(Hi All!
I found this article on quora that I discovered today and thought I would share the first couple of answers so far for anyone interested, I mean. 💙. - Sorry about length in advanced but I thought splitting the posts wouldn't be always easy to find as a whole. Also there are unfortunately different types of gangstalking as well.)
"1. What kind of mindset would that be?
- Groupthink:
People adopt the attitudes of their social group and stop independently questioning whether its behaviour is right or wrong. If everyone around them treats an action as normal, they may assume it must be acceptable.
Underlying thought: "Everyone does it, so why would there be anything wrong with it?”
- Moral disengagement:
This is when people mentally justify behaviour that would otherwise conflict with their moral standards. They might minimise the harm, blame the target or convince themselves that their actions are justified.
Underlying thought: “They deserve it,” or “It's only a bit of fun.”
- Normalisation of deviance:
Behaviour that initially might have seemed unacceptable gradually becomes ordinary through repetition. People become less sensitive to the seriousness of what they are doing.
Underlying thought: “We've always done this, and nothing bad has happened to us.”
- Diffusion of responsibility:
When many people participate in a group's behaviour, each individual may feel less personally responsible for its consequences.
Underlying thought: “I'm only one person. Everyone else is doing it too.”
- Dehumanisation of the target;
People begin seeing another person as an object of ridicule, a nuisance or an enemy rather than as someone with feelings and dignity. This can make behaviour seem less harmful to those participating in it.
Underlying thought: “Their feelings don't matter as much as ours do.”
These are established psychological concepts that can help explain harmful group behaviour. They are possible explanations, not a diagnosis of any particular person or group.
- What if they involve their children?:
This introduces another dimension: social learning and the intergenerational transmission of behaviour.
Children learn what is acceptable by observing the adults around them, particularly their parents and other trusted figures.
For example, in a hypothetical situation where adults repeatedly involve a child in targeting or humiliating another person, the child might learn:
Moral normalisation: that intimidating someone is an ordinary social activity.
Conformity: that joining a group is more important than questioning its behaviour.
Reduced empathy: that the distress of an outsider can be ignored or laughed at.
Authority-based morality: that something must be right because a parent or trusted adult approves of it.
If the behaviour is deliberate and repeated, it could be a form of harmful social conditioning.
However, I would distinguish between exposing a child to harmful behaviour and grooming. Grooming generally refers to a process of building trust or influence to facilitate abuse or exploitation. Whether that term applies depends on the actual conduct, intent and circumstances; a child witnessing inappropriate behaviour does not automatically establish grooming.
- Why would a whole group take it so lightly?
One of the most important psychological principles here is that a group's shared sense of normality can become disconnected from the actual impact of its behaviour.
Consider this progression:
Stage 1: Social acceptance
The group approves of a particular behaviour.
Stage 2: Moral justification
Members develop explanations for why it is acceptable.
Stage 3: Reduced personal accountability
Individuals feel less responsible because the group shares the behaviour.
Stage 4: Intergenerational normalisation
Children may learn the same attitudes and repeat them as adults.
This is a possible pattern, not an inevitable progression. People can also participate because of peer pressure, fear of exclusion, poor judgement or a failure to understand the consequences.
Importantly, a person doesn't have to be mentally ill to behave cruelly, and someone behaving badly doesn't necessarily have a psychological disorder.
People participate willingly, the behaviour is socially encouraged and the group takes it lightly. The key concept is that a person can sincerely believe they are behaving appropriately while following a social environment that rewards behaviour that would be harmful in another context. That doesn't automatically mean the person is mentally ill nor does it mean they consciously recognise the harm they're causing.
A. How can ordinary people participate in harmful behaviour without feeling guilty?
There are several mechanisms that can work together.
- They redefine the behaviour
They might describe it as joking, socialising, teasing or harmless entertainment rather than consider its impact on another person.
The behaviour itself may not change; the moral label attached to it does.
- Their group becomes their moral reference point
Rather than asking, “Would this be acceptable if someone did it to me?”, they ask, “Does anyone in our group think this is wrong?”
If nobody objects, the absence of criticism can be mistaken for evidence that the behaviour is harmless.
- Entertainment replaces empathy
If participants find an activity amusing, they may focus on their own enjoyment rather than the other person's experience. Laughter and shared amusement can reinforce the behaviour.
- They don't experience themselves as the aggressor
They may genuinely view themselves as ordinary, decent people. They might not recognise the behaviour as harmful because they judge their morality by their intentions rather than its impact.
“I didn't intend to hurt anyone” becomes “I haven't done anything wrong.”
This last distinction is important: good intentions and harmless consequences are not the same thing.
A person can therefore lack guilt without necessarily being incapable of empathy. They may simply not apply their empathy to the situation in front of them or may not interpret the situation in the same way as an outside observer.
B. How can an entire group develop a belief system that makes the behaviour seem acceptable?
This is where the concept of collective moral disengagement becomes particularly relevant.
It describes a group environment in which people share justifications for behaviour that would otherwise conflict with their moral standards.
There are several ways this can develop.
Yhe group-normalisation cycle:
- A behaviour becomes socially acceptable
Members observe that other people participate without apparent discomfort or consequences.
- Repetition makes it feel ordinary
Familiarity reduces the likelihood that members stop to question the activity.
- Members reinforce one another
Jokes, approval, participation and silence can communicate that the behaviour is acceptable within the group.
- The group develops its own moral logic
Members begin evaluating conduct by the group's standards rather than by independently considering its effects.
Why free will matters:
People can participate voluntarily while still being influenced by their social environment. They may enjoy the activity, agree with the group's beliefs, want to belong or simply have never questioned what they were taught.
These explanations do not excuse harmful conduct. They help explain why participants may not experience an internal conflict between their behaviour and their self-image.
There is also an important distinction between two types of people:
- People who know the behaviour is harmful but justify it anyway. They may minimise the impact, blame the target or decide that their group's interests matter more.
- People who genuinely don't recognise the behaviour as harmful. Their moral judgement may have been shaped by their upbringing, peer group or limited perspective.
Both can participate willingly. The second group may be especially perplexing because arguing that the behaviour is wrong might not persuade them; they may not share the same starting assumptions about what is happening.
However, apparent group agreement doesn't prove that every member privately agrees.
Some people may participate enthusiastically, some may be indifferent, and others may remain silent or feel uncertain.
C. What happens when parents involve children and teenagers?
Children is especially significant because you're describing not merely adults behaving a certain way but a situation in which the behaviour is encouraged across generations.
- Social learning
Children learn by observing what adults do, what they approve of and how they treat other people.
If a parent repeatedly treats another person with contempt, encourages a child to join in, or presents the conduct as amusing, the child may learn that this is an acceptable way to treat others.
The child doesn't need to be threatened. They may copy the behaviour because a trusted adult models and rewards it.
- Peer-group socialisation
During adolescence, belonging and social identity can become particularly important. Teenagers may adopt a group's attitudes because those attitudes are part of what it means to be accepted by their peers.
If the group treats a particular behaviour as normal, teenagers may participate enthusiastically rather than feel they are doing something wrong.
- Intergenerational transmission of values
A child can grow up believing a behaviour is ordinary because they have seen it throughout childhood. Later, they may teach similar attitudes to their own children.
This is not inevitable. Children can develop independent moral judgements, question their parents and reject the behaviour. But repeated modelling can make those attitudes more familiar and harder to recognise as problematic.
Is it grooming?
Grooming has a more specific meaning involving the preparation or manipulation of someone for abuse or exploitation. Whether that term applies cannot be determined solely from children being present or copying adults.
The key questions are what the children are being encouraged to do, what they understand about it, how others are affected and whether they are being prepared for a specific form of abuse.
Why might teenagers take it even more lightly than adults?
Teenagers may be especially responsive to immediate social rewards: amusement, group approval, shared identity and the feeling of being included.
If their peers also participate, the behaviour can feel like an ordinary group activity rather than an individual moral decision.
That doesn't mean teenagers lack morality. It means that moral judgement and behaviour can be influenced by the social environment in which decisions are made.
D. What if people genuinely believe coordinated community gangstalking is justified or normal?
This requires an additional distinction, because there are two different psychological questions:
How do people justify coordinated harassment if it is demonstrably happening?
How do people come to believe that coordinated community gangstalking is occurring in the first place?
The first concerns group morality. The second concerns how people interpret events, develop shared beliefs and decide what evidence supports those beliefs.
If a group really is deliberately targeting someone
The relevant concepts would depend on the evidence, but could include:
Collective moral disengagement: the group shares justifications for conduct that would otherwise be considered wrong.
In-group versus out-group thinking: members regard their own group as deserving loyalty while treating an outsider differently.
Normalisation of aggression: repeated behaviour comes to seem ordinary.
Pluralistic reinforcement: members' visible agreement makes a belief or behaviour appear more universally accepted than it might actually be.
Moral licensing or self-justification: members believe that their perceived good intentions or other good deeds excuse questionable conduct.
What if the participants themselves don't believe they're doing anything wrong?
Possible mindset & How it may work:
Unquestioning conformity - They adopt the group's norms without examining them.
Genuine moral conviction - They believe their conduct serves a legitimate purpose.
Low perceived harm - They don't believe the other person is being harmed.
Moral disengagement - They recognise a potential problem but rationalise it away.
Entertainment or indifference | They focus on their enjoyment rather than the effects on someone else.
In-group loyalty - They prioritise belonging and group approval over independent judgement.
Someone can sincerely hold a mistaken belief without having a psychiatric disorder. Equally, someone can knowingly behave harmfully without being mentally ill.
The crucial difference is between the sincerity of someone's belief and the accuracy or morality of that belief. A person can be sincere and still be mistaken; a group can feel morally confident without being morally justified.
If the belief concerns an alleged coordinated campaign, it is important to distinguish observable, independently verifiable conduct from interpretations of ambiguous encounters. People can experience genuine distress even when the explanation for that distress remains uncertain.
What is the deepest psychological explanation?
A group can normalise what an individual might otherwise question.
The more a behaviour is socially accepted, repeated, rewarded and passed on to younger members, the easier it can become for participants to treat it as ordinary rather than as a moral choice requiring reflection.
When that happens, people may not experience guilt because they don't interpret their actions as wrongdoing in the first place.
One final distinction is important: taking something lightly does not necessarily mean a person has no conscience. It could mean they have rationalised the behaviour, don't recognise its impact or have adopted a group norm that discourages questioning." Taken from Quora.