This is the creepiest story I have heard in a while. I wouldn't be surprised if many psychiatrist would diagnose the average HN reader this way.
Also makes me think of Terminator 2.
Also makes me think of Terminator 2.
The way the OP framed the therapist's response, sure. Of course, they're telling their perspective on what the therapist responded.
Having worked with therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and studied it to some degree in my early college including internships the more typical concern of a therapist is not the veracity of your beliefs (they're largely irrelevant), but the degree to which they are causing distress and if that distress is to a level that it interferes with your ability to function in society and form meaningful relationships With 'meaningful' defined by your personal satisfaction with the relationships and the satisfaction of those you have relationships with.
This is the criteria for all behaviors in the DSM that causes a spectrum of behaviors or beliefs to shift on the continuum of 'normal' to 'abnormal' for the purpose of diagnosis.
In practice, that means they could care less if you think the government (or God, or FSM, or Xenu) is watching your every move...but only if that keeps you from leaving your house or causes you significant distress. Or kept you from forming relationships because you thought they were government agents.
For example, here is the definition of delusion from the DSM V
Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture* (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.*
Emphasis mine. The point is by virtue of most people in the subculture of hackers believe this way means that, by definition, it is not delusional.
But again, if it keeps you from getting to the grocery store it would likely be worth considering medication. ;)
To say otherwise, I believe, is to try detract from the actual implications and make them seem more benign and less dangerous. I.e. "Oh, don't worry that the CIA is spying on you, the 'supreme court' will make sure your rights are upheld!"
If you believe that, then it doesn't seem like you understand the basic concept of checks and balances very well. The fact that checks and balances can be perverted and subverted and are imperfect doesn't imply they are completely ineffective and irrelevant. The fact that the FBI is fighting in court for the ability to command Apple to hack the iPhone is a perfect example of this. "The government" wants to force Apple. O..K... "the government" isn't going to let "the government" do that. This is a useful way to talk about things to you?
"When it comes to the powers of "government institutions", it seldom makes a difference that only "parts" of the government believe/do what is being discussed."
You point out an example where "checks and balances" somehow reigned in the FBI from decrypting a phone. While at the same time, hundreds of other acts have occurred that were not stopped by either public-outcry, private institution defiance or a "check" by another portion of the government. The point I was making is that when a government entity decides to do something towards a private individual, more often than not, other parts of the government don't have a say (at first definitely not, arguably still not long after the fact). To back that, you could use countless examples of every single failing part of government, or an injustice caused by it.
To say otherwise, I believe, is to try detract from the actual implications and make them seem more benign and less dangerous
That's your point. And I think it's a bit silly. Saying "the FBI wants to break into the iPhone" instead of "the government wants to break into the iPhone" is just more precise. It doesn't imply there's any less of a problem. The fact that you have other parts of the government to appeal to, and which may disagree with the first part of the government, is important! If you're involved it gives you a hint as to how you might proceed. It tells us which parts of the government we might have to restrict or promote.
What, pray tell, is the advantage of thinking of all these different and differing institutions as one monolithic entity, or of calling them "the government" as if they were?
Calling it "The Government" exaggerates the strength of the forces for or against something. It becomes a dystopian 1984-esque war.
When instead it is described as "some strategists at the FBI", or even, "some of the upper-brass at the FBI and DOJ" it becomes clearer that this isn't a problem that a revolution will have to solve. We could probably handle it with everyday boring old politicking.
That's like saying it makes sense to say that all Muslims are terrorists just because 1 in 4 Muslims believe terrorism is justifiable. XD [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terro...]
The question is how existentially frightening you think that fact is.