Talk:Mind control/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Thoughts on the definition of mind control and how it frames debate

From my viewpoint, there is no absolute form of mind control, just varying degrees of mental influences. What your mom told you when you were four is an influence. What your pastor or priest or rabbi or guru tells you, is an influence. What the TV tells you is an influence. Some are just stronger and/or more pervasive. And some are more beneficial (the Golden Rule) while some are less beneficial (the Marlboro Man). A personality, therefore, can be seen as the sum total of influences encountered in that person's lifetime (unless someone here feels like reviving Lamarck?...) The biggest problem with mind control is the term; it would more properly be called mental influence.

There are a bunch of 50's horror-movie stereotypes of the drooling, zombified mind control victim. The reality is far less cliched and predictable. Members of extreme religions and those holding extreme viewpoints don't fit the image of the brainwashed cardboard cutout - though there is still room for debate as to what choice, if any, they had over the course their lives have taken. (My answer to those who point out the lack of scientific evidence for mind control: there is also a lack of scientific evidence for free will.) Mental influence exists as a spectrum, in many shades of grey; the (literally) black-and-white stereotype of "mind control" merely serves as a strawman for those who want to deny the presence of pervasive influence - some of it malignant - in society.

Don't worry, I'm not going to retitle the article. I'm aware this is only my POV. I'm mostly hoping to engender some discussion of the basic precepts underlying all this argument. All civil comments are welcome.  :)

-Kasreyn ---

- The very first sentence is imho flawed. - "... theories proposing that an individual's thinking, behavior, emotions or decisions can [...] be manipulated by outside sources."

It should be clear that this happens every day. When one of your relatives dies, your thinking, behavior, emotions and decisions are manipulated by outside sources. As in every other case of social Interaction.


Scholarly anti-cult activism, references

The following quotes seem to be relevant to the issue of mind control, as mind control concept is being used as substitute for already discredited "brainwashing" theory by anti-cult activists, a scientific base to promote the message about dangers of cults, so to speak. By checking the links other scholarly opinion could be found.

"In the 1970s the new concept of "moral panic" was developed (see Jenkins 1998) in order to explain how some social problems become overconstructed and generate exaggerate fears. Moral panics are defined as socially constructed social problems characterized by a reaction, both in media representation and in political forums, out of proportion to the actual threat, often based on folk statistics that, although not confirmed by scholarly studies, are repeated from media to media and may inspire political measures." *[1]

One area where reports of Type II are still very much uncertain is mind control ... . They seem to believe that a real problem exist and that something should be done. It seems that the radical extent of criticism of the brainwashing theories by most (English-speaking) mainline scholars has not yet been appreciated even by Type II reports. Behind these labels, however, there is often in Type II reports a legitimate concern for consumer protection. *[2]

--


"Totalitarian regimes use repression of freedom of speech to homogenize the population. Repression can range from simple censorship through character assassination to outright state sponsored murder. One notorious example is Stalin with his purges."

Is character assassination really repression of free speech? Surely just a successful use of Rhetoric?

--harry 15:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article seemed decidedly opposed to the proposition that there actually is such a thing as mind control; I've tried to make it more neutral.

I and many other people believe that there is such a thing as brainwashing. I do believe there is such a thing as freedom of the will. I say this not in order to get into a debate about these topics (I'm not interested, really) but because I want us to be careful about how we characterize the different beliefs involved here. Many intelligent, well-informed people believe that some lives have been essentially stunted or destroyed due to their involvement with brainwashing cults. You might, for whatever reason, think that use of such terms as "brainwashing cults" is itself indicative of socially counterproductive theorizing: but it is not the place of Wikipedia to take a stand that it is (or isn't). There is room here to explain the facts and arguments that lead people to believe that there are "evil, brainwashing cults," and also to explain the facts and arguments that lead people to believe that the very notion of "evil, brainwashing cults" is wrongheaded and insidious. --LMS

Maybe I shouldn't have started this article at all, as I feel too strongly about the issue to assume the NPOV. Sometimes, even when I have a strong opinion on a topic and WANT to slant it my way, I have been able to adhere so closely to NPOV that no one alters a single word. I guess this was not such an occasion.

On the other hand, I have noticed a trend: many of the articles which I've started as stubs have blossomed nicely into well-developed (and neutral) articles, thanks to others. Anyway, I want to work with you -- not against you -- so I am open to suggestions. -- Ed Poor

I'd like to discuss your latest changes, the retitling to "failed" of the three methods. You removed the titles from the other areas and tried to consolidate them into one block, but it's a bit too large. It makes the article less readable and comprehensible and I think each method still deserves a title.
Read on...

Other Comments by Kasreyn

I'm also curious as to a certain point in the article, I have no idea who inserted it:

"...Scientists found that certain ELF frequencies, when transmitted in pulse mode, could induce emotions in subjects."
"Any further going conclusions from these results, belong rather in the field of conspiracy theories than of science."

Is it just me, or is there a cognitive break between these sentences? The last sentence of the upper paragraph seems to be leading the reader to the conclusion that ELF mind control has been scientifically verified, while the first sentence of the next paragraph dismisses ELF frequencies as conspiracy theories. Well, which are they? I suspect those sections were written by different authors. The article needs to either present a unified take on what the actual scientific facts are, or stop being schizophrenic and point out that there is a controversy over ELF. I personally don't give a damn one way or the other about ELF, but it's an inconsistency that makes the article worse.

Finally, I'm a bit shocked at the flat statement, "There is no scientific evidence that mind control can be achieved by drugs." If that's the case, why have so many people been prescribed Thorazine, Prozac, and Ritalin? Maybe I'm splitting hairs in the viewpoint of some, but just because it's mild and intended to be beneficial doesn't mean it's not altering a mind. I'd say that the sentence is assuming a certain idea of mind control - the zombie slurring "yesss, masster" - and yes, there is no evidence that THAT can be done. But can drugs influence the mind? Yes. Is that mind control? Debatable. The sentence is a strawman IMO. I'll wait a week for comment before removing it, though. As Ed Poor put it: we're here to work together.  :)

--Kasreyn

Yo, we need to merge mind control and thought control.


Merged, now the article needs a good edit for NPOV.


And I have also merged Brainwashing as well.

From the "Brainwashing" talk page:

Can we identify those two studies? Wesley


Removed this text from the article:

Totalitarian regimes use repression of freedom of specch to homogenize population, which goes from censorship to state sponsored murder. One notorious example is Stalin with his purges, but not even the US is immune from state control. The modern world is in fact characterized by unpreceded increase in powers of the state, which can often be very oppressive.
See hypnotism and the book 1984 by George Orwell.

Some cult related pages in Wikipedia link to Brainwashing, which links here. This ends up equivocating indoctrination and mind control, which I think are different enough topics to have their own pages (indoctrination more from a social psychology standpoint), but I don't know how to separate the two given that there is sort of a continuous spectrum between the two. Any suggestions? --hb

I strongly believe that mind control and propaganda are closely related. Once you believe that a message comes from a reliable source then it works as mind control. Proganda is a message disseminated to a large group. I wrote a small essay about 'brainwashing' based on my own unfortunate experience that has been published online http://www.surrealist.org/betrayalofthespirit/brainwashing.html Andries K.D. ---

I wrote an entry on thought reform but the lay out needs some changes. I am shocked that it is so easy to edit entries on wikipedia. After all, any lunatic could write rubbish. But don't worry in this case. Unfortunately I am an expert on the subject due to my own experience and much reading and thinking.

Andries K.D.


Titansolaris' edits:

Mind Control motivations

The necessicity of mind control is self explanatory. It is to control the mind. Analyzing the relative words mind and [[control] is important. A mind is structured of diverse and distinct information. Some formal information structures are coined as parameters. These parameters could be anything from ethical values ( see ethics ) to a memory value ( sound, feeling, etc... ). These values are normally complement and relative to their opposing values, e.g. Good vs Bad, or Smart vs Stupid. These values seem to be used by our awareness to make decisions. E.G. It is bad to kill, thus one shall not kill. This is an example on which one would base a decision upon a certain value. Those values are basically yes or no, if looked upon from the root point of view.

If in some case, values would be induced throught unseeming messages, such as movies , culture, music or even political doctrines, these values, if not analyzed would then become embedded mental values. They would serve of base to make further decisions, when a situation is present and where an action need to be made ( See branch to action ). If you have been experiancing unexplicable actions, it is most probable case of embedded mental values at runtime.

How to avoid Mind Control

It is important to understand that to be obsolete against any form of mind control, you must question incomming information. You must ask yourself if this advantages you or not. Is it garbage information or not ? In the case the information received is garbage, it is in your choice to ignore that given information or not. If you ignore it, the values of the information will not be apart of your embedded mental values.

This appears to be somewhat POV to me, and bordering on a how-to guide (see Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not). Some terms being used here such as "embedded mental values" and "branch to action" seem to be novel, and thus appear to be original research (see Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not, again). Other bits I can't understand at all. -- The Anome 10:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the text cited above, for the reasons given above. If you disagree with this, please discuss this here. -- The Anome 14:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I don't understand why the book by Steve Hassan is mentioned nowhere. I find this the most authorative book about the subject. Unfortunately I gave it away. Here is his definition of mind control http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm Andries 22:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Is this brainwashing in action? Some suggestions.

Comparing the English and German wikipedia entries on mind control and propaganda (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) I found it somehow strange that the English version doesn't mention the (British and US American) origins of modern propaganda at all. This combined with the fact that the English entry starts with Hitler, Goebbels and Stalin is somehow remarkable, I think. Is this the result or an attempt of brainwashing? If it is important to talk about propaganda in history then it is important to not only talk about those who lost in the end (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) but to talk about the winners too. It is maybe even more important, because they still have the power to continuesly spread their propaganda. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are no threat to anybody anymore. And mind you, the one who wins is not always right and criminal acts don't become rightful just because you are fighting for a rightful cause or because you have proven military superiour. Maybe some links to internet resources on how the current US administration got the American public into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and therefor was a threat to American citizens would be more important for people of today than what happened before most of us (or even our parents) were born.

Also starting with a Goebbels quote makes it seem like propaganda would be always a bad thing while it could be argued that propaganda is just a neutral tool. A tool that can be used for good and bad things. A tool that might even be necessary for any leader in a modern mass society.

And why the Goebbels quote at all? You can't even name when or where he said that. Googling for it I couldn't find anything about the origin of this quote or if he really said it at all. I tried it both in English and German. So right now I doubt that he said it at all. Also I'm quite sure he did believe in that idea. But would a "genius" like he is called in the article call himself (even indirectly) a liar while he still needs peoples trust?

So if you still feel the need to quote someone on propaganda, why does it have to be Goebbles? The first part of this Einstein quote might even be more relevant than the quote used right now:
"In two weeks the sheeplike masses of any country can be worked up by the newspapers into such a state of excited fury that men are prepared to put on uniforms and kill and be killed, for the sake of the sordid ends of a few interested parties. Compulsory military service seems to me the most disgraceful symptom of that deficiency in personal dignity from which civilized mankind is suffering today."
(Albert Einstein, 1934)

That said, of course Goebbels needs to be mentioned in an article about mind control and propaganda. Maybe even more information about him and about what methods he and the nazis used to influence the public opinion would be nice. But be careful it doesn't get out of ballance and that can happen fast since it is a natural thing that it is much harder to get information about the historical losers than to get information about the propaganda tricks the winners used (and still use). And if it gets out of ballance and the reader gets the impression propaganda is mostly a thing the "bad guys" use then the historical winners propaganda machine has been successful and you have become a propaganda tool yourself.

Knowing how limited my English is and also out of respect to the original authors of this entry I leave it to others to follow or not to follow my suggestions and edit this article.

-Stefan (first time wiki poster)

P.S.: Here is the part from the German wiki that I think should be in the English one too:
"Der Ursprung der modernen Propaganda liegt in Amerika und Großbritannien zur Zeit des Ersten Weltkriegs. In den USA wurde 1916, während der Amtszeit von Woodrow Wilson, die Creel-Kommission ins Leben gerufen, die unter Beteiligung von John Dewey, Walter Lippmann und des neugegründeten britischen Propagandaministeriums die Aufgabe hatte, das pazifistisch gestimmte amerikanische Volk gegen die Deutschen zu mobilisieren. Dies wurde ein grosser Erfolg. Lippmann verfasste später eine Demokratietheorie, die besagt dass das Volk im wesentlichen aus zwei Klassen besteht. Zum einen die Klasse der Spezialisten, die aktiv mit den Angelegenheiten der Allgemeinheit betraut sind und die Entscheidungen treffen, zum anderen die grosse Mehrheit, die mangels eigenen Wissens zur Unterstützung der "vernünftigen" Entscheidungen der Spezialisten gebracht werden müsse." Maybe someone more capable of the English language than me could translate it in an appropriate way (and doublecheck the facts).

P.P.S.: Maybe the mind control article should also be linked to the article on FUD, since those two topics seem to be very close related to me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD)

"'Course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." -Dennis Miller


I strongly disagree with a redirect from brainwashing to mind control. They are different concepts. Mind control is more subtle than brain washing. Mind control is not discredited but brainwashing is. Andries 09:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have re-seperated the articles mind control and brainwashing. They both need a lot of additions and editing. Feel free if you know about the subject. Andries 18:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the following paragraph in the article:

"People's minds are clearly influenced by many influences from the outside world, such as advertising, media manipulation, and propaganda, however they are generally aware of these influences. The remainder of this article is about mind control that occurs either without the knowledge, or without the consent, of the individual. "

The usual meaning of mind control in the anti-cult movement is that of using propaganda and misleading people without the knowledge of the people. When people know that something is manipulation or propaganda hen it loses its effectiveness. I will delete or re-write the paragraph unless somebody has well founded objections. Besides according to some in the anti cult movementent mind control is just a strong form of inluence. Mind control in cults has everything to do with changing a person belief system. One can't directly control a mind, only indirectly by changing a person's belief system and basic attitudes through manipulation. Andries 19:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cults and mind control

Many people believe that cults entrap or enslave members through mind control which is, in this sense, essentialy a strong form of influence. A counter-cult deprogramming movement has developed to counter cult mind control, and has, in turn, been accused of using mind control techniques. Deprogramming is not more in use and has been replaced with exit counseling which is voluntarily.

Deprogrammers have often been able to get judges to issue conservatorships authorizing them to rescue people. There is considerable disagreement about how cults actually operate. Steve Hassan who practices a form of exit counseling and is an ex member of the Unification Church (which is a purported cult) has developed a model of mind control which he called the BITE model [3]. Many ex members of cults try to understand how it is possible that they have been entrapped so long and so deeply and believe in the truth of mind control theories which help them to explain and understand their own experiences.

The above section assumes the truth of "mind control".

  • rescue people and they have been entrapped so long and so deeply -- this phrase implies that the people were victims of mind control.

Is there anything about Hassan's BITE model at Steve Hassan? That would be the place for his POV. Also, we should mention that Hassan began as a deprogrammer and only shifted to "exit counseling" later -- possibly to avoid legal complications, like jail for kidnapping (I have personal knowledge of one case).

Let's work on this section, then put it back. I'm not "censoring": I'm trying to get accuracy and neutrality. Anyone who's for Accuracy and Neutrality is welcome to join in or even take over. I'm here to help. --Uncle Ed 15:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Steve Hassan's POV is quite influential and hence should be discussed in the article. It is just an influential theory to understand cults and many ex-members of cults accept it as the complete truth. Personally I believe the cult phenomenon is too complex for Hassan's model but I do believe that his model has some merits. Andries 15:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps then we should create a section within mind control on Steve Hassan's ideas. We could also place Margaret Sanger's here, too. Or briefly introduce each advocate's ideas here, and then linke to a fuller exposition at Steve Hassan and Margaret Singer. The last thing I want to do is hide these ideas. I just want them described accurately and neutrally.

We might also try to find out how many people in various countries still subscribed to these theories. --Uncle Ed 18:13, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed, why not discuss it here? Don't delete but improve. I think that mind control in the meaning/definition/description of Steve Hassan is just a set of techniques of manipulative strong influence. I guess that everybody agrees that this exists. One could ask, why does he call it 'Mind control' if it is so common. May be to make his theories more attractive and interesting? Andries 05:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've personally met Steve Hassan and talked with him; plus I've read his book. His website is http://www.freedomofmind.com/
The primary reason people advocate the theory of "mind control" is to justify the forcible extraction of believers from religious groups. Advocates like Hassan don't merely say that the members were persuaded by fraudulent salesmanship, like a recruit duped into joining the Marines -- they claim that these groups literally take away a victim's freedom of mind. The victim "snaps" and becomes incapable of making a responsible decision; hence, they are not responsible for what they've decided. It is this aspect of the Mind Control theory which was finally rejected by U.S. courts.
Of course, the lay public is free to continue to believe in discredited science. There are still people who believe that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, in terms of intelligence: there's no law against their feeling this way, but the Wikipedia shouldn't endorse this view.
I think the article on mind control should say how many people believe that it's real, and what sorts of people these are. It should clarify what scholars in the fields of sociology, psychology and law say, as well. --Uncle Ed 15:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Removed

v • d • e
Cults
Definitions
Lists
Organizations
Opposition
Theories
Wiktionary definition · Wikisource · Wikimedia Commons · Wikiquote · Wikinews · Wikibooks

I removed the footer {{msg:cults}} from the article since this article is not because the history, development and lore of mind control is much more than primarily about cults. Davodd 11:03, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Davodd, I disagree that this article is not primarily about cults. when you do a google search on the term mind control then you will find out that it is primarily used with regards to cults. Two sections of this article deal with cults and the other sections are sheer fiction. So I think the {{msg:cults}} can and should be listed here. Andries 11:13, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am listing this page on cleanup. It lacks coherence and could use an impartial editor's eye. Davodd


Hi Davodd, yes it needs to be edited because it lacks coherence but please keep in mind that there are two reasons that make that it will always be a somewhat incoherent article. 1. The term mind control has various meanings. Some of them are counter-intuitive (i.e. Steve Hassan's usages) 2. The term mind control with regards to cult is controversial and complicated. It is a hornet's nest. Andries 12:25, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you are probably correct, but there is always hope. Davodd 12:27, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

"subliminal loudspeaker technology" is NOT subliminal

"In 2003, the American Technology Corporation (ATC) released a subliminal loudspeaker technology..." This is NOT subliminal. It's a highly focused untrasonic beam (regular audible frequencies cannot be sent over such a narrow beam) modulated with audio - it gets converted to audio in the ear by its nonlinear response to high-volume ultrasonics. It's clearly audible to anyone standing in the beam, and not audible to anyone outside it. It's definitely a freaky experience to go through such a narrow audio beam, and it has applications in advertising and many other 'hearing voices' type manipulations, but it's NOT subliminal.

I have removed this from the article: Aenar 11:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • In 2003, the American Technology Corporation (ATC) released a subliminal loudspeaker technology under the trade name HyperSonic Sound. The Forbes magazine reported September 2003 that ATC is installing this in soft drink machines on Tokyo's streets. As you walk past, you'll suddenly hear inside your head the sound of the ice cubes dropping into the glass and the sound of an opening beverage can.

Moved from article to talk page

Sure, where are the quality standarts we expect from a scientific research paper? In other words, by their definition victim is someone who might feel happy to be a member of the cult, so how is he a victim after all, it sounds so contrary to common sense. The theory seems incomplete without the aliens. And by the way, this mind-control bullshit serves as scintific foundation to the "cults" idiocy, which in turn anti-cultist quote when they harass NRMs. I am not talking about "deprogramming" (read: kidnappings and torture) that earned some of them prison terms (not academics though, their followers, so to speak).
What is deprogramming, let me briefly describe. Relatives of some moonie pay money to deprogrammer, then lure the kid (who is probably in mid-30s) to meet the prof. He strangles him and keeps in isolation for some time. And forces to listen or watch to some material about how that Mr Moon is a thief and rapist, over and over again. This is supposed to free the kid from mind-control, "dezombify" him so he could again think on his own. So when the kid flees, he sues other "victims" (mother, father) and the deprogrammer, so deprogrammer get his prison term (or not, depends on judge). So Lifton et. al are those who "educated" this father and mother and told them that his child is mentally deseased, affected by mind control, but they could help him, just go to Mr Such-and-such. You could imaging what relationships will that guy have with ancestors. Who is responsible, the Unification Church? Well, he refused to change his lifestyle, but at least communicated with them, now he went offline. Disgusting. WHo funds the anti-cult research, it is interesting to know. Anti-cultist appear to be either fundamentalist Christian or strongly atheist.

Merging

This article and the article title Brainwashing need to be merged. Both articles deal with the same subject and much of the text is either relevant to the other article or it is duplicated. --Zappaz 20:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I haven't read our brainwashing article lately, but the mind control article supplies practically nothing at all to explain how cults or anyone else gains control of a person's mind. What makes a person "snap"? Can someone really become a mind control victim in a chance encounter on the street? Is there no way to "defend oneself" from such an attack?
Moreover, what is the distinction between, say, a smooth-talking car salesman and a cult recruiter? What specifially do they do differently that opens cult organizations to condemnation while largely or entirely absolving car dealerships? (We expect a one-sided argument from the car dealer, why not from that nice chap (or cute girl) you just met who wants to share his religion or philosophy? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:16, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, Ed, a smooth-talking car salesman is in a one-time transaction with you, while a cult/NRM is, almost by definition, trying to change their target's whole way of life (where 'cult' members and anti-cultists differ is simply on whether that change will be for the better.) A car dealer can certainly employ any number of methods of deception or psychological pressure, but to do so, he only has the time from the moment you walk in the dealership to the time you walk out, and while you ask Can someone really become a mind control victim in a chance encounter on the street? I'm not aware of that claim ever being made by anyone who could be considered representative of those who believe mind control may exist. (i.e., the guy down the block may think J. Random Cult can mind control anyone they meet on the street, but he also believes they're doing it with a fluoride spray they got from the Commies, whereas even Margaret Singer, generally considered the most extreme among those academics who have posited theories of mind control, believed that you would need something much closer to a total institution.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Antaeus, for addressing the institutional nature of mind control often noted by experts like Singer. Perhaps a distinction exists between long-term (or institutional) mind control and brainwashing, which seems to be associated more with a defined period of intervention yielding an acute obliteration and/or replacement of existing beliefs. Such a generalized distinction, based loosely upon temporal qualities, may not accurately reflect the various colloquial usages of the terms. In the alternative, the terms may be distinguished by the fact that brainwashing often refers to the utilization of rather crude techniques (e.g., so called 'chemical straitjackets'), rather than the often subtle but usually pervasive influences associated with mind control. Regardless of the degree or nature of any distinction that may exist, merging the topics is tantamount to intellectual homogenization, a not so subtle attempt to dilute and compartmentalize discussion of the terms. One quibble, though: characterization of Singer as an extremist is dubious, at best, as it seems to further the objective of those seeking to obfuscate the issues at hand. Ombudsman 18:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, Ombudsman. I think there's a difference between saying Singer is at one extreme of a spectrum and saying she's an extremist, but I understand that's a difference that others may not notice. Of course, in this context, it makes the same point, and if anything makes it more strongly -- if even the person you point to as the "extremist" among academic believers in mind control is not a believer in the "zap-you're-hypmotized!" model, you can hardly hold up the z-y-h model and say "this model of mind control is far-fetched and ridiculous and therefore all belief in mind control is equally far-fetched." (Of course, the disproof or discrediting of one scientific hypothesis hardly disproves or discredits all similar hypotheses, because science doesn't work like that, but that's a hard concept for some people to grasp.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well said, Uncle Ed. Somehow, a smooth-talking car salesman is still seen as more honorable than a member of an emerging religion. Unfortunately F.U.D. is still one of the most powerful weapons in bending public opinion (not only in religion, but in politics as well...!). All these theories about mind control and brainwashing, although never proved scientifically and well challenged in last 10 years, are still brandished by anti-cultists as if these are absolutes. --Zappaz 20:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Science and mind control

Zappaz, I dug up these two gems:

  • European scholar Massimo Introvigne states, "Anti-cult brainwashing and mind control theories are, indeed, not part of psychological or social science. They lack empirical evidence, and are a mere tool used in order to deny the status of religion to groups perceived as deviant or subversive." [4]
  • We reject the brainwashing thesis not only because it represents an attack upon religious conversion generally but also because there is considerable evidence that people join new religions of their own free will. [A]ccounts of the cult members themselves often indicate that their decision to become members in new religions followed a long search not only for meaning but also for the resolution of major life crises. (Hexham and Poewe 9-10) [5]

It sounds like a cop-out of some sort to me, as the following attests:

  • Researchers Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton in their book The Mind Manipulators suggest that "brainwashing" or "mind control" are convenient ways to rationalize one's actions and thereby avoid taking responsibility. Anyone can commit an act such as joining an unpopular group and afterwards claim, "I was programmed to do so." Scheflin and Opton point out that esoteric notions such as "brainwashing" allow people to forget that they are responsible for their own actionsin a manner that compares with the insanity plea in legal cases. Personal values and independence of thought and judgment "are not snatched away from people. The concept of brainwashing is the most seductive mind manipulation of all" (Biermans 36-38 citing Scheflin and Opton 474] see also Hexham and Poewe 11, emphasis added). [6]

Perhaps we can describe the mind control theories in a bit more detail, though. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, before taking Introvigne on the subject as a "gem", one should be aware that he's been criticized for promoting misinterpretation on that very point. [7] Introvigne claims that "the American Psychological Association officially stated that "brainwashing" theories [...] applied to religious movements are not scientific", but that is a misrepresentation, since they actually only made that judgement against the specific theory being offered in the Molko case: the APA deemed specific research that had been done on a hypothesis of brainwashing to have failed to meet rigorous scientific standards. The APA did not state that such hypotheses were thereby disproven or "not scientific"; to the contrary, the APA even suggested an alternate hypothesis of effective brainwashing, which it suggested might be consistent with the data Singer et al had failed to account for properly in their research. The difference between what the APA actually said, and Introvigne's version, is similar to the difference between "He was not found guilty" and "He was found 'not guilty'". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ed, please read Brainwashing#Brainwashing_controversies, Antaeus and I edited that article and after much back and forth, my assessement is that what we have there is a pretty good summary of the APA 's amicus curiæ. --Zappaz 20:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do not see the difference between (1) "failed to meet rigorous scientific standards" and (2) "not part of psychological or social science". Please elaborate. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:49, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
There's not much difference between (1) and (2). But between (1)/(2) and "are a mere tool used in order to deny the status of religion to groups perceived as deviant or subversive," there is a much larger difference. The former correctly notes that the theories under discussion are unproven; the latter goes beyond the truth and asserts them to be disproven -- if a reasonable person could believe that a group's recruitment methods could amount to mental coercion, then Introvigne's argument that such theories are just a "mere tool" used to disenfranchise unpopular groups falls apart. Introvigne's representation would have you believe that anyone studying the possibility that a particular new religious movement's recruitment techniques are in fact coercive for particular personality types is ignoring the clear statement of the APA -- for doesn't he state that such theories are "not part of psychological or social science"? But in fact, that's the very theory the APA proposed in the Molko brief. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Antaeus, but I do not follow. The discussion here is about the difference between the statements (1) "failed to meet rigorous scientific standards" and (2) "not part of psychological or social science". Not about what Introvigne said or did not say. Do you really believe that reader's will understand these minute nuances? --Zappaz 02:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm more interested in what Ed thinks, Zappaz, since he was the one who asked the question I was answering. That was "the question I was answering", by the way, not "the only question, the one which makes any question that you feel is important to consider irrelevant." The question I feel is important to address, which is how this particular discussion began, is whether Introvigne's representation of the scientific community's position was a "gem" or subtly flawed. Ed is asking me where I see inconsistency between scientific consensus and Introvigne's representation of that consensus; I am answering. For you to stride in and announce "But the only question is whether these two statements are inconsistent with each other! This conversation has nothing to do with the larger question of whether Introvigne is misrepresenting the scientific community's position!" is to be either a) filtering out reality or b) artificially declaring that one side has the authority and right to decide what "the question" is and the other does not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, don't you tire of these diatribes? I still do not know where you stand in regard to the distinction between statements such as "failed to meet rigouros standards" and "not part of social science". --Zappaz 17:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, then, I can't help you any further with your failure to comprehend, Zappaz. I'm pretty sure it's clear to everyone else that the question "are Introvigne's claims consistent with scientific consensus" is not completely and affirmatively settled by pointing and saying "Here, these are two sentences by Introvigne which are consistent with each other! That must equate to consistency between all Introvigne's claims and the consensus of the scientific community!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Am I the only one does not understand you, Antaeus? We are no talking just about Introvigne (It is obvious by now you do not appreciate his writings...) You know what? Put Introvigne aside for a moment. Based on the information we have collated so far about this subject, do you really believe these theories have any merit? --Zappaz 02:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, is this "Wackopedia"? This guy Zappaz will never do anything but post the same blather here. He is a cult member and is under mind control himself. The stupid references he offers are from pro-cult activists and those paid off by cults to help them out. Very few legitimate psychologists or psychiatrists are quoted to support Zappaz and his cult thories. They guy relies upon cult stooges, apologists and an assortment of cranks to support his nonsense.

Do a Google search under "cult apologists" and you will find all the info on the so-called "scholars" this guy keeps quoting. Hardly reliable or objective. They have no real research and many are not even researchers that study the human mind.

Let's get real here. Does anyone really doubt that cult members that gave their kids poison at Jonestown or offed themselves were not under mind control?

Zappaz give it up. You come across as a cult stooge that uses Wikipedia for pro-cult propaganda. If you are going to use language like "anti-cult movement" to label anyone that you don't like let's balance that BS against calling your side the "pro-cult movement" because that is what it is. But people that get paid big bucks by rich cults to do their dirty work should just be called paid professional cult apologists. How's that?208.5.214.2 12:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The theory as propaganda

I followed the link you provided, Zappaz, and the first part of the section is quite a shocker. Apparently the theory of brainwashing was not intended scientificially, i.e., to account for observed facts with a verifiable cause-and-effect hypothesis. Rather, it was made up out of whole cloth as mere political propaganda. That is, the people advancing the theory KNEW it was false, and were only using it to save face: "Those boys would NEVER have gone over to enemy, unless their minds had snapped under a heretofore unknown and irreplicable force. I don't know how those Commies did it (and God knows, we tried to duplicate there results!) but they turned those boys into Zombies."

I submit that if a theory was made up only for political purposes then it fails to meet rigorous scientific standards and is not part of psychological or social science. (Just my own POV, of course.)

I further submit that it is likely that purveyors of the "cult brainwashing" theory likewise made up their theory not because they believed it was true but merely to save face. I will supply some quotes from sociologists who think this way, and with your permission add them to mind control and/or brainwashing.

The Blame Game

  • Researchers Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton in their book The Mind Manipulators suggest that "brainwashing" or "mind control" are convenient ways to rationalize one's actions and thereby avoid taking responsibility. Anyone can commit an act such as joining an unpopular group and afterwards claim, "I was programmed to do so." Scheflin and Opton point out that esoteric notions such as "brainwashing" allow people to forget that they are responsible for their own actionsin a manner that compares with the insanity plea in legal cases. [8]
  • Parents are under strong pressure not to blame either themselves or their children for cult involvement. Once a young person becomes convinced that the new religion is not nearly as lofty, appealing, or benevolent as once thought, he or she too comes under the same pressure: not to blame oneself for misplaced idealism or naivet. (Bromley and Shupe 198-202) [ibid]
  • The brainwashing explanation provided families with a superficially plausible model of seemingly "bizarre" behavior that did not place any stigma on either themselves or their errant (cult) family members, and it came embellished with the legitimacy of science. Even more importantly, it created the basis for placing a diverse array of new religious groups under the rubric cults. (Bromley and Hammond 221-224) [ibid]


Oh... there is much more... --Zappaz 19:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. Anthony, Dick. 1990. "Religious Movements and 'Brainwashing' Litigation." in Dick Anthony and Thomas Robbins, In Gods We Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
  2. Anthony, Dick, and Thomas Robbins. 1994. "Brainwashing and Totalitarian Influence," in Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, Vol 1: 457-471.
  3. Anthony, Dick, and Thomas Robbins. 1991. "Law, Social Science and the 'Brainwashing' exception to the First Amendment," Behavioral Science Law. 10/1
  4. Barker, Eileen, 1984. "The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing?". New York: Basil Blackwell. 305 pps.
  5. Barker, Eileen, 1982. "Who'd Be a Moonie? A Comparative Study of Those Who Join the Unification Church in Britain." in Brian Wilson (ed.), The Social Impact of New Religious Movements. New York: Rose of Sharon Press.
  6. Bromley, David G. 1983. "Conservatorships and Deprogramming: Legal and Political Prospects." in Bromley, David G. and James T. Richardson, (eds). The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. 267-293.
  7. Bromley, David G. and James T. Richardson, Eds. 1983. "The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy". Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. 367 pps.
  8. Cialdini, Robert B. 1993. "Influence: Science and Practice". New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. Third Edition.
  9. Davis Joseph E., 1993. "Thought Control, Totalism and The Extension of the Anti-Cult Critiques Beyond the 'Cults'". Dexter, MI: Tabor House. 77 pps.
  10. Fort, J. 1985. "What Is 'Brainwashing,' and Who Says so?" in B. Kilborne, (ed.), Scientific Research and New Religions: Divergernt Perspectives . San Francisco: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 57-63.
  11. Grinsburg, Gerald, and James T. Richardson, 1998. "'Brainwashing'" Evidence in Light of Daubert. in Law and Science: Current Legal Issues". Hellen Reece Editor, 265-288.
  12. Richardson, James T., and Massimo Introvigne, 2001. "'Brainwashing' Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on 'Sects' and 'Cults.'" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40/2(June): 143-168.
  13. Robbins, Thomas, 2001. "Combatting 'cults' and 'Brainwashing' in the United States and Western Europe: A Comment on Richardson and Introvigne's Report." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40/2(June): 169-175.
  14. Soper, J. Christopher, 2001. "Tribal Instince and Religious Persecution: Why Do Western European States Behave So Badly?" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40/2(June): 177-180.
  15. Massimo Introvigne, and James T. Richardson, 2001. "Western Europe, Postmodernity, and the Shadow of the French Revolution: A Response to Soper and Robbins." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40/2(June): 181-185
  16. Richardson, James T. 1997. "'Brainwashing' Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on 'Cults' and 'Sects,'"
  17. Richardson, James T. 1997. "Sociology, 'Brainwashing' Claims About New Religion, and Freedom of Religion". in P. Jenkins and S. Kroll-Smith (eds.), Sociology on Trial: Sociologists As Expert Witnesses. New York: Praeger.
  18. Richardson, James T. 1996. "'Brainwashing' Claims and Minority Religions Outside the United States: Cultural Diffusion of a Questionable Concept in the Legal Arena," Brigham Young University Law Review, No. 4, 873-904.
  19. Richardson, James T. 1993. "A Social Psychological Critique of 'Brainwashing' Claims About Recruitment to New Religions." in David Bromley and Jeffrey K. Hadden, (eds.) The Handbook of Cults and Sects in America. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 75-97.
  20. Richardson, James T. 1991. "Cult/Brainwashing Cases and the Freedom of Religion." Journal of Church and State. 33: 55-74.
  21. Richardson, James T. and Brock Kilbourne. 1983. "Classical and Contemporary Applications of Brainwashing Theories: A Comparison and Critique" in David G. Bromley and James T. Richardson (eds.) The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy. New York: Edwin Mellen. 29-45.

There are also some thought-provoking articles here. --Zappaz 20:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed mini-blog

Pro-mind-control quote:

Delgado and other writers see "cult indoctrinees" becoming disoriented and even incapacitated through a combination of poor diet, sleep deprivation, manipulated social bonding, appeals to fear and guilt, behavioral conditioning and, above all, dissociative and trance states induced through "hypnotic" processes associated with meditation, repetitive chanting, glossolalia and other experiential rituals, which are said to enhance suggestibility and impair judgmental and cognitive functions. [9]

Anti-mind control (could be intro to mind control article]].

The mind control model of membership in new religious movement asserts that people never (or rarely) join of their own free will but are sucked in willy-nilly via advanced techniques that not even the CIA have figured out how to duplicate. Once programmed, they seem to innately possess the ability to seize the minds of others!

It should not be necessary to examine in detail the indoctrination or conversion methods of the many groups labeled as "cults" in order to conclude that "mind control" is a myth. The scenario of mindless robots who carry out the wishes of others, while believing they are doing as they please, may make exciting movies, but it is not consistent with human psychology. People who conform to behavioral expectations of a group have made a choice to do so. (Reign 323-324) [10]


Deception on the part of pro-deprogramming movement:

Q.What is involuntary deprogramming as you understand it?

A.To the best of my understanding, when the family decides that there is no other way to talk to the person but by keeping them at a location until they have heard the correct information about the group.

Q.Through the use of force?

A.No.

Q.How do you keep someone against their will without force?

A.You lock the door. [23] (cited in [11])

I'm thinking of a radical new slant for this article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:08, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Look forward to it. --Zappaz 01:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's a cult?

a cult is an organization --an organization can be large or small; size is not the determinant -- that has expressive devotion to a leader, principle or idea.

Q.Is the Catholic Church a cult?

A.Under that broad definition, yes.

Q.Is the Democratic Party a cult?

A.Under this definition of cult above, yes. [12]

Deprogrammers' definition of "cult" is so broad as to include Catholics and Democrats. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:12, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

yep. Let's write an article: Debunking of the anti-cult movement myths. --Zappaz 01:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it absolutely irresistable, or what?

I found an interesting discussion on the limits of mind control here:

  • Absolute (Barker): 'If people are the victims of mind control, they are rendered incapable of themselves making the decision as to whether or not to join a movement - the decision is made for them.'
  • Less than absolute: Cult mind control does not directly overcome a person's free will, but rather it influences their belief system and worldview, which in turn influences how a person exercises their free will, and the choices they make.

I wonder what Steve Hassan and Margaret Singer have written about the robotic vs. strong-influence distinction? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Consistency of the Courts

Currently, the article reads "American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science." Patty Hearst's conviction comes to mind, but her sentence was not surprisingly commuted (courts ordinarily tend to be less consistent when subjected to high powered lawyers and their wealthy clients). Similarly, some domestic violence victims have been granted clemency after convictions for murdering controlling spouses. Perhaps some mention of pardons - and the common sense reasoning behind such belated reprieves - is in order? Ombudsman 01:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coercive persuasion

At this moment, the Coercive persuasion page redirects to the Brainwashing article. This was well-intended, I'm sure, but it doesn't clear up any of the confusion. There are several synonymous terms which need distinguishing.

The distinctions are important, for weighty ethical and legal issues depend on them. All agree that "mild" persuasion is okay, both (A) in selling a product or service and (B) in sharing one's religious or political views.

On the other hand, we also all agree that "undue pressure" or duress renders certain kinds of agreements as invalid, such as a contract signed under duress. (One example from the movies is so well-known, I needn't even mention its title: The gangster tells the hotel owner, "Either your brains or your signature are going to be on this contract.") Another, less-known example concerns propaganda broadcasts by North Vietnam featuring American POWs "confessing" to war crimes and so on; one of the prisoners blinked his eyes in morse code, repeatedly spelling out the word T-O-R-T-U-R-E (was this John McCain?).

So we attempt to draw a line: if someone has been "brainwashed" into doing something "bad", we try to determine how much or little to blame them. Patty Hearst was not simply declared innocent, but I suppose she didn't spend much time in jail either. Likewise, there's the battered wife defense ("I couldn't leave him, but I couldn't bear the abuse, so I killed him.") which some juries have accepted.

It's a complex issue, not a black and white one. I don't think Wikipedia can afford to endorse either of the extreme views:

  • Anti-cult movement: people join NRMs because of cult mind control, and deprogrammers must perform the heroic task of rescuing these victims
  • the other side: people join NRMs entirely of their own free will, and the only folks engaging in coercive persuasion are the professional faith breakers who kidnap and torment our members

To describe the middle ground between these extremes will take careful and skillful writing. I hope we're ready and willing to accept the challenge. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:38, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

scientific community?

This sentence needs a citacion, or I will remove. Thanks.

Instead of using the terms "brainwashing" or its modern variant of "mind control", the scientific community prefers to use terms like "influence", "deception", "propaganda" or "communal reinforcement" to describe the mechanisms and strategies of cults.
  • Which scientific community? This is a POV generalization.
  • What mechanisms and strategies? needs specifics.

--Zappaz 06:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed it. Hope it is better now. I also removed the paragraph victimization that consisted entirely of non-notable opinions. Andries 08:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, why dod you keep inserting, non-scholarly non-notable opinions in cult related articles? I find it difficult to be patient with you and to maintain faith in your willingness to adhere to NPOV standards when you keep on doing that after I warned you several times about that. You continue to give me the impression that you are not serious about NPOV standards but only about pushing your POV to the maximum. Andries 15:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the nth time, I ask you to lower your rethoric and stop making acussations that are unwarranted. Note that Wikipedia has no place for advocacy. Your insistence in inserting text that is unnatributted and original research, is innapropriate for an encyclopedia. I regard to the text that you deleted, now re-instated, please refrain form dwoing so. These writers are notable (do a Google test). Thanks. --Zappaz 16:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, what I inserted is well-known scholarly research. I do not engage in rhetoric but I am very specific. I do not think that these Gretchen and Bob are notable scholars of relgion. Why don't you give a detailed reply to what I write in order to convince me and others that the accusations that I make are unwarranted? Andries 16:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I will ask for a request for comments. Andries 17:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, I do not agree with the merger with brainwashing. Andries 17:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, even David V. Barrett who is very mild about ""cults" acknowlegdges that cultists are unopen for logic and proof in his book the New Believers. I had not inserted this in the general cult article because I was afraid that I would break copyright because there is already so much by him. Andries 17:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, besides how can you seriously doubt the fact that some cultists are unopen for logic and proof. Try to reason with one about his faith. I mean, most people know this from experience, at least I do. Andries 18:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Andries, from now on I will not respond to any of your comments in which you make acussations against me. If you have citations for text you want to add, please do so. Otherwise, I will post a comment here and after a few days I will delete the text as customary. This is non-negotiable and in line with Wikiedia policy. In regard to your comment about cultists are unopen for logic and proof I know that that is your POV. But note that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy of any kind. It is an encyclopedia. So please follow guidelines and cite your sources. Thanks. --Zappaz 18:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I already gave two sources: Leon Festinger and Barrett. Andries 19:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If both anti-cult activists like Hassan and cult apologists, like Barrett agree about something then we can safely assume that it is true and can be written down as an undisputed fact, regardless of my POV. Andries 19:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You may also want to read Wikipedia is not a soapbox --Zappaz 19:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How can you make a request for comment and then delete the text disputed? That is not the way to work. If you put an RfC you need tyo wait and hear from fellow editors. --Zappaz 19:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not think of that. Andries 19:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, I fail to see any academic credentials of Bob and Gretchen Passantino. They are just countercult activists. Why can't you cite a notable scholar like Bromley instead? Andries 19:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Their POV is notable inasmuch as they are part of the counter-cult movement and at the same time they negate the validity of the mind control theories that most anti-cultist fervently adhere to. I think their POV adds value to this controversial topic. And they are well respected writers in their constituency. --Zappaz 19:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
then a short mention that not all counter cult activist agree on this concept would suffice and is appropriate but this extensive quote that puts the blame all on the (ex-)cultist which is beyond what even cult apologists do is not according to NPOV guidelines. It is crazy not to mention that there is false advertizing, deception, or propaganda by cults and put all the blame on the (ex-)cultist. Andries
This is an article about mind control (a.k.a. brainwashing, a.k.a. thought control), not an article about cults, apologists, apostates or anti-cult. These are explored on their respective articles. --Zappaz 22:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, then do not give such prominence to a non-scholarly, non-notable opinion that goes beyond the opinions of scholars who are the most lenient about cults in belittling the harm done by cults and the responsibility for getting into the cults. That is why I think your edit break NPOV guidelines. Andries 22:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I changed it accordingly. I hope you can live with it. Andries 20:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not about what you think is crazy, what you believe, or what you think you know. This is an encyclopedia with guidelines that need to be respected and not a place for advocacy of any kind. You placed an RfC, now you need to show patience and allow other editors to make comments about the text you want to delete. Also note that you cannot revert more than 3 times in 24 hrs. --Zappaz 22:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just gave it a try. May be you agreed with the new wording. Andries 22:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Using RfC

You need to learn how to use RfC, Andries. Please read RfC. What you have done, is a joke (Deleting disputed text three times, after posting the RfC, then changing the RfC summary). If your intention was to negotiate the dispute between us, we could have done it. But if you chose an RfC, you need to leave it alone and let other editors make comments if they wish to do so. --Zappaz 22:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree Zappaz. The opinions between is have come closer. We only disagree about the prominence given to their opinions. The RFc guidelines do not say anything that you cannot change the text after the contributors have come closer to each other. Andries22:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(Interesting is the fact that you only want prominence of opinions that support your anti-cult POV. And you accuse me of not being serious about NPOV ... oh well... ) I am going for a walk in the park... Suggest you do the same. Let's revisit this in 7 days with the hope that by that time we have some useful comments from fellow editors. --Zappaz 22:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The difference between you and me is that I do not insist on keeping non-notable, non scholarly quotes in the cult related articles. I do not extensively quote anti-cult activists, except in ACM articles that describe their views. I consider some of your edits foul play, like the Bob and Gretchen Passantino quotes here. Andries 11:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That is the problem, Andries. That you consider an edit "foul play" says it all. This is an encyclopedia not a forum or USENET. Use these to advocate your POV. Thanks. In regard of yor yet-another-acussation against me, you need to demonstrate that the citations I provide are not notable. They are. On the other hand, I need to go article by article, removing snippets of text you added to the articles on the subject of "cults" and new religions, just because your opinion, and without consideration for looking for a citation or reference to back it up with. I am comitted to comb all these articles and excise text that have no support. --Zappaz 17:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Because Gretchen and Bob Passantino have no academic credentials in sociology of religion, psychology of religion, or relgious scholarship the burden of proof that their quotes are notable is on you. I do not have to proof that they are not notable enough to have their lengthy quotes here. It would be so easy for me to insert non-notable, non-scholarly quotes by anti-cult scholars here and elsewhere but I have refrained from doing so because I consider this inappropriate and foul play. Please do comb the text for some of my unsupported snippets (that you most probably won't find) Andries 17:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Gretchen and Bob Passantino:

  • Founders of Christian discernment ministry, Answers in Action. Closely associated with the Christian Research Institute.
  • Outspoken opponents of theories of cult mind-control.
  • Many articles written for the Cornestone magazine.

These three points above, makes it highly relevant to this article. Notablity is not related only to academics credentials. Note that neither Encarta, nor Britannica have articles on "Mind Control". So, if we have one in WP (and that is the great thing about WP) expect to find narrower distinctions about what is notable for this article. --Zappaz 20:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neither "Christian discernment ministry", nor "Answers in Action", nor Christian research institute", nor "Passantino", nor "Cornerstone magazine" give one hit in the +500,000 article in the English Wikipedia. I think this strongly indicates that they are not notable. And to say that their opinion is notable because they are critics of the mind control theory is quite strange when there are notable, scholarly critics of the mind control theory. Why can't you cite those? Andries 00:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


RfC Summary

Dispute whether the quotes by Evangelical Christian writers Bob and Gretchen Passantino are notable enough to deserve to have a complete section to their POV or should their POV mentioned succintly that "not all counter cult activists like Bob and Gretchen Passantino believe in mind control"? Mind_control#Victimization See also Talk:Cult#Benjamin_Zablocki_notable.3F


NPOV?

There are a lot of examples of bias in this article that are tempting me into putting the NPOV tag up on the article. I'm refraining for now, hopefully to have some discussion here. One example of many: or may sue their erstwhile captors after escaping from either a "cult" (religious mind controller) or "deprogrammer" (anti-religious mind controller). I submit that "anti-religious" as used here is a personal opinion, and not a definite fact regarding self-described "deprogrammers". To go into the matter properly, the article would have to go off on a tangent describing the controversy over the ethics of "deprogramming", which is too far outside the scope of the article. Thus a more appropriate solution is a link to the article on deprogramming and an opinion-free, NPOV take on deprogramming within *this* article. I would suggest simply removing the opinionated, parenthetical descriptors of cults and deprogrammers. If I get no response here, I'll just go ahead and do so. Cheers! -Kasreyn

* Kasreyn, I disagree. Laballing deprogrammers as anti-religious is not a personal opinion. The definition of deprogramming is: To counteract or try to counteract the effect of an indoctrination, especially a religious or cult indoctrination.(The American Heritage Dictionary). Cult is just a derogatory synonym of religion. Deprogramming, when used on religious (or "cult") members is anti-religious.--J.Tell 02:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
By that logic, police officers are "anti-people". Why? Because police officers try to stop criminals, and criminals are by definition people. Therefore, police officers are anti-people. Of course, what shows that logic to be false is observing that not all people are criminals, and thus police officers are not "anti-people" just because they are against a specific group of people, i.e., criminals. Similarly, those who oppose the actions of cults are not necessarily opposing all religions, but just those religions which are cults. I realize that doesn't make any sense if you're confused and think that "cult is just a derogatory synonym of religion," but for those who understand that "cult" has a great many definitions, some of which do not even require that the group in question be religious in nature, it makes perfect sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I provided a definition as worded by an actual dictionary. Antaeus, what is your source for your unstated defintion? Or are you thinking of a definition that you made up in your mind? Perhaps you never looked it up in a real dictionary?--J.Tell 02:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you are saying that you looked up "cult" in your dictionary and it said the only definition was "a derogatory synonym of religion" then throw it in the trash and go out and get a real dictionary. If "cult" and "religion" denoted the exact same thing then there would be no need for cult checklists, would there? One wouldn't find secular political movements like Lyndon LaRouche's being called cults, would one? Bottom line: if your dictionary listed "derogatory synonym for religion" as one definition of cult, you made a mistake in saying cult was "just" a derogatory synonym for religion. And if your dictionary listed that as the only definition, it's a piece of crap, and maybe you should start wondering about the person who sold it to you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What kind of obscure logic is that? Here J. Tell is offering the definition of the American Heritage Dictrionary. Here is another one from Webster. : to dissuade from convictions usually of a religious nature often by coercive means. --Zappaz 03:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Thanks Zappaz. Now, not only have I pointed out that deprogramming is anti-religious or "anti-cult", but you have shown that it is often coercive.
 ::::::: * Antaeus, two definitions of deprogramming have been stated, you haven't imparted any; you're response mainly heckles me and my dictionary regarding a definition for "cult" which I did not give. I stated my POV regarding the term cult: "Cult is just a derogatory synonym of religion." Those are my words(IMHO), not a dictionary's. Where did I say that was from a dictionary? Also, I believe it is a broadly shared opinion that "cult" is derogatory.--J.Tell 04:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's rather odd. [www.dictionary.com] lists the American Heritage Dictionary amongst its sources, and here is the first definition listed for cult: "1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." Note "generally considered to be extremist or false" and "living in an unconventional manner". I think this is grounds to accept that "cult" is not a synonym of religion, but a subtype of religion widely understood to be harmful to their practisers.
As to my own views, I didn't put them in the article because I don't think that's warranted, but in my opinion, cults use coercion (albeit not as obviously as deprogrammers do, but deprogrammers have a lot less time to work with) to recruit their victims, and therefore, again in my opinion, coercion is morally, if not yet legally, justifiable in order to restore the person to their rational pre-coerced state (or as nearly as possible, since altered personalities probably can't ever be fully restored). I certainly won't argue that this is illegal at present; I can only hope that in time, cults who harm their followers will be, too. Is this subjective? Hell, yes. But it seems criminally negligent to just throw up our hands and refuse to draw up a legal definition of a harmful cult. I believe such a definition can be made that would not interfere with voluntarily chosen, positive religions.
Now, I don't include this because I entertain hopes of including this point of view in the article, J. Tell - I just wanted to make you aware that many people have a viewpoint vastly different from yours - many people think the deprogrammers are the good guys. Many of us are sick of seing cults like the Scientologists and Moonies get away with terrible, often criminal behavior - tax free - while hiding behind the unimpeachable mantle of "religion". There is precedent for denying such things. The U.S. Census refuses to accept "Jedi" as a religion, though they managed to do it in Australia. (I'm not making that up.) And just try smoking a joint in front of a cop and explaining you're Rastafarian. So there is already precedent in this country for deciding which belief systems deserve protection as religions. What's the big deal about going after these groups that are hurting their believers? Best wishes, -Kasreyn
I didn't realize that you were trying to win a debate over the definition of "deprogrammer", because I don't see any such debate. What I was disputing was your assertion that wherever the word "cult" appeared in such a definition, one could substitute "religion", since (in your words) "Cult is just a derogatory synonym of religion." The "just" makes a false assertion, since some people may employ it as a derogatory synonym for religion but even minimal research makes it clear that there are other definitions which are not supersets, subsets, or synonyms of religion. Now you are admitting that this assertion, on which hangs the proposal that we should label all deprogrammers "anti-religious", is your own POV. Needless to say, that isn't a good enough reason for such conflation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can't tell: are you replying to J. Tell or me? I assume to him b/c of nesting of your comment. -Kasreyn
I was replying to J.Tell; he was the one arguing that deprogrammers should be characterized as "anti-religious". -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
But they are, aren't they? They are about talking someone and making him/her rescind his/her spiritual beliefs via coercive means. They do not deprogram people to stop consuming sugar are they?--Zappaz 22:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Objection already answered, but since you didn't read it the first time: we do not call police officers "anti-people" because they track down and arrest criminals, and criminals are a subset of people. It would be even more ludicrous to call deprogrammers "anti-religious" because they try to counter what they see as cult indoctrination, since only under some (not all) definitions of "cult" is it even a subset of religion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Your logic is is truly perverse ... How can you compare police officers to deprogrammers? Unless you refer to police brutality, that is. :) ≈ jossi ≈ 03:01, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
If I understand Feldspar correctly, his point was not really about police officers, but was an example being used to demonstrate the flawed logic of the statement "deprogrammers are anti religious". In the sense that cults are considered religions by some, this might be seen as true in a sense. However, the efforts of deprogrammers are specifically devoted towards that subset of religions known as cults. They are anti-cult; to call them anti-religion is an error of over-generalization.
Feldspar's point was to make another example of over-generalization by way of analogy: calling police "anti-people" is technically true during an arrest, because criminals are people. However, it is an obvious over-generalization, by which Feldspar intended you to realize that "deprogrammers are anti-religion" was an over-generalization as well. If you need more help, please reply and I'll be happy to explain further. -Kasreyn
If you're saying that the article should not assert that cults engage in religious mind control OR that deprogrammer engage in anti-religious mind control, than I agree with you. Both assertions are controversial; neither has been established as a fact.
There are two major and opposing points of view about cults and deprogrammers: (1) cults brainwash via mind control, and deprogrammers free cult victims to think for themselves; (2) it's not true that "cults" use mind control, and deprogrammers exploit people's gullibility / desire to save face. It would be hard for Wikipedia to determine which (if any) of this is really true, so we're better off ducking conclusions and just describing the controversy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
An encyclopaedia should contain mostly facts. A controversy can be described, but focusing on controversy is what happens when logic has been weakened by propaganda. (IMHO of course).--J.Tell 02:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate J. Tell's and Kasreyn in NPOVing this article. Two pair of new eyes will do wonders. Be bold! :) --Zappaz 03:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll do my best, over time.--J.Tell 04:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What is "NPOVing" something? Adding the NPOV tag? That only takes one person though. Bear with me, I'm fairly new to wikipedia. -Kasreyn
"NPOVing" is the process of bringing in article into conformity with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Welcome aboard, -Willmcw 20:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Pandora Project

  • What about the Pandora project? Anybody to go for it? Ben please vote! 09:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
What was that? It got deleted before I had a chance to look into it.--AI 30 June 2005 01:46 (UTC)
There's no record of it being deleted. Looks like the article just never existed. — Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 05:16 (UTC)

See also

I've removed some articles from the "See Also" section where the articles make clear that their relevance to mind control is tenuous at best. For instance, neither Texas Medication Algorithm Project nor New Freedom Commission on Mental Health make any mention of it whatsoever. Thought police and thought crime are almost antithetical to the article topic, since any authority which possessed an effective method of mind control would have no need for the less-effective modality of criminalizing thoughts or appointing guardians to enforce that criminalization. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decision to remove those related articles is based on "someone's" POV. He didn't remove a non-sense article, but insists on removing the ones mentioned, among several others. Please explain each topic and why it should not be in See also.--AI 02:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have already explained why I removed the four mentioned above, and you will need to actually answer those reasonings before demanding more. As for the "several others", they number exactly two: one I removed and later decided was relevant enough to restore; the other has no actual connection to mind control whatsoever but only to the fact that our current President once mispronounced a word related to it. Would you care to explain how "two" becomes "several others" in your world? As for your prejudicial observation that "Decision to remove those related articles is based on 'someone's' POV" -- why, yes. Every decision about what is, or is not, relevant to link to is reflective of someone's POV. Your decision to remove an article about an emblematic symbol of the debate over mind control is certainly reflective of your own POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, please stay up-to-date on the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health article. It is related to the subject of Mind control:

"Opponents are gravely concerned about what they see as the skyrocketing use of primitive chemical mind control techniques upon citizens, little different from chemical straitjacketing, which are solely based upon an unproven chemical imbalance theory."

Please do not revert the article anymore.--AI 29 June 2005 02:57 (UTC)
Yes, but quite obviously there is not much of a relationship -- just ask Ombudsman, who keeps removing the mention of mind control from the introduction. (You would have known this, if you'd stayed 'up-to-date' on the article.) Now here's the thing: relationships between abstract and concrete are asymmetrical in terms of importance. If A is a large, general, abstract idea such as "mind control", and B is just one in a huge, voluminous list of things that have been considered at one time or another to constitute a concrete example of that abstract idea, A or otherwise be related to the topic of A, A is clearly much more relevant to B than B is to A. Get it? Haemophilia is more important to Tsarevich Alexei of Russia than the other way around. Mind control is more important to New Freedom Commission on Mental Health than the other way around.
Which means that if someone is going to repeatedly place a particular B in the "See Also" section of the article on A, then the fact that it's considered by some to be an A had jolly well better be one of the most important aspects of B. You don't insist that out of all the many things we could put in "Mind control"'s See Also list, that "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" is so intimately connected with mind control that it has to be in there -- and then decide that in the Commission's own article, "mind control" deserves to be buried in the second-to-last sentence in the second-to-last paragraph. When you and Ombudsman kept insistently adding New Freedom Commission to the See Also list here, I said "fine" and made sure the Commission's own article reflected the importance that you two were insisting it had to the topic of mind control. When Ombudsman made it clear that mind control was not so important as all that to the Commission after all, I said "fine" and removed the link from this article again. What I will not say "fine" to is the duplicity of you two trying to have your cake and eat it too, trying to minimize the connection in one place and maximize it in the other. -- Antaeus Feldspar 29 June 2005 03:43 (UTC)
I do not understand what is the reason for blowing soooo much air for a See also article. Is there anything behind this? or have you too much free time? --Zappaz 29 June 2005 04:56 (UTC)
Ah, Zappaz doesn't understand why consistency might be desirable. Someone fetch me a glass of water and my pills, I may have a cardiac event from that surprise. ;) -- Antaeus Feldspar 29 June 2005 23:51 (UTC)
Please take care, Antaeus Feldspar.--AI 30 June 2005 01:41 (UTC)
Antaeus, I only read your first sentence there because I don't need a lecture from YOU! Actually, I agree with much of what you have to say, except when your POV differs from mine. ;) --AI 30 June 2005 01:37 (UTC)

"Read the article"? What do you think I've been saying people should do? I've been telling everyone that they should go read the article and see how tangential the association is! Heck, they shouldn't just read the article, they should read the article history, and see how fervently Ombudsman has been fighting the idea that mind control is relevant enough to the New Freedom Commission to merit mention in the intro. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Tinfoil hat

This has been removed because the article tinfoil hat is non-sense. If you disagree, state reason(s) here.--AI 02:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly not patent nonsense; you will therefore have to explain why you are making the claim that it is "nonsense" and what you are trying to indicate by that term. Perhaps you are under the impression that an article is 'nonsense' if the information in it is unfavorable to you, but somehow I do not think you can point to a single sentence of the article which is untrue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tinfoil hat may be a candidate for deletion according to "incomplete" policy. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Hoaxes.--AI 16:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, and I see you've improperly tried to get the article speedy-deleted. It seems you don't comprehend the important distinction between a hoax article and an article about a hoax, so let me clarify: A hoax article is one where editors try to fool Wikipedia into printing something which is not true. An article about a hoax is one where it is described how some party or parties (possibly unknown) tried and possibly succeeded in getting people (not necessarily at all connected with Wikipedia) to believe something which is not true.
In short, only if it were untrue that hats made of tinfoil have ever been worn by the mentally disturbed as protection from feared mind control and if it were untrue that they have ever been widely believed to be the favored headgear of the paranoid and if it was untrue that the phrase "tinfoil hat" had entered the common vernacular as a shorthand for intimating that someone suffered from paranoia, would it be a hoax article and a candidate for deletion under your "'incomplete' policy". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regardless, this article is a great reference, isn't it? --AI 18:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article Tinfoil hat is a documentation of what originally started as a joke or a kooks idea. There is no scientific basis for the toinfoil hat theories, and existence of the article is merely for historical documentation of this kookiness.--AI 29 June 2005 02:57 (UTC)
IMHO, referencing historical documentation of kookiness to the subject of Mind control indicates the POV: "mindcontrol is a kook's conspiracy theory."
The link should not be there unless you think it is important to present this pov.--AI 29 June 2005 02:57 (UTC)

Implants?

Under the 3rd paragraph of "Hypothetical technologies of mind control", there is the following sentance: "Physical implants discovered in the cerebral tissue of such 'schizophrenics' have allegedly substantiated such claims."

I vote to remove the sentance, due to a lack of any external source being cited.

I disagree. That was contributed [13] by anonymous (129.173.208.194) and they provided a reference: Kilde, Rauni Leena, M.D., Former Chief Medical Officer of Finland Microwave Mind-Control. --AI 14:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Steven Hassan

"self-proclaimed expert on "destructive cults"" in view of Hassan having been expert witness to a congressional inquiry on a cult, self-proclaimed is not a correct way to put it. Considering that Hassan's views are contested from several sides, an unqualified "expert" might also not be acceptable, so I changed it to the neutral "psychologist" (where he has a master degree, so that's not controversal). --Irmgard 21:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Moral compass

Although the introduction flatly states mind control 'theories' have ethical implications, a quick glance through the article only turns up one line to that effect, buried at the end of a quote, "We must recognize that those who join the cults, while morally responsible, are also spiritually ignorant." Since ethical issues obviously merit inclusion in the intro, then it would seem reasonable to have at least a paragraph, if not a section, addressing the matter. Deleting the Moral compass link, under these circumstances, begs this question. Ombudsman 18:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Sections about countercult NPOV warning

The section does not describe the fact that several countercultists believe in the existence of mind control and is hence one-sided. I will try to correct this soon but in the meantme the section deserves a NPOV warning. Andries 12:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

And I also continue to think that such long unsummarized quotes do not make the article better and should go into Wikiquote instead of here. Andries 12:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that we have a rebuttal to the Passantino's article, I have removed the NPOV waring for that section --ZappaZ 21:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
okay, thanks, though I do not agree with the selection of the Paul Martin's quote and will change it later. Far better rebuttals can be selected. Andries 22:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I tried to formulate the introduction more neutrally. --Irmgard 18:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The mind control theories as applied to membership in cults assumes that no one would join such a group if he was fully informed what he was getting into. The recruit is not to be held responsible for his actions, since he was "under control". Neither scientists nor sociologists generally consider this model a viable theory.

Gives a wrong impression. The definition is used aargument against the mind control concept but supporters qualify it as a straw man argument. True, both parties do not consider this a viable theory but for different reasons and with different deductions. So it should not be in the general section. --Irmgard 18:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Theory

BTW, it's not a very good idea to call mind control a theory - the frequent repetition gives the impression that someone wants to imply that mind control does not exist in practical reality, but in an encyclopedia article theory is rather used in the sense of scientific theory which does not imply that - on the contrary (Wikipedia: "is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct"). So I called mind control a concept - that's neutral regarding existence or non-existence. --Irmgard 18:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a theory as it pertains to the domain of Phsycology. Find me a citation in which "Mind control" is characterized as a "concept". Every way I look and read, "mind control" is discussed as a theory, unless it is a publication by anti-cultists, or fundamentalist Christians. Maybe better would be to say that "anti-cult" theories are accepted by the countercult and anticult movements as feasible, but not by mainstrean science. That is NPOV. I leave that to you to correct. --ZappaZ 21:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

HELLO!!! is anyone interested in reality? Wikipedia is becoming a joke with cult members posting ridiculous nonsense here. These folks are frustrated that within the real world no one takes them seriously and thinks that their "references" are losers and "cult apologists" that have sold out to rich cults. Doesn't ANYONE really watch Wikipedia and get this?

BTW--This guy Zappaz is a follower of guru Maharaji and is just a cult guy trying to trash Wikipedia.

See the following links:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html

http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html

http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt

The "references" these people post are utter trash. Many have been exposed repeatedly as little more than whores that sell out to whoever will pay them.

Roger Zamofing

Mind ControlR has also been trademarked by Roger Zamofing, a Swiss marketing consultant, for the use of mind control and marketing for the use in companies.

I removed this sentence because I could not find any evidence for it. Roger Zamofing does exist, a Swiss who does have some not quite mainstream concepts of management and personal enhancement [14] but I did find Mind Control nowhere on his various sites (Mind Power, Mind Mapping etc. are to be found). Could well be that he trademarked Mind Control as well, but as he is not using it, it's not very relevant for this article. --Irmgard 14:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Structure

This was sadly missing in the article - I started to get it sorted out a bit. The first step was, getting all mind control models and explanations into chapter "Models and methods" (well, there might be some more, but I hope I got the most important ones). I wrote in the beginning chapter, that none of these are up to scientific standard, so it is not necessary to repeat this in each case - the models and methods are attributed to specific persons and referenced. As most counterpositions of mind control go against the general concept and not against the specific models, this makes more sense in a different chapter. --Irmgard 17:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

PS A few paras are temporarily "homeless" in the end. --Irmgard 17:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks pretty good from what I can see. Wouldn't it be better to move the "homeless" paragraphs to the talk page, though, until their proper form and placement can be determined? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

All right, since some people like to play little games with sneering little comments like "restoring correct sectioning and structure", here goes:

In the context of cults/NRMs may be how some editors are most interested in the concept of mind control, but there is no reason to bias the article towards that context. That is why I am moving two paragraphs about models of mind control that happened to be developed in the context of cults/NRMs to the section for models of mind control. Hopefully this could eventually result someday in the article reading like it was shaped by people interested in presenting the subject in an NPOV fashion, rather than by people interested in pushing their own view re: cults.

Now waiting for the inevitable complaints about "acting unbecomingly" and "rhetorical flaunting" and whatever-else bullshit can be used to dress up "how dare you oppose my attempts to make these articles my soapbox. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are interested in NPOV? I reading your comments in this and other articles you are editing, I must tell you that come across as a politically motivated PIA, and not as the Defender of NPOV. --38.119.107.70 05:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your apparent candor, .70. I'm sure that in your almost 48 hours on Wikipedia, you must have absorbed all the information necessary for a truly meaningful evaluation of another editor's motivations. Your own edits don't show the least sign of a political agenda themselves, therefore making you perhaps the only one of us worthy to cast the first stone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Some may find your language offensive, Antaeus. --AI 06:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 38.119.107.70. Anyway, this talk page is for the article Mind Control. Please take personal comments to personal talk pages. --AI 20:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

When you say you agree with .70, AI, do you mean you agree with his personal attacks on me? Or do you mean you agree with the things he said which were relevant to the article mind control, which were ... er... uh.... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Back to the subject of mind control. --AI 01:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Recovery from Cults (book)

Recovery from Cults (book) should be merged here. --Stefano Ponte 06:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

no, I do not agree. The concept of mind control is, I think (have to re-read it), not a major topic in the book. At least, the book treats much more. Andries 06:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The chapter of the book Understanding Mind Control: Exotic and Mundane Mental Manipulations by Zimbardo is given in the references and there mind control sure is a major topic. --Irmgard 07:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The book article as such should not be merged here: only about 70 of 400 pages deal with mind control - another 40 with exit counseling, so that's not the place for it either. --Irmgard 22:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Recruitment rates

I removed this para, because I cannot follow the calculations - also I do not see to whom it appears that... --Irmgard 21:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Taking Barker's figures with Hendricks' figures, it appears that less than 0.5% of people who stayed overnight became long-term members.

Also I changed the title to the actual subject at hand and took Eileen Barker, who did the research, as source which is encyclopedically preferable to "The Passantinos write that Eileen Barker..." BTW, where do the figures of Tyler Hendrick's come from? --Irmgard 21:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Brainwashing

Anyone disagree with a merge? Banana04131 00:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Not I. Merge should be under Mind control - this is the more general topic and a less loaded term. --Irmgard 20:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Me either: aren't they the same thing? Seahen 00:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the merge, but the overall title should be Mind Control, of which Brainwashing is a subset. In specific, brainwashing is sometimes used specifically for Cold War - era Chinese and Korean tactics, and cult mind control, where Mind Control in general contains topics like subliminals which aren't considered "brainwashing". --Kasreyn
I think they're separate enough... IMHO mind control should be real-time, whereas brainwashing requires no input from the brainwasher after the brainwashee has been brainwashed. However, it's not a strong opinion, and I agree with Kasreyn that Mind Control should be the title if they get merged. Peter T.S. 00:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that brainwashing could be a child of the Mind Control article, since as been noted brainwashing is a single technique for the broader concept of mind control. trioptic 19:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Another vote for Mind Control as primary, if there is to be a merge. The reference for Silva Mind Control, for one, would not be appropriate at all under the other heading. Doc 03:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It would be ludicrous to merge mindcontrol into brainwashing. Brainwashing should be under mind control, although I rarely come across the term in my research. Merging the term MC into brainwashing would be something I would suggest if I was trying disinfo. Fluoride is a mind control ploy, hardly brainwashing. And the term "brainwashing" is too emotive a term, in other words a perfect "slide". john http://www.whale.to/b/mind_control.html
As this discussion over a merge has been going on for almost a year now, it would seem a good time to "call the question" and either do a merge following the concensus of "Mind control" as the primary heading or not and remove the merge flag. Doc 19:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
It is ludicrous to merge these two articles, as the concepts are quite separate. There is insufficient consensus for a merger. Please do not make another attempt at merging prematurely. Ombudsman 18:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If I wanted to suppress information about mind control I would attempt to make it vanish by putting it under 'brainwashing'. 86.128.125.110 19:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I see in the discussions, there are eight or nine votes pro merge with mind control as main article, one weak vote against merge, one strong vote against merge, and one strong vote against merge with Brainwashing as main article by an IP. Looks too me like a discussion consensus per Wikipedia:How to hold a consensus vote#First choice: Don't vote, just discuss pro merge under Mind Control. But ok, we can make an official vote. --Irmgard 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

goof

Who thinks that the HAARP project can control minds? That sounds ridiculous! Scorpionman 14:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"sounds ridiculous!" The big secrets are easy to keep as they are too unbelievable. "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity."---Marshall McLuha. They use the HAARP system to control the weather--which is drought/famine in Africa, and Hurricanes in the USA http://www.whale.to/b/haarp.html

Merge vote

This vote is about merging Mind control and Brainwashing articles. Previous discussions see above under Talk:Mind control#Merging and Talk:Mind control#Merge with Brainwashing. --Irmgard 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro merge under main article Mind control

  1. Support mergeIrmgard 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support, but the merged article should explain the differences or lack thereof. Seahen 20:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support mergeBanana04131 21:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Tilman 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Tilman
  5. Support merge
    As noted below, the term, mind control is not even defined by any major dictionary. Also, the definition of brainwashing used in the Wiki-brainwashing article is much narrower than the definition found in most dictionaries. Most major dictionaries include non-political forms of thought manipulation of an audience, such as advertising, as one of the forms of brainwashing, whereas the definition used in the Wiki-brainwashing article does not. It seems to me that the Wiki definition may need to be broadened to in order to better represent this more popular understanding of the term.
    I always thought that the two terms were virtually interchangeable, only I thought that the term brainwashing was probably used more in the popular vernacular, and the term mind control was probably used more in a professional context. If anyone can cite any known widely accepted sources such as dictionaries or professional journals, that might prove otherwise, then I would certainly be open to learning more how the two terms might have any significantly different popular connotations.
    -Scott P. 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks Scott for the alwasy insightful comments. I would support expanding Brainwashing to include other non-political aspects as covered by reputable sources. The objection is to merging Mind control into it as this is a specific term mostly used in a countr-cult/anti-cult context and almost exclusively by people that advocate against them. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support merge for reasons I've already stated several places in this discussion page, namely that mind control is a sufficiently general term to cover all forms of mental influence, of which brainwashing is a specific, politically motivated subset. Although I must say I don't look forward to our task of making these two articles into one... -Kasreyn
P.S. Regarding this "vote", is this a simple majority thing or are 2/3 required? And when will the voting be "over" and the decision be made? And who makes that decision? -Kasreyn
Polling is just a measure to gauge if there is consensus. In this case, there isn't so far. Voting has no standing in Wikipedia, besides Wp:RFA, WP:AFD abd WP:RM. Read Wikipedia:Consensus ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro merge under main article Brainwashing

Contra merge

  1. Oppose. No need to merge, as each article address a different context. What is needed is a pairing down of Mind control that can be done by merging the material related to Brainwashing to that article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Postpone merge. Postpone until both concepts have been thoroughly compared and contrasted. Does either article show what "mind control" and "brainwashing" have in common? Also, since "brainwashing" is defended (advocated) as a remedy to the planting of poisonous idea's in the target's mind, how is it different from "deprogramming"? (I like the idea of consolidating as much as anyone else, but not when it's done prematurely. Seperate articles are easier to develop without edit wars.) Uncle Ed 16:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    I see your point, Uncle Ed, but I advocate the merge especially with the "sorting out" purpose in mind - in newer literature, mind control, brainwashing, and thought reform are used by different authors to describe exactly the same concept (Zablocki and Kent use brainwashing, Zimbardo and Amitrani mind control, Lifton thought reform, etc. - this makes it rather complicated sorting it out across several articles. --Irmgard 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    Your interpretation of "different authors describe exactly the same concept" is original research. We need to respect the fact that if notable sources describe a certain phenomenon with different terms, they have to be presented in Wikipedia under these terms. Otherwise, this will become an essay in which the POV that brainwashing, mind control, and thought reform are one and the same is presented. That is contradictory to the three basic principles of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability , Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    That accusation of original research is a bit rash, Jossy - it's really not my idea. Also, this is a discussion, not an article, so the rules here are not as strict anyway. But if you insist, here in the service of Wikipedia:Verifiability , Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view some references (there are a lot more, but this should be enough to show that the terms are used interchangeably even by Introvigne and APA) --Irmgard 20:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC):
    Cults and Mind Control
    What is Mind Control?
    Mind control (also known as "brainwashing," "coercive persuasion," and "thought reform") refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s). Such methods include the following:
    * extensive control of information in order to limit alternatives from which members may make "choices"
    * deception
    * group pressure
    * intense indoctrination into a belief system that denigrates independent critical thinking and considers the world outside the group to be threatening, evil, or gravely in error an insistence that members’ distress-much of which may consist of anxiety and guilt subtly induced by the group-can be relieved only by conforming to the group
    * physical and/or psychological debilitation through inadequate diet or fatigue the induction of dissociative (trance-like) states via the misuse of meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, and other exercises in which attention is narrowed, suggestibility heightened, and independent critical thinking weakened
    * alternation of harshness/threats and leniency/love in order to effect compliance with the leadership’s wishes isolation from social supports pressured public confessions
    "Mind Control" in New Religious Movements and the American Psychological Association
    During a TV transmission (the seventh edition of 7 volte 7 [7 time 7], broadcast by Telenova and Telesubalpina and re-broadcast by Sat2000, the Italian Bishops' Conference satellite TV, Mr. Introvigne said that the words, "cult" and "brainwashing" or "mind control," are typical of anti-cult movements. These movements supposedly use them as "sticks" with which to beat minority religious movements. They are only a way of expressing religious intolerance.
    The Group Psychological Abuse Scale
    These disagreements led to a resolution passed by Division 36 (Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues—now called Psychology of Religion) of the American Psychological Association, which says in part:
    "...there is no consensus that sufficient psychological research exists to scientifically equate undue non-physical persuasion (otherwise known as ‘coercive persuasion,’ ‘mind control,’ or ‘brainwashing’) with techniques of influence as typically practiced by one or more religious groups." Further, the Executive Committee invites those with research on this topic to submit proposals to present their work at Divisional programs. (PIRI Executive Committee Adopts Position on Non-Physical Persuasion, 1991, p. 3).
    "Blind, or just don't want to see ?"
    Going back to those who are trying to understand and investigate these issues honestly and without prejudices, we find a proposal by Zablocki interesting. He says that the notion of "brainwashing" should be defined again, and then treated like any other notion of social psychology. The idea that "brainwashing" must involve the denial of free choice is based on wrong premises. "Brainwashing" does not in fact state that people are not able to choose freely, but they choose freely on the basis - however - of values which are different and which have been totally restructured according to the viewpoint of the group and its leader. Zablocki holds that there is a sequence of events which can be observed in the notion of "brainwashing" and which sometimes last for years. "This visible and relatively unambiguous sequence consists of four steps : 1)affiliation, 2) lifestyle modification, 3) disaffiliation, and 4) disenchantment". [11]
    Zablocki's main hypothesis is, that under certain circumstances a person can be subjected to a form of persuasion which can transform his or her values of reference and notion of personal identity. This is a special kind of persuasion which is performed within a strongly united group, which largely or totally controls the environment around the individual, and which uses stress and disorientation to exercise its influence.
    The peculiarity of this kind of persuasion lies in the fact that it persists even after the individual has left the group, as well as in the terror of leaving the group it brings about, as if the very life of the individual depended on his or her belonging to the group. Of course, even though these aspects are easy to observe, there is no reason to think they are present, or have the same intensity, in every group. There may also be individuals who are hard to condition, since the process varies from individual to individual.
    Zablocki also says that, in his opinion, "...brainwashing is likely to always remain a relatively rare phenomenon because of the difficulty of achieving the high degree of mileu control and charismatic influence necessary to make it effective. [12]
    (the name is Jossi, btw) Thanks for the effort. You can also Google these terms to find 170,000 hits [15]. But these are almost exclusively in the context of cults. There are other significat areas in which it does not apply. If the proposal is to create an article Mind control, brainwashing and thought reform in cults that would apply. But I don't think this is the case. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose merge: Merging simply doesn't make sense, unless compartmentalization is the objective, as in an attempt to create something akin to the barbwire enclosed free speech zone at Bush's last inauguration. While some overlap exists, there is a significant difference related to specificity: brainwashing implies an individual's memories are selectively blanked, and replaced with certain beliefs, whereas mind control simply implies a vague means (e.g. subliminal programming) of manipulating individuals or targeted sets of individuals. What overlap exists is insufficient to merit merging. Ombudsman 00:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    That's the black and white definition of brainwashing used by e.g. Introvigne - others, like Lifton or Zablocki above define it so differently that the overlap cannot be excluded.
    --Irmgard 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose P0M 01:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose merge: The articles discuss different things. Although Brainwashing could, arguably, be included in Mind Control, (not the other way around), the articles themselves state the difference: "Mind control is a general term ... an individual's thinking, behavior, emotions or decisions can ... be manipulated at will by outside sources." whereas "Brainwashing ... is the application of coercive techniques to change the beliefs or behavior of one or more people for political purposes". <subjective>It also seems to me that mind control would require real-time control with input from an outside source. Think washing a car vs. remote-controlled car. </subjective> Peter T.S. 00:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose merge. Mind control is by far the best term. Brainwashing is a small part of mind control, and isn't one I hear of much,and presume it donates the Manchurian type of victim under MKUltra, eg Brice Taylor who became a total mind control slave, one of many no doubt still out there. Information control is the usual type of mind control, which is what you get through the media, but hardly 'brainwashing'. john 17:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose merge: Brainwashing is distinct from a class of technological mind control, which could occur via electromagnetic methods, as establishing a potential across a neural cell membrane can cause a neural cell to fire. This understanding has been available since the 1930s, when experimenters discovered this capacity on the giant squid neural cell, which is very similar to a human neural cell, but much larger, making testing more practical. KA 19-12-2005
  8. Oppose merge. : For reasons already mentioned here, let me just mention that I totally agree with Peter. Paddy 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Disagree with vote

Consolidation strategy

If no consensus develops for an immediate merge, I still support the idea of preparing for one. Let's consolidate, as much as possible.

Perhaps even make a Wikiproject on Cults and mind control - or something like that.

For starters, I'd like to see some tables which show the similarites among the various observations and theories which sociologists (and other "cult observers") have made. I have 28 years experience *in* a cult, so I can tell you what it's like from the inside.

I've also read a lot of the books, like Lifton, Barker, etc. Uncle Ed 22:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to relate cults to the potentiality of manipulating human brains with electromagnetic or other radiation. These categories should be distinct, as cults derive from volitional choices made by an individual, whereas mind control can occur via attack from sources with this technology. Equating them is an attempt to discredit witnesses accounts of possible use of these type of weapons. KA 19-12-2005.

v • d • e
Cults
Definitions
Lists
Organizations
Opposition
Theories
Wiktionary definition · Wikisource · Wikimedia Commons · Wikiquote · Wikinews · Wikibooks

I like the idea of a Wikiproject on Cults and mind control. Mind control (and brainwashing) do have specific meanings within the context of a discussion of cults, somewhat different to the meanings which they have in the context of critiquing, for example, the loaded language or spin sometimes used by political parties, or other forms of social influence, such as the techniques used by advertisers to target or manipulate children and teenagers.

And your idea of tabulating the various observations and theories which sociologists and other cult observers have made seems a promising one too. All the conflicting theories and definitions must currently appear an almost impenetrable tangle to anyone new to the subject. EmmDee 07:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Consolidation sign-up

If you'd like to work together towards consolidation over the next few months, sign up here:

  1. Uncle Ed 22:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Irmgard 09:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Mind Control

The first two paragraphs of the current article read as follows:

'Mind control is a general term for a number of controversial theories proposing that an individual's thinking, behavior, emotions or decisions can, to a greater or lesser extent, be manipulated at will by outside sources.

'The principal feasibility of such control and the methods by which it might be attained (either direct or more subtle) are both subject to hot debates among psychologists and sociologists. Also the exact definition of mind control and the extent of its influence on the individual are debated.'

IMO, the first paragraph is close to being a 'straw man' definition of mind control. The 2cd paragraph does say 'Also the exact definition of mind control ... [is] debated.', but it doesn't say anything about the parameters of the debate.

Therefore I would propose adding a new paragraph after the first two ones, as follows:

'A less mechanistic definition of Mind Control proposes that various organisations promote their particular belief system or worldview, and then believers control their own minds, as they attempt to discipline their minds and reform their personalities, in accordance with the tenets of their new belief system or worldview. This is a process of (sometimes undue) influence by outside sources, rather than of direct manipulation or control.'

Any objections or comments? EmmDee 03:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (Mark Dunlop)

ps. also propose deleting 'at will' from 1st paragraph. It is sufficient to say: '... can, to a greater or lesser extent, be manipulated by outside sources.' EmmDee 04:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Your proposed sentence is original research. Find one or more definitions published in a peer reviewed article, or reputable sources. That will do it. Otherwise the current definition is OK, as it describes the controversy around the term in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia's principle of Neutral Point of View. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 05:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It will be extremely difficult to get such an NOR sentence. The following sources provide no definition for the term "mind control":
  • The Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th ed.)
  • The Canadian Oxford Dictionary
  • Princeton University's WordNet Lexical Database 2.1
  • Google Web Definition (define: operator) (as of 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org)
  • Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
  • Dictionary.com (as of 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC))
  • The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (online edition)
  • The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (3rd edition, online)
I haven't yet found a proper definition from a reliable source. Peter T.S. 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Can you then make a guess on the reasons why none of these reputable sources have a mere mention of the term? How then can the Wikipedia:Verifiability can be applied in this case? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Major dictionaries do not include two-word entries if the meaning is the same as the combination of the two words. For example, "printer paper" is not in the COD. Thus, "mind control" must be control of the mind: { the power of directing, command / the power of restraining } the mind. I propose that mind control is then the power of directing the mind.
It then follows that if someone is under the influence of mind control, their thoughts and actions can be modified at any time by the controller (whereas in brainwashing, once the person has left wherever they were brainwashed, the 'washer has no immediate control). Peter T.S. 12:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Mind control is a recent term coined in the 1970s. Please avoid getting into original research. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
That was not original research. The dictionaries I cited implied that the term was equal to the sum of its parts. My proposition, although I admit it looks like original research, was a proposal on the wording of a term that was implicitly defined by 7 reputable dictionaries.
Where did you find out that the term is from the 1970s? Such a source could be helpful in providing a definition. Peter T.S. 21:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Brainwashing was coined circa 1950. Coercive persuassion was coined in 1961 by Edgar Schein. Mind control was coined a decade later by anti-cult proponents. Though reform was a replacement made by the same proponents when the brainwashing and mind control theories were rejected or questioned in regard to their applicability in the study of religious conversion. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I doubt whether that is true because Lifton used thought reform, not as a replacement, but as a synonym for brainwashing in his 1961 book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. I have read the book, though not all of it. Andries 09:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Steven Hassan defined mind control as follows in his book 'Combatting Cult Mind Control' pub 1988(?) ISBN 1-85538-025-0 page 7 ......start Hassan quote .....

"mind control" may be understood as a system of influences that disrupts an individual's identity (beliefs, behavior, thinking, and emotions) and replaces it with a new identity. In most cases, that new identity is one that the original identity would strongly object to if it knew in advance what was in store.

In this book, I will be referring to the negative uses of mind control. Not all mind control techniques are inherently bad or unethical; for some, the manner in which they are used is what is important. The locus of control should always remain within the individual. It is fine to use hypnosis to stop smoking, for example, as long as the hypnotist leaves the desire and control to stop with the client and doesn't try to move them towards himself.

Today, many techniques of mind control exist that are far more sophisticated than the brainwashing techniques used in World War II and the Korean War. Some involve covert forms of hypnosis, while others are implemented through the highly rigid, controlled social environment of the destructive cult. Above all, it should be recognized that mind control is a very subtle process. ...... end Hassan quote....

That is quite a lot different to the definition given at the start of the Wiki article: 'Mind control is a general term for a number of controversial theories proposing that an individual's thinking, behavior, emotions or decisions can, to a greater or lesser extent, be manipulated at will by outside sources.' It is especially different to the 'manipulated at will' bit. Cult mind control is a much more subtle process.

It is not true to say, as jossi fresco does above, that 'Thought reform was a replacement made by the same proponents when the brainwashing and mind control theories were rejected or questioned in regard to their applicability in the study of religious conversion.'

The situation is that the term mind control can easily be misunderstood to mean a theory about some form of irresistable or robotic control, as Barker at al seem to (deliberately?) misunderstand it. That is the kind of strawman misinterpretation of the term that has been 'rejected or questioned' by various researchers.

Hassan referenced Lifton's work, to try and show parallels, and that cult mind control was a complex and subtle process, not a kind of irresistable 'manipulated at will' kind of deal. I am not aware of any 'anti cultists' that have actually replaced the term mind control with the term 'thought reform'. EmmDee 02:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Lifton's

Hi Jossifresco

I would cite for example parts of Lifton's eight criteria for Thought Reform. http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/responsibility/lifton.htm

1. Milieu Control: Environment control and the control of human communication. Not just communication between people but communication within people's minds to themselves. [...]

3. Loading the Language: Controlling words help to control people's thoughts. ... The words constrict rather than expand human understanding.

4. Doctrine Over Person: No matter what a person experiences, it is the belief of the dogma which is important. Group belief supersedes conscience and integrity.

5. The Sacred Science: The group's belief is that their dogma is absolutely scientific and morally true. No alternative viewpoint is allowed. No questions of the dogma are permitted. [...]

7. The Demand for Purity: The creation of a guilt and shame milieu by holding up standards of perfection that no human being can accomplish. People are punished and learn to punish themselves for not living up to the group's ideals. [...] [my emphases]

The perspective here is that 'mind control' is equivalent to 'Thought Reform'. IOW, a totalist group's ideology/dogma/belief system acts within a person's mind in such a way as to 'control' or strongly influence their thinking processes, and thence their behaviour.

This 'soft' model of mind control needs to be distinguished from the 'hard' or robotic model of mind control, favoured by the tinfoil hat brigade, and also seemingly by some so-called cult apologists such as Dr Eileen Barker. Eg: 'If people are the victims of mind control, they are rendered incapable of themselves making the decision as to whether or not to join a movement - the decision is made for them.' [Dr Barker's italics] (Barker, 'New Religious Movements - A Practical Introduction', pub. HMSO London 1989, page 17).

In support of the soft model of mind control, one could also cite from the works of Zimbardo, Cialdini and others. ISTM that the present first introductory paragraph about mind control: '...theories proposing that an individual's thinking, behavior, emotions or decisions can, to a greater or lesser extent, be manipulated at will by outside sources.'[my emphasis] is biased too much towards the hard/robotic model of mind control, and there should be some indication of the alternative soft model.

I think that my suggested paragraph '...various organisations promote their particular belief system or worldview, and then believers control their own minds ...' is a reasonable short precis or synopsis of the soft model as proposed by Lifton et al (bearing in mind that it is intended as an introductory paragraph). At any rate, I feel that something along those lines should be included, in the interests of NPOV and no bias. (See also section ==Thoughts on the definition of mind control and how it frames debate== at top of this page) EmmDee 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (Mark Dunlop)

Lifton's stuff can go into Thought reform article (now redirecting innapropriately to Mind control. The proposition that coercive persuassion, mind-control, thought reform and brainwashing are one and the same are the POV of the anti-cult and counter-cult movements. Read for example my recebt additions to coercive persuasion. I would srrongly advise editors to be careful not to digress into original research. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, many anti-cultists make a distinction between thought reform/brainwashing and mind control. Andries 19:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Andries. Many/most 'anti-cultists' seem keen to point out that cult mind control is not the same as brainwashing or coercive persuassion or thought reform, though there are quite large areas of overlap, particularly between 'mind control' (as used by cults) and 'thought reform'. Pointing out overlap is not the same as saying they are one and the same, though. Unfortunately, 'brainwashing' is very commonly used in the popular media as a synonym for 'mind control' (as used by cults), so it is a bit of an uphill struggle.

jossi fresco's statement that 'The proposition that coercive persuassion, mind-control, thought reform and brainwashing are one and the same are the POV of the anti-cult and counter-cult movements.' seems like original research or opinion to me. Can you quote sources for this alleged POV?

Anyway, my point is not that they are all 'one and the same', far from it. My point is that 'mind control' is used in two seperate and distinct senses: (a) the hard, irresistable sense - Barker et al: and (b) in the sense of the methods used by cults to gain and manipulate members. Mind control in this latter sense is much closer to thought reform and undue influence than to sense (a). One could say that cult mind control is a form of undue influence that extends over all aspects of a member's behaviour, not just the signing of contracts (which is the narrow legal meaning of the term). Because cult leaders are in a position of trust, and can abuse this position.

So I think that in an article on mind control, it is of fundamental importance to point out the different senses in which the term can be used. EmmDee 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And you accuse me of original research after the assertions you make above? The discussion is about a proposed merger, that so far there is no consensus for. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
One possible solution for this dispute could be creating a new article named Anti-cult theories of mind control or Mind control theories and cults, were you and others can splurge in presenting the anti-cult POV as much as you want, leaving this article to describe non-cult related theories. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Psychosis common

This is one of the more common features - I can see that someone might point out that it is covered elsewhere - I can't see it - but just reverting the edit with no justification is poor editing. This IP is the NHS, I'm a doctor, and see people who think they are haivng their minds controlled. The rest of the article is very interesting, importnat common things generally belong near the top.

Well, perhaps they thought you were a vandal of some kind. You do have a point though, that mind control is a common paranoid delusion. (In fact, one might argue that if you're still capable of wondering if you're under mind control, you probably aren't - wouldn't one of the first goals of a mind controller be to make you think your actions were self-willed?) However, it's important to avoid your statement giving the article the appearance of coming out with a "no such thing" viewpoint, which would be biased (and IMO untrue). Perhaps you can find a more appropriate location for the paragraph than at the immediate top? Also, I would suggest toning "usually" down to "often". In any case, the paragraph's insertion at that point interrupts the flow of the article; the preceding and following paragraphs are part of the same idea. How about moving the paragraph down so it's right above "theoretical models and methods", and working up the paragraph? How about this:
"The belief that one is being manipulated or controlled by outside forces is also recognized as one the hallmarks of paranoid delusional complexes and other psychoses. Those who suffer from this delusion may cling to it despite a complete lack of evidence of anything that might be controlling them. Psychiatric therapy with anti-psychotic medication can often end the delusion or at least mitigate its severity. This should not be taken to imply that mere belief in the existence of mind control is an indicator of psychosis. Belief in the existence of mind control is wide-spread; it is only the obsessive nature of the belief that one is being mind-controlled despite the senses that is psychotic."
How's that? If there are no objections, I'll make the changes myself. -Kasreyn 12:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mind

changing "usually" to "always" or sidestepping the difference between frequency and likelihood and saying "probably" would seem better. There is a subtle change in emphasis there - it is not a question of the belief in th possibility of controlling a mind that is pathognomic of psychosis, it is the belief that the believign mind is personally being externally controlled that is pathognomic. I've not seen it in anyone who was functioning in a way generally (or even often) regarded as sane. But I've not seen everything, is there an example to hand? Midgley 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Would Bush's claims of guidance from God qualify him for such a diagnosis? There may be a subtle distinction in terminology he uses, but the frequent, similar claims by clerics, to the effect that they have received guidance, direction, or inspiration might serve as examples for you. The most obvious distinction that can be made, between these examples vs yours, is that the former clearly conform with widely held religious beliefs. Typically, members of the psychiatric survivors movement disparage dianoses predicated upon 'symptoms' associated with unpopular or uncommon beliefs. In the US, cultural divides may often contribute to mis-diagnoses -- the cultural chasm is widening between practitioners in the relatively insular medical community (who ascribe often questionable diagnostic labels) and their patients. This growing disparity, and concurrent increased risk of mis-diagnosis, has resulted from an increase in the number of professionals trained in foreign countries while case loads now feature increased demographic diversity. That which is described as divine communication, in many cases, may be little different from explanations given by an individual describing external control. Ombudsman 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That is not a good example. However, the asker gives the answer in the fifth word. The claim is of _guidance_ we are told, not of control. If the President said that he had no choice, exercised no judgement and was under the direct control of god in launching eg an invasion of Iraq, then I suspect there would be a more general worry about the rationality of the exercise. As it is the claims of guidance from god, and of taking into account reports of weapons of a wholesale devastating nature seem quite clearly subordinated, in the view of the person making or implying those effects, to the exercise of judgement by an intact and autonomous individual. There is some eliding of influence and reaction into a poor synonym for control a th etop of this page - different topic, autonomy is the key. Midgley 22:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
on the instance of clerics and direction from their gods, I'm no theologian, but I understood that central to the busines of good and evil was that despite the clear instructions from god the mortal had the choice, and made it freely, of whether to follow them or not. Which appears to let priests generally distinguish themselves from madmen. Midgley 22:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Propose split

I think this article should be split into several different articles. I suggest:

  • Mind Control (disambig)
  • Mind Control (fiction) (referring to ficticious instances of mind control)
  • Mind Control (religious) (referring to alleged mind control by cults)
  • Mind Control (real-time strategy) (referring to the Mind Control strategy in StarCraft Brood War and Red Alert 2 among other places)
  • Mind Control (scientific theory)
  • Mind Control (conspiracy theory) --Nerd42 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
And which would be the principle article the user would get when they searched for "mind control", hmm? And how can we make that decision in an unbiased way? I think the article is better left as it is. Duplicate information will just creep into the daughter articles until they're as large as this one was. Though a seperate article on the Mind Control spell in SC:BW would sorta be considered appropriate, it also seems a bit fancrufty. Does a single ability in a single video game deserve an entire article? Better to have an article on the Protoss and include it there. -Kasreyn 08:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Propose split

"Innere Führung" - Mind Control of Members of the Diplomatic Corps or Political Parties etc.

I would like to know the relation of mind control to practical aspects of the control of members of political parties or members of the diplomatic corps. The German term for this is "Innere Führung". Is there someone who can contribute to these aspects of mind control?

So-Called

I'm wondering if there's any group or belief system that can't be disparaged with being called "so-called". Thanks, JALockhart, for removing some of the POV that tends to regularly trickle into the article. I've often wondered why calling them "cults" requires an "alleged" or "so-called" to be tacked on in front, but calling them "new religious movements" is for some reason considered exempt. There are many who contest the description of such organizations as "religions"; shouldn't they be "new alleged religious movements", or "new so-called religious movements"? "Cult" is a derogatory term, at least outside of purely analytical theological discussion, but "religion" is seen as a positive, status-recognition term. As to what terms might be more NPOV, I'm all ears. I must admit to not knowing any others myself that might suit. -Kasreyn 09:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In my admittedly limited experience, words like so-called and alleged (along with their cousins, the scare quotes—often used redundantly; i.e., together) find their way into articles when cul— …ehr… NRM members try to water down content by attempting to cast doubt on the terminology. In my opinion, they tend to substantiate the doubts about their groups.
As far as I'm concerned, cult is not necessarily POV as long as it isn't being used to discuss or describe the phenomenon and not to single out a specific group. That said, new religious movement is just a euphemism for cult and will eventually take on the same negative connotations—the negative nature is not inherent in the label, it's inherent in the phenomenon. I guess they approve of "religion" because that's what they want their groups to be seen as. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right of course, but I worry about allowing cult members or NRM members or whatever they are, a free hand to call themselves something in order to reframe public perception, and to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for that agenda. I feel, as someone who has spent a good deal of time studying the cult/NRM phenomenon in America, that most average Americans have a hard time realizing what all the disagreement is over, and why cults/NRMs are different from religions. (Full disclosure: I should probably admit that I am personally decidedly anti-cult, but then I'm not a big fan of any religion, even the ones I find more valid and wholesome than others.) New Religious Movement seems to me to be a term designed to hide from view the differences between cults/NRMs and traditional religions.
But then, I also have to wonder whether Jesus of Nazareth wasn't just the L. Ron Hubbard of his time. After all, one of the reasons he was put to death was for challenging the conservative religious dogma of his day. Perhaps at that time, what is today the most popular human religion was seen the way we see Jehovah's Witnesses today. I suppose once an organization grows large enough and sticks around long enough, it's forced to mellow out (or sell out) a bit as the rough edges wear off. Perhaps the cults of today will become more moderate and less harmful once they've been around a few generations; of course, there will always be new ones sprouting up. I'm always very hesitant to make any sort of statement against what might be considered freedom of expression or religion, since my own views on spirituality are decidedly in the minority. But still, I can't help but feel that some of the recruitment methods and organizational systems used by cults/NRMs are so harmful to their members that people deserve a fair warning of what they're getting into; NRM is not a warning. -Kasreyn 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, NRM is not a warning; but neither is, necessarily, the pejorative use of cult.
We cannot control which label—cult or NRM—becomes mainstream; the media, I suppose, control that more than any other group, including the NRMs themselves. And regardless of the label that is, or becomes, mainstream, what is really important is how the label is described. Finally, consider this: The more a group becomes obsessed with insisting that it is not whatever the label is, the more that group draws attention to the association between itself and the label. What matters most, then, is that the description(s) is (are) accurate and objective: emotively worded ones undermine their own credibility.
As to Wikipedia, it is a forum for promoting neither pro-NRM nor anti-NRM agendas; rather, it is a place for describing phenomenon—be they NRMs, cults, traditional religions, or even mind control techniques—objectively and from as many angles as possible (i.e., pros and cons, dangers and benefits, etc.). Apologies if this sounds pedantic, but it is the quality of the information (and its presentation) that counts. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 08:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.