
Capgras syndrome gives us a unique insight into the digital age (2016) - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/to-understand-facebook-study-capgras-syndrome
======
supernumerary
This is o-k. Seems to root it's critique, albeit obliquely, in a strong
skepticism of images and illusion - itself originating (in western culture at
least) with Plato's allegory of the cave. Also seems to route all this through
Freud's notion of the uncanny and doppelgangers. Overall a slightly
incoherent, generally pessimistic view.

For a psychiatrist with altogether more useful approach to Facebook I
recommend Donald Winnicott.

I have written about this here:
[https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-
object.htm...](https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.html)

Bernard Steigler has also written some interesting things in this vein:
[https://iainmait.land/pdf/Automatic-
Society.pdf](https://iainmait.land/pdf/Automatic-Society.pdf)

------
yosito
What does this have to do with Facebook?

~~~
linkmotif
Last paragraph:

> Through history, Capgras syndrome has been a cultural mirror of a
> dissociative mind, where thoughts of recognition and feelings of intimacy
> have been sundered. It is still that mirror. Today we think that what is
> false and artificial in the world around us is substantive and meaningful.
> It’s not that loved ones and friends are mistaken for simulations, but that
> simulations are mistaken for them.

~~~
emmelaich
The second last para is more pertinent. He's saying Facebook et al contribute
to the _reverse of Capgras_ ; we trust people we probably shouldn't:

> _This withering of primate familiarity in the face of technology prompts us
> to mistake an acquaintance for a friend, just because the two of you have a
> Snapchat streak for the last umpteen days, or because you both like all the
> same Facebook pages. It allows us to become intimate with people whose
> familiarity then proves false. After all, we can now fall in love with
> people online whose hair we have never smelled._

~~~
qbrass
It's the same thing that happens to actors when people are fans of the
characters they play. They forget that the actor in real life isn't the person
they know everything about from watching them on TV or whatever.

~~~
DelightOne
It's helpful when there's stories about a king you are supposed to love
though.

------
brudgers
What I dislike about the title of the article is that in pathologizes the use
of social media. What I dislike about the article is that it does not back up
the title with evidence or even an attempt at pure rhetoric. I'm kind of
surprised to see _Nautilus_ publishing an entirely clickbait headline because
usually there is some nexus between its moderately sensationalist headlines
and article content. This one is just a mediocre article about Capgras
syndrome.

------
goialoq
The article makes no connection between Facebook and Capgras syndrome (which
is the feeling that someone you know has been replaced by an impostor). It's
just a luddite scientist who doesn't understand the concept of online social
relationships.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive dismissals here. Even if you're right, you're
only saying it, not showing it. This combined with the snark lowers the
quality of the discussion below not posting anything at all.

A substantive version of this comment might point out some specific aspect of
"online social relationships" that doesn't fit the model of the article.

~~~
ajma
Mentioning Facebook in the title is just clickbait. I'm willing to hear a
scientist talk about disorders and how they related to social media but don't
just use a name to get people to click on an article. It really discredits the
writer for being deceptive.

~~~
sctb
Alright, we've gone with the subtitle which doesn't mention Facebook.

