The Associated Press brings the story that Neil Young and Joni Mitchell believe in: Robert Malone has promulgated conspiracy theories in a 3-hour interview with Joe Rogan on Spotify. The most disturbing conspiracy is the -according to AP invented - theory of Mass Formation. This is a theory without "academic credibility," according to AP, despite referring to "a Belgian professor" in passing. After all, a professor is really an academic affiliated with a university. But how did AP actually come up with this claim? Quite apart from the fact that Mass Formation is a convincingly plausible mix of existing concepts and mechanisms in psychology. And it's not completely 'new' either. A quick search on Wikipedia will suffice. Neil and Joni are unlucky that the American Wiki doesn't just show a translation of the Dutch one, due to a lack of English content.
In the previous post it didn't seem necessary to waste a lot of words on this nonsensical criticism. Now that may be true for me - I am done with it - but perhaps it would make sense for those of us who are a little doubtful to pay some attention to it. After all, Joni, Neil, and all kinds of reliable quality media agree... Surely there must be some truth in it?
The 'debunk' in The Independent was a copy-paste of Associated Press, again indicative of what investigative journalism looks like today. That's a motivation for me to keep blogging. Anyway, the Associated Press, no small fry, brought up two American academics who had never heard of Mass Formation, to prove that it was a fabrication, a conspiracy theory.
The conspiracy content was given an extra conspiracy stamp by a comparison with WWII, where after the war the population woke up from a similar process. The conviction that such a thing should never happen again led to the drafting of the Nuremberg Code, which also includes the universal ban on compulsory and punishable vaccination. There are voices calling for mandatory vaccination to be made an exception. The removal of informed consent has been proposed by EU President Ursula von der Leyen: "How we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union? This needs discussion. This needs a common approach, but it is a discussion that I think has to be led." “How can we [...] promote compulsory vaccination within the European Union?", that is the thinking pattern of war criminals.
The "Informed Consent" rule is scheduled to disappear next month so that people can be forcibly injected with what a parliament does not vote down. Assuming that a parliament still has input when it comes to European mandates. If I were Pfizer, I would hand out free shares to MPs just to be on the safe side. But I digress.
Mass Forming Psychosis in America
American psychologists know the concept Mass Forming Psychosis not. Then I wonder again how that is possible. I'm not a psychologist, but still. How long did the AP have to search to find two academic experts who don't know the phenomenon? Or did the concept really not blow over to the States academically last year, did they not pick it up and above all: has it not been recognized by anyone in all of America? Let alone 'invented'?
That is astonishing, you would almost start to doubt Mattias Desmet who dusted off the Mass Formation Theory, restored it and supplemented it with current insights. This topicality will always remain a variable given the fluid role of the media, the intertwining of government and media, and the interconnectedness of government and science, factors that have unmistakably reared their heads in the corona crisis.
These compartmentalising natural barriers (e.g. dikes, weirs, dams) that are supposed to ensure a balanced flow of information, have not been maintained in times of calm. They have fallen into disuse and calved. In more vigilant times they still had to be broken, now that is no longer necessary. At that time, the media, science and the judiciary were still desperately independent powers. It has now become one big pool with brackish and murky water.
Of course, the best thing to do is to read it from Mattias himself. His new book will be released in a few days (February 4, 2022).
Kilik on the picture to make a reservation
If you want to read up on it, orientate yourself below.
The Americans are talking about Malone's "Mass Forming Psychosis". In doing so, they name the end result of the process: the collective psychosis. But it is precisely the process that is really about: how is that mass formed, how does that eventual psychosis/hypnosis come about? And why don't Americans know that?
I searched Wikipedia for the English term "Mass Forming Psychosis". No results.
There is no English page for "Mass Forming Psychosis". (There is one on the Dutch Wikipedia, I'll get to that in a moment.)
It requires some association and a lot of clicking, but I do find a related page with interesting information: the one about "Crowd psychology" or "Mob psychology". For example, it mentions a study from 1875:Hippolyte Taine's six-partThe Origins of Contemporary France(1875). In this it is already possible to recognize theorizing about mass formation. He refers to the mass behaviour at the time of the French Revolution. The academic parallel is already very much on top of it, I would say. It doesn't stop there.
Gustave Le Bon is mentioned in the academic tradition (Le Bon is also mentioned several times by Mattias Desmet). Furthermore, Freud, Adorno and many other psychological leaders pass by. Among the various ramifications of mass psychology we see names such as Lombroso, Hannah Ahrendt, American psychologists like Festinger, Zimbardo, Floyd Henry Allport... all pioneers of mass formation theory.
Stopper. "American psychologists"...?
As I write, I realize that what AP writes must be considered misleading. This is no longer ignorance. It can't be true that I, as a curious layman with half an hour of Wikipedia, come across a series of American psychologists who, in an age-old tradition, are engaged in the academic formation of concepts about mass psychology, mass thinking, mass sociological norming, mass hysteria, mass psychoses, group hysteria, etc. etc. And all in a way that makes the current focus on mass formation no more than a scientific (and moreover logical) consequence. No academic credibilty amme hula.
Joni and Neil are old and frightened, captivated by the narrative propagated by media outlets like the Associated Press. Assuming that AP does not receive any financial douceurs from the government for this, it remains difficult for me to comprehend. I can understand that the 'masses' exhibit certain behaviors and can be manipulated with fear. But the fact that the pre-eminently 'critical intelligentsia' of the media has no defence against all nonsense stories, that is beyond me.
Of course: journalists are only human, just look at Maarten Keulemans. But is no one able to rise above that matter? They are even blind to the simplest refutation, which can be found in half an hour of Wikipedia. See for yourself the English wiki page of Crowd psychology For example, what do you mean no "academic credibility"? There are relevant paragraphs that should make the mass formation theory "academically credible" even for Americans, which is not to say that it is "the truth," but certainly a legitimate scientific hypothesis:
The Associated Press could have searched the Dutch Wikipedia (but which English speaker uses the 'translate' option in its browser). Actually, AP should have looked for psychologists who do know the phenomenon and who can explain why they don't consider it plausible. The media keep wagging their tails after their experts, who time and time again show that they don't know the ins and outs ("Corona is airborne'), do not have any scientific way of thinking or acting.violations of scientific integrity) and moreover time and time again are completely wrong with their statements, predictions and measures (sources galore).
So it is no different with us and so there is again a striking parallel between what is happening in the United States and in the Netherlands, Belgium and in most other countries of Europe. And it is precisely then that they continue to deny that they are in a collective psychological state. Whether you call that hypnosis, psychosis, hallucination, groupthink gone too far or whatever.
And the main thing the debunks lean on is that Mattias sees similarities to a hypnotic state. The debunks say hypnosis is something else. That's true, and Desmet explains that difference too, but it's ignored.
Wikipedia about Mass Formation
Scientific history
Mass formation (German: Massenbildung) was established in 1921 bySigmund Freuddescribed in his bookCrowd psychology and ego analysis.[4]This describes, among others, Z. Lothane.[5]According to Johnson, the theory must be placed in the context of the social divisions at the time of the Weimar Republic.[6]
Earlier, around 1890,Gustav Le Bon, who is considered a founder of social psychology, already talking about the merging of the individual minds into a collective mind, which can be influenced by suggestions from strong leaders. According to Le Bon, individuals in a crowd do not think rationally and ignore themselves and their own responsibilities. According to him, this could lead to individuals being sacrificed for "the collective". According to Le Bon, the members of the group make irrational decisions because they are trapped in the madness of the masses. AlsoHannah Arendtwarns in her bookTotalitarianismfor the destructive power of the masses.[7]The phenomenon also emerges in the works ofJoost MeerlooandElias Canetti.
More recently, the phenomenon of mass formation in relation to certain corona measures was mentioned by the Ghent professorMattias Desmetand the American virologist and immunologistRobert W. Malone. In doing so, they explain that even far-reaching corona measures that are at odds with certain fundamental rights (such as the exclusion of certain groups from social life on the basis of the 3G and 2G policies) are accepted fairly uncritically by a large part of the population. It could also explain why some go a step further and sow hatred against the unvaccinated. According to Desmet, certain measures have unconsciously degenerated into rituals that create connection; According to him, this explains why there is a lot of resistance to scaling down certain corona measures. Some people dismiss this theory of Desmet and Mallone [sic!] as a conspiracy theory.
Preventing mass formation
The phenomenon of mass formation is difficult to counteract. According to Desmet, who compares it to a form of hypnosis, it can only be weakened by repeatedly presenting moderate, substantiated points of view to those who are "stuck" in the group idea. Violence would exacerbate the process.
Reuters debunks better
Reuters spoke in their debunk also with Steven Reicher, professor of social psychology at the University of St. Andrews, who has studied crowd psychology for more than 40 years. He described the concept of a "mass psychosis" as "more metaphor than science, more ideology than fact." And of course: it's a hypothesis, as far as I'm concerned, the most plausible so far. Now, on the one hand, Reicher argues that the idea of mass formation has been repeatedly undermined (unfortunately without references, very curious about it), but he also adds an interesting angle:
“… Telling people who disagree with you that they have been misled and are in a state of psychosis is essentially a means of silencing them and a form of disrespect. It alienates and thus undermines an attempt at dialogue. It's not an explanation of the problem; It's part of the problem."
Again something to think about. My first thought: we don't tell those people that at all. What we do is "repeatedly present moderate, substantiated views." What they usually do is shout "wappie!". So where is the problem?
