fooled.

eta: Oh, just saw Pup's post. I agree, and will take this into account.

 

[Molinaro]

Ah no, they have gangwatcher meetings scheduled on their websites. I am not too sure what that has to do with the moon. Wow thats really off topic. I seem to be bringing in the fringe trolls. I really don't know the size of the membership list since the groups seem to be secretive as well as the people running them. I am wondering if it is some cult looking for suggestible people. The movie the Manchurian Candidate seems to be referenced alot. Maybe they are looking for people who fit the profile.

The point they were making is that you have no evidence but seem perfectly willing to just make up some conclusion that suits you and assert it as being very likely true.

You don't seem at all capable of seeing that your posts here consist of nothing more than you expressing your imagination and asserting it as likely true while dismissing everything that doesn't match your conclusions.

 

[sadhatter]

I can understand someone trolling a forum or two just to stir people up, draw attention to themselves, and so forth, but what would motivate someone who's not mentally ill, to post with a consistent mentally ill persona for years, in a wide variety of places and contexts, including many unremarkable, benign posts not designed to get any kind of reaction?

To me, that kind of breadth and depth in a posting background is enough to tip the balance to "not troll." If a troll's goal is to get a reaction, it's too much work for too little reward, and is totally unnecessary, when a few carefully targeted inflammatory posts would provide easier, quicker and better results.

The thing is though, you have to understand the motivations and tactics of actors. While you see benign posts as useless for causing a reaction, i see " setting the scene.".

If you watched psycho 2 , and Anthony Perkins, from the moment he gets on screen started acting like a complete and utter loon, it wouldn't have been a good performance. If you watched a shakesperian play, and from the second the actor got on stage he was giving 10/10 emoting, it would make the scenes where he has to emote at 10/10 have less impact.

Or to take a personal example. Why on earth would i have spent hours every day for months hanging around old people just to learn how to stand, how to eat, heck how to breathe , like an old person? For a play that gained me no money, no real prospect for recognition , and sucked up months of my life?

The answer is very esoteric to someone who isn't interested in acting, but very simple to people who are. To get the reaction i want out of the audience. The little things are what convince people, and awesomely enough, the little things are what people use as evidence.

Saying " But look at the benign posts, they don't do anything. " is no different than saying " Well, the magician had a blindfold, i don't see how he could have seen out of it.". It is simply a tool of the trade , used to convince people.

 

[sadhatter]

I've read this, and I appreciate the effort. I agree that if someone were trolling, they would do it in the way you describe.

As an example of someone who clearly can reason abstractly just fine, but whose posts on religion leave people scratching their heads, take Epix. From his performance in Doronshadmi's math thread, it's obvious that he can speak coherently about math. It's therefore clear that the cryptic nature of his other posts is due to some cultural differences, and perhaps because he's simply angry at atheists. It's a case of someone who just wants to tell many of the people here to **** off, but is beating around the bush. So no, he's not crazy, or at least that doesn't account for the cryptic nature of many of his posts.

I also agree that there's a slightly over-the-top quality to MNBrant's (Men in Black rant?) posts.

But I'm not aware of any post where he slips up, so to speak, and shows his hand. (Including the "I probably invented trolling" remark.)

I disagree, also, that the poster in question is especially clear, or any more clear than my sister was, when she was non-psychotic and when she was talking about things she understood. Those were fairly concrete things.

It's true, it's harder to tell if you can't see someone in person.

When in doubt, I'd rather try to be kind. If someone claims to be mentally ill, I'd rather treat them politely but without engaging with their ideas too much.

Because you seem convinced, I'm going to go back over all the posts.

I'm sorry, btw, if this is bad form to discuss other posters here this way, but I'm not trying to insult anyone. It's an interesting question. I've always prided myself on having good antennae, but I'm sure I could be fooled.

eta: Oh, just saw Pup's post. Will also take this into account.

I appreciate your effort in reading the post. And i can understand why the concepts would be unclear, you have to keep in mind i am attempting to condense 15 years of acting experience ranging from vaudville esque acts to film, into a post fitting in size for an internet forum.

To clarify a few things.

Waxing and waning are not the evidence , most people with mental illness have their good days and their bad days. The key factor is when this happens. In this case, when he wants to get ideas through, he is clear, very clear. But when it comes to replying, suddenly his comprehension drops.

And not to be offensive, ( i simply have no other way of putting this.) but you not seeing the slip ups is not surprising. The same way someone who isn't versed in reading an x-ray wouldn't notice things. Sure they may notice the large obvious things, but when it comes to trying to deduce subtleties ( and i use the term loosely in this case.) that is where technical knowledge comes in.

People with experience with a given situation ( abuse, mental illness, alcoholism, as some examples of downers. Though the concept is used in comedy to just as great of an effect. Think clerks. ) are the " marks" for actors. You are the people that are going to be looking for specifics, and you are the people we play to. When i was mistaken for being from Scotland , for example, it is because i threw in enough local slang, and niche references in the performance, to convince people that knew of Scotland. But the funny bit is, i know jack about Scotland. ( did then, do now.) I simply knew what someone would be looking for when making a judgment on if i accurately portrayed someone from that location.

And the premise is the same, except instead of knowing the person is performing and making the judgment as to if the performance is good or not. Your undecided on if they are acting and making the judgment as to if they are legitimate or not.

Actors get a bad reputation for being vacuous pieces of furniture picked for their good looks. And for mainstream film actors , i would, for the most part agree. But for people like myself, knowledge of how people react, and what people are looking for is key. I gain it because i enjoy entertaining people, ( and to a lesser extent, for the same reason the poster does. Because i enjoy seeing what kind of reactions i can incite, en masse in a group of people. ) , others gain it for the same reason a thug gains a gun, to cause ( albeit little) harm.

Just like magicians, and using many of the same traits, actors thrive on those who think they can pick out legitimacy. ( think uri geller and scientists) because you are the people that are going to fight for us, and convince others ( either of a good performance true to life, in my case. Or that they are not trollin, as in the op's case.). An actor, in the classic sense, is little more than a confidence man with morals.

 

[sadhatter]

Also i have to state, to anyone involved with the conversation at the moment.

I apologize if my posts come off as offensive. But honestly, to give the point of view of an actor in regards to the audience legitimately, i have to include the element of manipulation. which unfortunately comes off as " your sheep" quite frequently. Your not sheep , i and people like me are just well practiced liars.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Ah. Pretty interesting analysis. It is kind of odd that this site has the resources to get together a bunch of analysts to find every detail of my online life. Lets get to the truth shall we?

1. I have not created a fantasy world where I am being followed around by everyone, I have created a fantasy world where I am in control of everything and am quite successful in it.

2. I do quite alot of schizophrenic studies and am noticing a pattern. The testers were saying at first that I did better than the control group which consists of college age students with no history of mental illness. There is one area that I have trouble with. Figuring out what item would fit into another item. This is probably due to the way I approach problems rather than some sort of lack. One thing they mentioned is the schizophrenics are better able to notice changes in patterns than the control group and I am better at that than any other schizophrenic apparently. There are many areas where I can get 100% correct which apparently the control group cannot reach. Now a days when I take these studies they are very careful not to show me how well I am doing. I did state in one study that I probably do have brain damage but that it was probably in an area I did not need or was otherwise obstructing me. I got confirmation of this when I did a MRI. I asked her about my interest in brain damage and was told alot about enlarged venticles mainly being found in males with schizophrenia. The then said they had found what they were looking for. I took this to mean that they had found brain damage. In the studies I do now they simply say you are doing well whether you got one or all of the questions right. I have taken and failed a test for esp. Right now I am trying to get into a study for MIH and, while they have gotten my medical records, they have expressed disinterest in doing a study on me.

Hmm, what else. I thought the analysis on who was involved in making the pedo bio was cool but didn't have any comments on it. I didn't have any interest in pursuing it and it seems that nobody noticed it. I guess I am interested in looking at your analysis. How do you know what all I have posted. You know there are probably upwards of 20k posts out there and some of them were posted while quite psychotic. It is unlikely you read all of them.

3. As far as typos go, I did have a brain hiccup that goes of periodically when I am writing every 30 seconds or so, so I have to constantly look at what I am writing and edit it. Sometimes I get lazy and skippet.

4. I am not going to take my meds today because my stomach hurt a bit earlier. I will post some random crazy thing tomorrow and ask you if you can tell the difference from my crazy post on meds and my crazy post off meds. There will be a difference I am sure.

 

[sadhatter]

Ah. Pretty interesting analysis. It is kind of odd that this site has the resources to get together a bunch of analysts to find every detail of my online life. Lets get to the truth shall we?

1. I have not created a fantasy world where I am being followed around by everyone, I have created a fantasy world where I am in control of everything and am quite successful in it.

2. I do quite alot of schizophrenic studies and am noticing a pattern. The testers were saying at first that I did better than the control group which consists of college age students with no history of mental illness. There is one area that I have trouble with. Figuring out what item would fit into another item. There are many areas where I can get 100% correct which apparently is a score that the control group cannot reach. Now a days when I take these studies they are very careful not to show me how well I am doing. I did state in one study that I probably do have brain damage but that it was probably in an area I did not need or was otherwise obstructing me. I got confirmation of this when I did a MRI. I asked her about my interest in brain damage and was told alot about enlarged venticles mainly being found in males with schizophrenia. The then said they had found what they were looking for. I took this to mean that they had found brain damage. In the studies I do now they simply say you are doing well whether you got one or all of the questions right. I have taken and failed a test for esp. Right now I am trying to get into a study for MIH and, while they have gotten my medical records, they have expressed disinterest in doing a study on me.

Hmm, what else. I thought the analysis on who was doing the pedo bio was cool but didn't have any comments on it. I didn't have any interest in pursuing it and it seems that nobody noticed it. I guess I am interested in looking at your analysis. How do you know what all I have posted. You know there are probably upwards of 20k posts out there and some of them were posted while quite psychotic. It is unlikely you read all of them.

To use this post as an example.

Essentially this post is the actor stating " I am going to now present delusions of grandeur ." with a side order of what is refereed to in wrestling circles as " Getting cheap heat.". Though in this case , the cheap heat in question is light on the offensive, and heavy on the " i'm insane."

Notice how he mentions it several times in the post, very clearly in order to make it obvious, from a trained eye, a bit too obvious.

Every few posts a new condition or point of contention is brought up. He doesn't take medication, he is on metformin ( a call to those of us with medical background to tell him to take it.) , he has brain damage ( emphasized by the mention of spacial orientation incapability. Again, seems subtle, but to the trained eye it is very ham fisted.), etc, etc. He is throwing out condition after condition in order to see what works, and what can be used as a springboard to more attention.


Honestly, with the exception of the fact i would be doing it better, he is doing exactly what one would want to do in order to make a convincing performance. Combine equal parts pathos and confidence, and play to those who " know " about the subject.

 

[Pup]

Saying " But look at the benign posts, they don't do anything. " is no different than saying " Well, the magician had a blindfold, i don't see how he could have seen out of it.". It is simply a tool of the trade , used to convince people.

The difference is, though, that the actor is presenting the calm moments for contrast, to the same audience. It's all part of the performance.

When those moments are presented in different contexts, to different "audiences," years apart, it really does seem to me like an excess of work for mere trolling, and more like a person's real life (as "real" as a person ever presents themselves in public, since of course we all have difference facets we don't always show).

I've known people who do develop a separate, consistent online persona, that lasts years, but they generally don't use it outside of a certain social mileau. In other words, the guy with a wild west persona, who's always talking about indians and horses and killing, and presents himself as an abrasive confrontational outlaw, may do that for years, but it'll be on gun, horse, history, antique forums, maybe political forums. It doesn't generally carry over to unrelated forums. When he has a plumbing problem or a computer problem, for example, and is corresponding with a different audience that will never overlap, the troll persona fades.

i and people like me are just well practiced liars

LOL! That's so true.

I've taken on roles that I can portray "from the inside," where the fascination of trying to see the world through someone else's eyes is as rewarding as the audience's reaction.

Then there are other roles that are so far removed from my experience that I can only play them "on the outside," focussing on knowing and applying just enough knowledge to convince others, but inside, it's all hollow. Good example: last week I was portraying an American fluent in French. I'm not. I made very sure that I correctly pronounced the few pre-planned French words that I used, and also made sure I subtly manipulated things to stay far away from any situation where I'd need to understand French (it wasn't scripted), but there was no way I could feel on the inside like someone who was bilingual. Yet if I presented an air of confidence, as if I could certainly understand French but just wasn't choosing to mingle with that group speaking French right now, there was really no way for someone to tell what languages I spoke.

Internet trolling has never attracted me personally; I like the full experience, the body language, the tone of voice, the challenge of real time rather than being able to think about a post. But it's still an interesting topic, just because it's all part of human nature and human motivation.

Honestly, with the exception of the fact i would be doing it better, he is doing exactly what one would want to do in order to make a convincing performance.

Out of curiosity, how would you falsify this? In other words, one could say that a person is acting if they seem to play the role too perfectly, hitting the highlights of each symptom. One could also say they're acting if they goof up and leave out or mix up symptoms, since they're not really ill and may not have studied the symptoms well enough. That pretty well covers the spectrum.

So what signs would you expect to see, if a person wasn't acting? In other words, if, theoretically, MNBrant wasn't a troll, what behavior would convince you of that?

Personally, as I said, I'm leaning toward "not troll," (i.e. actually diagnosed as schizophrenic), but may in fact be being fooled.

It is kind of odd that this site has the resources to get together a bunch of analysts to find every detail of my online life

Don't know about others, but for me, it's called Google. Everyone with an internet connection has it.

 

[calebprime]

...
Don't know about others, but for me, it's called Google. Everyone with an internet connection has it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MNBrant#p/a/u/0/loS334KlsO8

There are posts going back to 1999, if not before.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Nope I really am ******* bonkers. Lets see what was on the menu today. First of all was the guy wondering how someone with stage 3 schizophrenia could hold down a job. I just looked up stage 3 schizophrenia and wouldn't you know it, there is a stage 3 of schizophrenia.

Next some voice felt the need to correct my automatic chess definition replacing it with the term robotic chess and then had the nerve to say that I was some kind of robot.

Then I went to a movie with some kind of migrane that caused some cognitive disability but I was able to reroute my thoughts and still function. The side effect of the migraine was to heighten my hearing and make my vision much more vivid which amused me until my cognitive ability returned

Finally there was some war with hell and some of my angels died. I told them to try harder next time, it's for a noble cause and all that. Heh.

Obviously, someone who has made the amount of posts I have made is able to make a reasonable post. I am counting the posts I made since 2007 as 20k not 1999. I was working nights back then til the beginning of this year and spent 3-5 hours a night posting on various sites.



Thats how my day went how the hell was yours.

One question I have is I spent a fair amount of time rehearsing conversations I might have in the future with people. Do you think that this would be considered low functioning?

I am on 4mgs trilifon which is an antipsychotic but so low a dose as to be not effective for most people.

I am wondering where you got the 1999 date from since that is the year I was diagnosed with late onset schizophrenia so its an interesting date for me. I was mostly used my computer for meeting chicks on the internet and playing online games so if you got any opinions that I had still saved from back then that would amuse me greatly.

also I lost a 30 dollar check which made me mad because I am not known for losing things and lets me know that I am having attacks of the dumb ***** right now

Oh I actually don't post on youtube all that much. I probably got about 4000 posts on cbs news and a couple 2000 in a few other places. Heh I have never had anybody connect me to my youtube account.

I really do have a pretty high level of funtioning for a schizophrenic but the reality is that science has the interest in the low functioning ones since caring for them is where the money is. But I know of a number of schizophrenics who are working quietly in low wage jobs and whatnot. As far as my testing comments I made in my last post, I guess its like the winning the special olympics but the two phd students testing me did say that I tested higher than them and I did see a graph of my results of a particular test that was quite a bit higher than the control group. That was before they started lying.

 

[calebprime]

...

I am wondering where you got the 1999 date ...

Hi MNBrant,

You can look at your own posts, if you want.

1) Choose "advanced search" in Google
2) enter MNBrant in the second line called "this exact wording or phrase:"
3) When items come up (there are some 24 pages of results, so it's a lot) choose "cached" so "MNBrant" will be hi-lighted -- this makes it easy to find yourself in all that text.

A few of the results that go back to 1999 are listed below. There was a site that you joined in 1998, though the post was later.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...211&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

and this one is the one I meant:


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...221&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com


MNBrant (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I remember painting an apartment back in high school and one of the customers asked about a wedding ring that disappeared. I said was it a diamond ring? They said yes. I said no I never saw it. They thought that I had stolen it because I said diamond ring. Later they found it behind the bed.

MNBrant (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
yeah when I get paranoid and psychotic I get compulsions to go ask if I am being investigated for anything at the police station. I have never gone in because the best thing that can happen is that I would be committed or go to the psych ward. I probably wouldn't answer questions if investigated by police but I for sure have answered questions about other people. I am not liking the idea that nobody should ever be a witness. You are right about them getting you to say what they want you to say.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Hmm, those comments were from a couple a weeks ago methinks. In 1999 my delusion was that I was in hell. In 2011 my delusion is I run hell. This makes certain delusions mad.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Hi MNBrant,

You can look at your own posts, if you want.

1) Choose "advanced search" in Google
2) enter MNBrant in the second line called "this exact wording or phrase:"
3) When items come up (there are some 24 pages of results, so it's a lot) choose "cached" so "MNBrant" will be hi-lighted -- this makes it easy to find yourself in all that text.

A few of the results that go back to 1999 are listed below. There was a site that you joined in 1998, though the post was later.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...211&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

and this one is the one I meant:


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...221&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com


MNBrant (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I remember painting an apartment back in high school and one of the customers asked about a wedding ring that disappeared. I said was it a diamond ring? They said yes. I said no I never saw it. They thought that I had stolen it because I said diamond ring. Later they found it behind the bed.

MNBrant (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
yeah when I get paranoid and psychotic I get compulsions to go ask if I am being investigated for anything at the police station. I have never gone in because the best thing that can happen is that I would be committed or go to the psych ward. I probably wouldn't answer questions if investigated by police but I for sure have answered questions about other people. I am not liking the idea that nobody should ever be a witness. You are right about them getting you to say what they want you to say.

Someone played with your quotes. one is from 2007 and one is from a couple weeks ago. Its pretty hard to correct someone that is so right he actually enjoys it when someone points out he is wrong.

I should point out that all of my CBS web posts were deleted right after I called all politicians some name that described them as corrupt whereas I pointed out that some of them take cash and others just do it for free or something. After I noticed this, I complained and about half of them were put back in. I would say that old posts are perhaps not the most accurate things in the world. I hear the FBI has a whole department dedicated to deleting and reducing the credibility of old posts. Any law enforcement reading this post want to chime in and let the public know whether or not this is true? Sceptics google before posting.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I know this is a double post but I just think its funny that nobody here is posting on easter. I thought you were all die hard sceptical atheists here. The plot thickens.

 

[jargon buster]

MNBrant wrote

I will post some random crazy thing tomorrow and ask you if you can tell the difference from my crazy post on meds and my crazy post off meds. There will be a difference I am sure.

So without your med's will you have the wherewithal to remember to come back to the forum and make a post?
If thats the case then maybe you don't need the med's.