Talk:Snapping

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Snapping

---

I think the Bromley and Shupe quote would look better if their numbered clauses were formatted as bullet points. Also, a better place for that text is needed. Religious conversion or new religious movement? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's a rather long quote. Maybe it could be summarized?

More importantly, the article seems to have a very differenet definition than that used by the apparent coiner. From the referenced article:

"The first time I lay eyes on a person," he said, staring at us intently, "I can tell if his mind is working or not. Then, as I begin to question him, I can determine exactly how he has been programmed. From then on, it's all a matter of language. It's talking and knowing what to talk about. I start moving his mind, slowly, pushing it with questions, and I watch every move that mind makes. I know everything it is going to do, and when I hit on that one certain point that strikes home, I push it. I stay with that question whether it's about God, the Devil or that person's having rejected his parents. I keep pushing and pushing. I don't let him get around it with the lies he's been told. Then there'll be a minute, a second, when the mind snaps, when the person realizes he's been lied to by the cult and he just snaps out of it. It's like turning on the light in a dark room. They're in an almost unconscious state of mind, and then I switch the mind from unconsciousness to consciousness and it snaps, just like that." [1]

This article says that "snapping" occurs when someone joins a cult, while Ted Patrick also seems to use the word for the initial indoctrination but mostly uses it for the "snapping out of it" phase of deprogramming. Is there a different person who uses the term exclusively for indoctrination? -Willmcw 22:46, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I was thinking more in terms of a toggle switch. If your mind can snap and you are brainwashed into joining, then your mind can snap again and be deprogrammed from it. (I'm using 'brainwash' and 'deprogram' as synonymous metaphors; at work, we speak of "wiping" a computer disk, i.e., erasing all information from it.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right, but the definition in the article gives only half of that. -Willmcw 20:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I could be biased, but I personally don't see any difference between brainwashing someone INTO or OUT OF something. It seems unethical, either way. The pro-deprogramming folks seem to think what THEY do is okay, because it undoing previous damage (they're removing a "program" that was implanted via deception and/or emotional coercion).

So the questions are: (a) are brainwashing and deprogramming the same process (or not); and (b) is one ethically "better" than the other? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:18, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I can't answer those questions, and I don't think that the article needs to either. My point is that whatever the ethics of "brainwashing someone INTO or OUT OF something", this article leads with only one of those:

Snapping is a mental process by which, according to some in the anti-cult movement a recruit is psychologically captured by a "mind control cult". The term was coined in the book of the same name by Conway and Siegelman (see references).

The definition should include the "snapping out of it" definition that Williams gives. I'll go ahead and edit it and see if I can make it include both aspects. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOVing this article

This article needs serious cleanup and NPOVng.

Despite attempts to distinguish the generations of mind control development, there are no qualitative differences and what was once "brainwashing" became "snapping," which now is "mind control," "coercive persuasion," "menticide," "thought reform," etc. [2]

Either we merge this article with Mind Control or we need to do serious research work to have all voices represented. As written, this article is not NPOV. --Zappaz

The following one (from the same article) is a classic. --Zappaz 23:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geri-Ann Galanti and co-authors Philip Zimbardo and Susan Andersen reflect this change in the recent book, Recovery from Cults, edited by Michael Langone of the American Family Foundation.

Galanti says that mind control (which she equates with brainwashing) "refers to the use of manipulative techniques that are for the most part extremely effective in influencing the behavior of others." These influence techniques work to change our beliefs and attitudes as well; we encouter these pressures constantly "in advertising, in schools, in military basic training, in the media." They are a part of the socialization process, a part of life, Galanti maintains.

Yet when describing her own visit to a Moonie indoctrination center, where contrary to expectations, she was allowed plenty of sleep, food, and to observe horsing around among the Moonies (some even joking about brainwashing!), Galanti concludes: "What I found was completely contrary to my expectations and served to underscore both the power and the subtlety of mind control." While she was there, she felt much of the experience to be a positive one.

Later, Galanti decides that what she really experienced, despite all evidence to the contrary, was an even more seductive, subversive form of mind control than she'd previously imagined could exist. It nearly fooled even her. In short, the lack of evidence for mind control among the Moonies was really evidence for just how insidious their methods of mind control had become! Such argumentation points to the frustrating nature of the belief in mind control; so often evidence offered against the mind control model is mis-used to illustrate how true it must be.

Zappaz, I do not understand the NPOV warning. There are hundreds of theories to explain conversion, like brainwashing, mind control and snapping that differ from each other and should not be lumped together. I do not think that the book Snapping even mentions the unification Church but I have to check. Andries 08:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV warning is pretty obvious. All these theories are the inventions of anti-cultists and apostates, they keep changing the name once one of these theories gets torn to pieces by the scientific community. As it stands, this article refers only to the term as coined by authors in one book, and repeated ad nauseum since then by the anti-cult movement. It is NPOV because it does not say that these theories are not proven and does not present the huge body of critique against this theory. Take 10 minutes and read this: [3] and no, don't call these apologetics... these are actually devout Christians challenging this book and these terms. Thanks. --Zappaz 15:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, make a criticism section but do not lump the different concepts together and also do not treat the anti-cult movement as if they do not have differing opinions about this and other subjects. I think that the term snapping is mainly used in this book. I do not agree that with the authors of that article that the concept of snapping is the same as mind control. Andries 16:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know you don't agree, that does not mean that their critique (an the criticism of a myriad of others scolars that thing the same) cannot go in this article. Also: why did you delete the text that was there, exactly? Please put it back as it is relevant. Thanks .--Zappaz 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about Bronmley's theory. Bromley's theory should go into religious conversion. There is documented criticism of the Snapping theory that belongs here, not competing theories. Andries 17:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So did you delete the text or moved it to Religious conversion? I really hope it was the latter, otherwise please do so. Thanks. You will also need to remove the text that speaks about religion conversion, if this article does not deal with this subject. --Zappaz 20:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not true as you state that the article does not deal with religious conversion: this article treats a theory of religious conversion. I will also remove the NPOV tag, because the article describes the main criticisms of this theory. I forgot unfortunately where I have read these criticisms. Can somebody please help? Andries 17:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of evidence, seen as "evidence"

They've hidden it so well that we're more convinced than ever of its existence:

the lack of evidence for mind control among the Moonies was really evidence for just how insidious their methods of mind control had become

I'm not sure whether this is a valid argument, but the anti-cultists regard it as valid.

Part of it has to do with the bewildering question of why anyone would join such a kooky group anyway. It can't be the doctrine (ridiculous!). It can't be a previous inclination to being religious (my child/friend was never that way, I swear!). Giving up school or career makes no sense. And surely you aren't saying we failed them somehow: we did the best we could. Oh, they were tricked? They're victims of mind control? (I can accept that.)

Any alternative to (a) my way wasn't good enough for the kid, and (b) he voluntarily and of his own free will opted for something better. (Bit of a face-saving strategy, one might say.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:46, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)#

The books has been criticized among others's in Eileen Barker's introduction to NRMs. Please help to expand it. Andries 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)