Hello Darkness! The Official Blog of Helen Keller

There's been some discussion on the forum recently about what gang-stalking says about society. However, despite the author's best intentions to mask her true agenda, it eventually came tumbling quite loose from its moorings. Coupled with even a modest read of her echo-chamber of a self-written forum, one can easily see the cause and effect resident in her crusade.

The following definition of emotional intelligence is taken from Emotional Intelligence and Intrapersonal Conversations By: Suzette Plaisance Bryan, Ph.D. Southeastern University Department of Communication



Applying this definition to the brief history of a certain person's case, one can see the lack of emotional intelligence. That is, according to her website, she viewed certain pornographic materials at work and cause a hell of a disturbance. As her website rationalized, she was the moral compass to which every one else in the office had to bend. Her standards were to be imposed as your standards. Once this imposition was in effect, one can surmise she pretty much figured that life would go on without much notice or that there would be no social ramifications. Simply put, her complete lack of emotional intelligence didn't allow her to foresee unintended consequences of her actions in the minds of others. Her social needs were apparently met and she couldn't have given a fig that they were met at the expense of other's needs.

Rightly or wrongly, there are consequences to one's actions. Despite feeling as though she were the salt of the office, and the issue of viewing porn at work is set aside, it is the manner in which she persued the issue that is at stake and most likely the cause of her problems. Her ham-fisted approach to bash down a problem to her only made bigger problems for others.

The righteousness with which she posts clearly demonstrates the self-absorbed world view in which she operates. As found in EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: ISSUES AND COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS written by: Robert J. Emmerling, Psy.D and Daniel Goleman, Ph.D.:



It is the lack of empathy demonstrated by the poster toward those she impugned coupled with the lack of prosocial behaviour which indicate the low emotional intelligence.

In any workplace, any new person must understand that there is already a culture or zeitgeist in place as to how that workplace operates socially. Certain things may be tolerated moreso than others. Barging in and making waves, despite even being morally correct, may not always be the best solution to a moral affront. People are always going to be people, and word will always get around. So and so is a shit disturber; so and so complained about me ~ Did she? No way! For what? ~ For making an off-colour joke ~ No way! What a prig!

To some on here, this natural reaction to somebody else wanting a federal investigation into a minor matter, is the beginnings of gang-stalking. To others, it is a sign that the complainer has a low emotional intelligence (or colloquially a social retard), isn't afraid to make demands and would be willing to invoke higher authority, punish others to see their way done.

Peter O. Gray's seminal textbook Psychology defined the ingroup/outrgroup dynamic. The ingroup, the currently functioning workplace, will feel threatened by the demands of the outgroup, the new employee making complaints. Rather than accept the complaints, the ingroup will tend to circle the wagons and protect or insulate themselves from the threat. This new person is viewed as dangerous as a rabid dog. You can be nice to it all you want, but you never know what's going to get you bit. So you retreat from the person.

If the conditions are right, a threatened ingroup and an emotionally unintelligent outrgoup, the schism will grow wider. As there are new episodes of the ingroup insulating itself, the outgroup perceives this as gang-stalking, ostracism or other forms of pyschological harassment. The ingroup sees the outgroup's behaviour as even more threatening and retreats further, gossiping more. The cycle continues.

Now, if the emotional intelligence of the outgroup is as low as a certain person's, is it really that hard to believe they would make the jump to seeing conspiracy to destroy them everywhere? If they believe that enough people are gossiping, is it that difficult to also believe that everybody is gossiping too? And if they believe that everybody is gossiping, perhaps then they didn't get the good work assignment because their boss heard the rumours and has become part of the conspiracy? Perhaps that group of people at the end of the hall giggling must be giggling at them, what else could it possibly be? Perhaps going to the coffee pot only to find it empty is somebody's way of saying she's finished here. It certainly couldn't be a coincidence that the bus didn't stop for them today, somebody must have phoned ahead and arranged it to miss them.

On and on it goes, each new failure becoming a supporting thread in the wider tapestry that life is out to get them rather than face the reality of their own social retardation. Rationalizations must be made to help maintain the belief; They're jealous of my performance, THAT'S why they do it. They're jealous of my strong moral standing, THAT'S why they do it. They can't stand that I'm a born leader when they want it for themselves, THAT'S why they do it. Each example further adds to the delusion by insulating the outgroup from responsibility as to their own actions while also overtly complimenting them.

Eventually, a yearning to explain the social failures results in research to label it. Gang-stalking presents itself as a nice title. Of course, what may actually be happening to others is currently happening to me! I'm a victim!

I leave it to the fanaholics reading this to decide for themselves how much responsibility a person bears for the consequences of their actions. Is there a base amount which requires a person to at least try to place themselves in the shoes of others before launching crusades? Should an emotionally unintelligent person consider compromising on how vociferously they pursue something, giving regard to all the attendant circumstances?

There may not be a concrete answer, but one thing is certain:

Deflecting responsibility from one's actions by self-diagnosing one's victimhood in a vast conspiracy of hate, stalking and evil is no solution at all.

Also indirectly cited:

Linking Emotional Intelligence and Performance at Work: Current Research Evidence with Individuals and Groups as edited by Vanessa Urch Druskat, Ph.D. Fabio Sala, Ph.D. and Gerald Mount, Ph.D.