All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 14, 2021 - Skeptoid
17:36
Skeptoid #810: Frida Sofia, the Victim Who Wasn't

After the 2017 earthquake in Mexico City, rescuers dug through the rubble for a little girl named Frida Sofia — who never existed. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
The Girl Who Never Existed 00:05:44
Frida Sophia was a little girl trapped in the rubble following the 2017 earthquake in Mexico.
Except, she never really existed.
But the whole nation had been fooled watching the rescuers trying to reach her.
It was a mind-boggling case of false information, even having had the rescuers on site convinced they were communicating with and digging toward a person who did not exist.
Frida Sophia is coming up next on Skeptoid.
Hi, I'm Alex Goldman.
You may know me as the host of Reply All, but I'm done with that.
I'm doing something else now.
I've started a new podcast called Hyperfixed.
On every episode of Hyperfixed, listeners write in with their problems and I try to solve them.
Some massive and life-altering, and some so minuscule it'll boggle your mind.
No matter the problem, no matter the size, I'm here for you.
That's HyperFixed, the new podcast from Radiotopia.
Find it wherever you listen to podcasts or at hyperfixedpod.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Frida Sophia, the victim who wasn't.
The 2017 Puebla earthquake hit Mexico on September 19, 2017.
The magnitude 7.1 quake killed 370 people and injured thousands.
Most of the casualties were in Mexico City, and amid the destruction, a four-story private elementary school building collapsed.
19 children and seven adults were killed.
For days, rescue workers combed through the rubble, hoping beyond hope to find survivors, and the entire nation watched on television.
All of Mexico prayed as rescuers inched ever closer to a buried 12-year-old girl named Frida Sofia.
And then, after two days of constant reports and updates on the girl's condition, including conversations the rescuers had with her, it was reported that Frida Sophia had never existed.
There was no little girl buried in the rubble.
Outrage came swiftly.
Many Mexicans were incensed that in a time of national tragedy, the TV news had been giving them two full days of pure fiction.
Danielle DiTorbide was the reporter who was most visible throughout the rescue ordeal, and most of the hate fell onto her social media profiles.
Her network, Televisa, wanted to know what had gone wrong.
The government wanted to know what had gone wrong.
And most of all, the Navy, which in Mexico is the coordinating command authority for rescue efforts such as this, wanted to know.
Some facts came out right away to explain what was broken that let this staggeringly wrong reporting make it onto television.
Most importantly, the Navy had no information officer on hand.
There was in fact no control at all over the information getting to the press.
Danielle DiTorbide was the only reporter allowed beyond the cordoned off area, and she spoke freely to every rescue worker that she could.
And that was the primary source of information.
The facts, such as they were, were just in the air for anyone to contribute to and for anyone to pull from and report.
And the facts got incredibly specific.
Frida Sophia had told one rescuer that she was trapped with five other children, and this was reported.
Another rescuer saw some fingers, and upon calling to Frida Sophia to move them, they moved.
One who spoke with her reported she said her name was Sophie Sophie.
Some rescuers told the reporters that water was being delivered to Frida Sophia through a long hose.
A Navy official appeared on TV with several rescuers who had found Frida Sophia using a thermal imager, and one explained how they were able to verify it was a human thorax.
While the Navy was failing to control the information, they were at least asking around with the parents and school officials.
It soon turned out that everyone was accounted for.
that no grieving parents on scene were missing any daughters, and that the school had never had a student named Frida Sophia.
And that was when everything fell apart.
Televisa apologized, but the nation wanted answers.
Finding those answers is what constitutes the bulk of the writing that's been done on this event.
Failures of the process.
Steps needed to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
Ways to guarantee that information will flow through authorized parties in the future.
It's all about fixing a broken process.
And while that obviously is important, it's not the part of the story that interests us here on Skeptoid.
What we're most interested in is how this misinformation cascade spread and had everyone on scene convinced there was actually a little girl in there.
But most of all, how it got started.
What is it that those rescue workers saw, heard, or experienced that created the false beliefs they passed on to the reporters?
Almost incredibly, Frida Sophia happened 32 years to the day after a nearly identical event, also in Mexico City.
On that day, a magnitude 8.0 quake struck and killed more than 5,000 people.
Misinformation and Mass Psychogenic Events 00:09:55
In that case, it was a nine-year-old boy they were digging for in the rubble.
This little boy had told the rescuers that his nickname was Monchito.
As they dug closer, it was reported that they were finally in voice contact with him.
And then, just as it happened 32 years later, the news came that there was no Monchito, and everyone denied ever having been in voice contact with such a boy.
How was the Monchito case explained?
A psychologist went on the news and said it was most likely a case of collective psychosis among the rescue workers.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding.
Together.
Get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
So what exactly is a collective psychosis, and might it be a part of the explanation for what happened with Frida Sophia?
There are a couple of things that psychologist might have been referring to, and neither one of them is a fantastic fit.
First is what we call a shared psychotic disorder, which is almost always between two people in a close relationship, also called the foli adieu.
This starts with one person who has a legitimate psychotic disorder with delusions, who then influences their partner, usually a romantic partner, who adopts and accepts the delusion.
Sometimes it can spread to more than just one person, a classic example being a cult leader who honestly believes that he's Jesus, and facilitated by the very tight bond he has with his romantic partners and or closest followers, they accept that delusion and are equally convinced of it.
This is not a great parallel for Frida Sophia.
Another thing he might have meant is a mass psychogenic event, but this usually refers to a non-existent medical condition.
The most familiar example in today's headlines is so-called Havana Syndrome, where during a period of extreme work-related stress, a few American embassy workers in Cuba felt ill and reported having heard strange sounds at about the same time.
Sounds now known to have come from at least three different types of crickets and cicadas.
Their only symptoms were nonspecific and common.
Fatigue, pain, headaches, nausea.
Word spread and suddenly everyone with any of those symptoms who had also heard the cicadas all began attributing them to what somebody suggested must have been a sonic or microwave weapon of some undiscovered type.
This, also, doesn't have very much in common with the Frida Sophia case.
If I lie to you and tell you I'm 25 years old and you have no reason to disbelieve me, we wouldn't say that you're delusional or psychotic.
You've simply been given wrong information, and you might well pass it along with the best of intentions if somebody asks you.
Realistically, that is probably the most that can be said of Daniel Di Torbide and the other reporters and the people at their press outlets who broadcast the shows and wrote the articles.
In fact, nearly everyone on the scene who heard about the little girl and passed on the information to others probably needs no diagnosis other than having had wrong information.
But if we follow the pyramid of misinformation higher, to the one who saw the fingers move, to the several who looked at the thermal images, to those who passed the water hose to the little girl, to the one who heard her give her name and age, a more complex explanation may be needed than simply being wrong.
The environment there was highly stressed.
The rescue workers had been pulling out the bodies of crushed children.
Most workers were probably traumatized and in fight-or-flight mode, clinically known as the acute stress response.
This state can make us prone to errors as our bodies and brains focus in on bare survival.
Everyone desperately wanted good news, and when someone overhears that they're using a hose somewhere, perhaps to suppress dust, and also that little Frida Sophia must be thirsty and in need of water, it would not at all be unexpected for a worker to think he heard that they're using a hose to get water to the little girl.
Even to state that when a reporter asks for any updates.
Keep in mind the big failure in communication of the event was that reporters were getting information directly from rescue workers and not through any formal pipeline.
It's noteworthy that one of the rescue dogs on site was named Frida.
It's not inconceivable that someone could have overheard that Frida is down in the rubble pile or that her name is Frida and assumed the name of a girl victim was meant.
For every specific fact that was reported about Frida Sophia, we can come up with many possible ways that it could have been an honest misinterpretation of something overheard.
Combine that with reporters hungry for any tidbit they can get, and with the lack of an organized protocol for providing verified information to the press, and the whole Frida Sophia event becomes less surprising.
But even this cascade of miscommunications is not the only possibility.
With the workers in the acute stress state, human psychology provides even more avenues for fallibility.
There is a condition called a brief psychotic disorder with marked stressors.
Delusions and hallucinations are both possible in healthy people with no prior history, triggered by a markedly stressful event, and followed by a complete recovery to normal function.
I don't argue that this took place, but it certainly could have.
A rescue worker down in the tunnel might actually see and hear things that weren't there.
As a quick but important side note, the Frida Sophia case and its various possible explanations that involve various types of psychosis are a good reminder that mental illness takes many forms, and they don't mean that you're crazy or that you're some kind of nut.
They can even be completely transient, like these examples would have been.
Especially when a scary word like psychotic is involved, we tend to stigmatize the condition, and that's neither justified nor deserved.
One of the multiple good lessons we can take away from Frida Sophia is that all mental illnesses, even psychosis, are best considered when they are normalized, not stigmatized.
So often driven by trauma, they can happen to you and to your loved ones, sometimes when you least expect it.
So even though we're leaving the Frida Sophia case with many unanswered questions, there's one thing we can say with a high degree of confidence.
Almost certainly, there was not one single explanation for the source of the misinformation.
Maybe the psychologist's diagnosis of collective psychosis did explain some of it.
Certainly the passing along of bad information was part of it.
Maybe some misunderstandings and miscommunications and jumbling together of things overheard explained some.
Maybe the brief psychosis condition impacted some workers' actions and experiences.
And in all likelihood, something else was at play that escapes me and that escaped the newspaper reports.
The conclusion we can make with confidence was that this was a complex situation with many different phenomena at play among the many people involved, all of whom had complex interactions.
The fact that the same thing had happened with Monchito tells us that such a combination of phenomena is not unique.
This did not all boil down to one single explanation that lays out what went wrong.
When you see a paper that purports to give a single explanation for the Frida Sophia episode, be skeptical and safely assume that the single simple explanation is almost certainly misleadingly incomplete.
But you know who will never mislead you?
Why Single Explanations Fail 00:01:53
Skeptoid's premium members who get to listen ad-free, like David Rickard, Susan Gerbic from Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, Kendrick John, and Tanya Marwood.
Let me give you a shout out too.
It's easy.
Just log into the members portal at skeptoid.com and click shoutouts and stories to tell me what you want me to say.
And come join in the discussion of this episode in our private Discord channel.
Just visit skeptoid.com slash discord.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrienne Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the teacher's toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX
Export Selection