Introduction
In recent years, the term “targeted individual” has gained attention, often describing those who experience coordinated harassment and surveillance-based intimidation. These individuals report tactics designed to follow, intimidate, and disrupt their lives. Despite how distressing and vivid these experiences are, most mental health professionals dismiss them as paranoia or psychosis, failing to acknowledge potential external factors.
This article explores why psychology’s current approach may be inadequate for understanding these cases. By addressing misdiagnoses, societal biases, and the psychological impact of surveillance harassment, we can move toward a more nuanced and empathetic understanding.
The Problem with Psychiatry’s Diagnostic Approach
Psychiatry often categorizes symptoms based on observable behaviors and reported experiences. For those reporting harassment or surveillance, the most common diagnoses offered are paranoid schizophrenia or delusional disorder. The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) defines these conditions as the presence of persistent false beliefs out of touch with reality.
But what if these experiences have a basis in reality? What if a person’s perception is partially accurate? The current psychiatric model often assumes that experiences outside the norm must be imagined, without fully exploring alternative explanations.
For individuals facing coordinated harassment, their experiences—such as unfamiliar cars following them, unexpected disruptions, and the sensation of being watched—are real to them. Even if external validation is difficult, dismissing them entirely as delusions is both simplistic and harmful.
The Problem of Over-Simplification
Labeling these experiences as delusions disregards the broader context. There are real social, technological, and environmental factors that could contribute to these reports. When mental health professionals apply a “one-size-fits-all” diagnosis, they fail to ask key questions that could offer deeper insight.
Technological Factors in Psychological Distress
Advancements in sound-beaming, remote harassment technologies, and digital surveillance have blurred the line between mental illness and external interference. Directed energy weapons (DEWs), RF harassment, and subliminal audio transmissions are documented phenomena that merit consideration in diagnostic evaluations.
Dismissing claims of technological harassment outright ignores the possibility that some cases could involve real, external manipulation.
Why Hasty Diagnoses Can Be Harmful
When individuals reporting coordinated harassment are misdiagnosed, it causes significant harm:
- Loss of Trust in Mental Health Professionals – Many avoid seeking help out of fear they’ll be labeled as delusional.
- Increased Social Isolation – Those dismissed as mentally ill often withdraw further, worsening anxiety and paranoia.
- Failure to Address Underlying Issues – Ignoring possible harassment prevents effective intervention and coping strategies.
A More Comprehensive Approach to Diagnosis
Trauma-Informed Care
Rather than focusing solely on labeling symptoms, mental health professionals should recognize the impact of trauma. Psychological distress from perceived harassment deserves validation, whether its origins are external or internal.
Holistic Evaluations
A more effective approach involves evaluating environmental, social, and technological influences in addition to mental health factors. This means:
- Investigating potential stressors like workplace mobbing, digital harassment, or organized social isolation.
- Recognizing that advanced surveillance tools and electronic interference exist and could be misinterpreted as paranoia.
- Interdisciplinary analysis, involving experts in technology, sociology, and mental health to build a broader understanding.
Open-Ended Listening
The simplest and most effective approach is listening without judgment. Even if certain elements seem improbable, an empathetic response builds trust and allows for meaningful therapeutic engagement.
A Shift in Psychological Understanding
Redefining Delusions in the Age of Technology
With modern surveillance, mass data collection, and AI-driven social engineering, rigid definitions of delusion may be outdated. The DSM framework must adapt to account for plausible external influences on perception.
Promoting Research into Coordinated Harassment
Psychology should broaden its scope beyond individual pathology and consider the social and technological forces shaping distress. Future research should explore links between surveillance, psychological warfare, and emerging technologies.
Internal Linking for Deeper Insight
For those seeking additional information:
- Read Debunking Myths About Coordinated Stalking & Harassment for an overview of common misconceptions.
- Learn about Tools & Defense Strategies to mitigate electronic harassment and surveillance threats.
- Explore Legal & Advocacy Resources for strategies to push back against unlawful surveillance.
Conclusion: Toward a More Empathetic Approach
The experiences of individuals reporting coordinated harassment challenge traditional psychological frameworks. A system that immediately labels these experiences as psychosis does more harm than good.
By shifting toward trauma-informed care, holistic evaluation, and empathetic listening, mental health professionals can offer more constructive support. Dismissing distress as delusion reinforces stigma, while an open-minded approach fosters healing and understanding.
Whether external or internal, the distress people feel is real—and psychology must evolve to recognize that reality.