Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: August 29, 2012 10:49PM
See [www.cultnews.com]
Interesting review of Steven Hassan's latest book by a well-known cult expert and psychologist.
Third installment of Steven Hassan’s trilogy adds little understanding
August 28, 2012
By Cathleen A. Mann, PhD
Introduction
Steven Hassan’s latest book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs, just released in summer, 2012, is the latest in what can be seen as a trilogy of sorts, starting with Combatting Mind Control in 1988 and then Releasing the Bonds in 2000. A large portion of the material in his latest book is a verbatim repetition of material from Releasing the Bonds. In his most recent book, Hassan reports that his sister was the impetus to changing his “approach” in interaction away from interventions, an activity that Hassan has been involved in for over 30 years. In the preface to this book, Hassan repeats the story of his introduction to and his exit from the Unification Church (Moonies) and how that exit helped him find his life work of education and liberation from “mind control cults”.
However, it is notable that in this third book, Hassan has greatly expanded his target audience due to what he says is cult activity “increasing exponentially,” and the “rise of the Internet”. Since Hassan maintains a substantial Internet presence through his Web site, www.freedomofmind.com, it could be argued that he has increased public sensitivity to cults, thereby magnifying the importance of his solutions, as well as providing a forum where he can extensively promote his own theories and agenda.
“Cults are on the rise” seems to be the theme of this latest book. But there is no proof of this claim. Hassan offers no scientific study or survey with statistics to prove his theory. It may be that “cults are on a downward turn,” or perhaps “cults have stayed the same”. These possibilities may not help in the marketing and sale of books, but they are two equal possibilities. Of course none of these statements regarding the growth or decline of cults is based upon scientific evidence. Hassan’s theories are not genuinely informative in any factual sense.
It seems to me that the Hassan’s purpose at conflating cult numbers is to frighten people and provide him with a marketing tool to sell books, rather than genuinely seeing so many groups and/or relationships as somehow being “cult-like”. He certainly hasn’t proven otherwise in this book.
It’s interesting to note that Mr. Hassan has written the preface to his new book. In the preface he offers the usual anecdotes and testimonies to his success. Hassan defines both the problem and the cure as “cult like traits seen at every level of society.” Postulating his theory about an overwhelming societal problem, Mr. Hassan then offers his own unique solution.
Defining terms
It is important to note that within his third book Hassan has added new ingredients to his definition of a cult. He claims in the first chapter that a cult uses (1) authoritarian leadership, (2) deception, and (3) destructive mind control. The title of his new book now mentions “beliefs,” but this is not in his definition. It is troubling that a book supposedly written to educate the public about cults would even enter into the area of “beliefs,” when almost all cult educators and experts don’t focus on beliefs, but rather on harmful practices. In fact, it is a myth that cults are solely defined by beliefs. After all, the First amendment or Establishment Clause of the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, which includes the right to believe whatever you wish. Hassan persists in using the term “destructive mind control,” which is not term used in any legal setting and that has no real meaning. Mind control seems quite ominous and rather sensational, but this term does nothing to further the discussion about the dynamics of cults and how they operate. The research done in this area does not mention the term “mind control,” but uses terms such as “undue influence”, which express a more precise and exact meaning.
Ultimate authority
Steve Hassan’s Twitter handle also can be seen as an interesting example of his problem with defining terms and labels. His Twitter handle is “cult expert”. Being qualified and in a court of law as an expert is typically meaningful proof of expertise.
But Mr. Hassan has never provided expert testimony in a court of law. What authority then, outside of Hassan himself, has officially recognized him as an expert concerning cults? Has some authority recognized Hassan as an expert in anything?
Steve Hassan’s latest book, just like the one before it, is self-published. If Mr. Hassan were in fact “the #1 exit counselor,” surely he could find a publisher. Having a publisher would bring in the much needed contribution of objective professional editing, and perhaps a peer review process, which would have made this a better and more credible book.
Starting with page 6, Hassan describes what he calls “common cult scenarios”. These accounts may be the factual descriptions of actual cases or composites, but they read like the most sensational examples of cult scenarios. Hassan repeatedly places himself at the center of these brief case examples as the hero. He never fails to come up with just the right thing to say to successfully get through to a cult member. Once again this fits a familiar pattern. Just like Hassan’s statement about the rise of cults, these scenarios appear self-serving, designed to elevate Mr. Hassan to a pedestal. Apparently, he is the one that can snap people out of a cult with just one or two artful remarks. He thus sets himself up as the ultimate authority on what to say and when to say it. There is no mention of similarly artful things, which family members can say, even though the supposed purpose of this book is “helping loved ones” out of cults. The definition of cult put forth by Mr. Hassan could be applied to many groups. He offers insufficient distinction between what he considers a cult and what might be considered an ordinary group. The message in this book seems to be that Steve Hassan has somehow become the final arbiter who will define such things for everyone.
Borrowing ideas
In Chapter 2, Hassan introduces Lifton’s eight criteria or psychological themes for thought control, another term used to define “mind control,” even though Lifton never used the words mind control in his work. Hassan also introduces Singer’s 6 criteria and brings in the social psychology construct of cognitive dissonance. Even though Hassan names the origins of these ideas, nowhere in the body of his book within any chapter does he include properly cited references. In fact, the reader is told near the end of the book that a bibliography is not available, but rather can be found at Hassan’s Web site. This is certainly not in keeping with any protocol of academic writing and seems like a device to minimize as much as possible the owners of the ideas that Hassan claims as his. Not including such text references when you have depended upon the ideas of others might be considered something akin to plagiarism.
In my opinion proper distinctions are not sufficiently made regarding what are actually Hassan’s purported ideas and the ideas he has copied from others, which have not been given proper attribution. And providing a general bibliography on a Web site simply does not meet either the academic criteria or ethical responsibility regarding meaningful attribution. Although Hassan is obviously not bound by such academic codes of honor, borrowing the ideas of others without citing them has frequently resulted in the expulsion of students from graduate school programs. No reputable academic journal would accept or countenance such omissions. Has Hassan fallen into an academic trap? Does he believe that what he learned from others years ago has somehow now been transformed into his own ideas? Is he somehow convinced that he now owns those ideas? The citation of sources is always an academic requirement and should be an author’s ethical responsibility, regardless of how long ago someone might have been introduced to the material.
The penchant that Steve Hassan has for borrowing upon the ideas of others without specifically cited attribution should be glaringly apparent to anyone familiar with Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP). According to Mr. Hassan’s first book Combatting Cult Mind Control; he has studied NLP extensively with its founders. He has also described how NLP and the writings of its predecessors influenced the development of his own cult intervention model. In Hassan’s latest book (p. 208-214) he discusses concepts and techniques that come from NLP such as Visual Kinesthetic Dissociation and the idea of representational systems. But he fails to cite their source. Hassan makes no mention of NLP whatsoever, nevertheless borrowing from it quite heavily. This is especially troubling, given that NLP remains highly controversial amongst people that study cults, particularly because it can be seen as a manipulative technique of persuasion. NLP also poses an ethical dilemma when used within the context of cult intervention work. The integrity of an intervention and for that matter the interventionist is compromised by the use of such deliberately deceptive techniques and manipulation.
BITE model
On page 23, Hassan introduces what he describes as the powerful BITE (Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotional control) model, something that he seems to see as a superior definition of the manipulation involved within cults. Much of the BITE model is borrowed material from a 30 year long tradition of social psychological research. In reading the elements of the BITE model within Hassan’s current book, that model has now been greatly expanded from his previous two books. The BITE model he now proposes is so broad that it could be applied a very wide array of groups. What is troubling is that Hassan has not provided any guidelines to separate out the groups, which might warrant the cult label and those that do not. The BITE model, as now applied by Hassan, has become a kind of philosophic construct not grounded in facts, but rather theories, many of them borrowed from others.
Hassanology
This composite philosophical approach as now devised by Mr. Hassan might be called “Hassanology”. In the world of cults Hassanology essentially depicts Steve Hassan as the ultimate savior. He is a hammer, and there is an ever expanding list of groups to be seen as nails. As they say, “When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail”. Of course this might once again simply reflect a convenient marketing strategy.
Hassan, repeating themes from his previous two books, introduces on page 52, this idea of dual identities, i.e. a pre-cult identity and a cult identity. There is no evidence of a cult identity v. a pre-cult identity. It is not even established that human behavior works in this way. These are not constructs that are generally accepted in psychology or professional counseling. These claims exist entirely within the confines “Hassanology”. Again, the tone of Mr. Hassan’s book is that these beliefs are true, rather than just one person’s untested ideas.
Another troubling claim is that Hassan believes that all cult members suffer from phobias (p.56). Again, Hassan presents his idea as an absolute truth, ignoring the fact that there is no scientific theory and/or scientific evidence to back it up. Hassan seems to think that his ideas on phobias mesh with his claim that all cults practice hypnosis. He doesn’t acknowledge any exceptions. According to Mr. Hassan all cults do these things. It is true that many cults teach members that leaving the group is wrong or bad, but where are the scientific studies that conclusively demonstrate that this practice constitutes phobia indoctrination?
Strategic interaction Approach
In Chapter 3, Hassan re-introduces his intervention model, the Strategic interaction Approach (SIA). He states that this model will “promote change and encourage growth in the family as well as in the cult member” (p. 36). Mr. Hassan promotes this model as the preferred alternative to “old style” deprogramming and/or “exit counseling”. However, what Hassan does not discuss here or for that matter in his two preceding books, is that his approach includes elements of counseling. And there is nothing specifically mentioned about the cult member being counseled explicitly understanding that they are participating in counseling, i.e. informed consent. In fact, it appears that Hassan does not see the need to offer his SIA counseling as a matter of choice, but instead uses the family dynamic as tool to keep the cult member talking and then to spring his counseling upon them without informed consent. All professional counseling requires such an understanding and explicit consent before it begins. Counseling, by its very nature, is persuasive and constitutes an unequal power dynamic. A licensed professional counselor that does not know this can do harm to people. People must agree and be amenable to receiving counseling, regardless of what the setting or stated goal may be. The ends do not justify the means. This principle is often cited concerning the questionable behavior of cults, and should apply to those attempting to help cult members as well.
It is important at this juncture to point out that there is really nothing new or unique about the SIA approach. It merely represents a reworking of family systems theory, with no credit given by Hassan to its pioneers, such as expert family systems practitioners Virginia Satir or the Milan Family System theorists. SIA relies heavily on the body of theory and practice within family systems. Hassan’s remarks about the superiority of the SIA over exit counseling within his books is a thinly disguised attempt to say his method is fundamentally more effective, and therefore has better results. However, nowhere does Hassan provide a base rate and/or any type or accepted statistical method defining his results or what constitutes a successful SIA type of family work with a cult member. Yes, Hassan provides anecdotal evidence selectively through testimonials, but there is no way to check if these are legitimate or edited for content. These testimonials are always glowing and positive, which is one of the major drawbacks to using testimonials; it’s deceiving and engenders the idea that your work with cult members is superior, always successful, and has better outcomes than any other approach. This is why professional organizations such as the APA (American Psychological Association) have discouraged reliance upon testimonials. In contrast, one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience is an over reliance on such anecdotal evidence, rather than scientific study.
Is the SIA approach the best approach? What happens when a cult member does not have a family suitable for the SIA approach? Is that situation ignored? The SIA approach, as advertised, has the family doing the bulk of the work and seems to include both deception and emotional blackmail to make it work. Current cult members are never told they are facing an intervention. They are not told they will be subjected to counseling. And they are in a situation where family members confront them with family issues and disappointments, often in a very emotional way, which may be used to persuade the cult member to leave the group.
In Chapter 13, the last chapter in the book, Hassan conjures up possible solutions to the “cult problem”. First, he suggests more involvement by the legal system. Apparently he doesn’t realize that the legal system is already actively involved in sorting through cult issues. Perhaps Mr. Hassan’s ignorance of this fact is because he has never testified in any legal proceeding. Second, Hassan calls for action by mental health professionals to join the “cause,” and that they should be trained in his SIA approach. However, such training would be of questionable value and essentially redundant, since SIA is merely family systems, which is quite familiar to mental health professionals. In what appears to be a contradiction, he also states that people can use his book to develop their own approach, working with their family members themselves. Why then the need to gather a group of mental health professionals under Mr. Hassan’s guidance if families can do this independently? He seems to cotradict himself.
Conclusion
Besides the problem of repeatedly borrowing other people’s ideas without cited attribution and a lack of objective evidence to prove his theories, Hassan’s latest book gives the impression that he sees his methodology as the only way. It’s curious that he includes pages on how to battle his critics. Isn’t it possible that other ideas might be valid? At the very least, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. Or has Hassanology become an “absolute science”?
It is interesting to note that on page 25 under the condition “thought control,” is listed the “[r]ejection of rational analysis, critical thinking and constructive criticism”. This is an excellent point and one that should be followed by every cult critic, cult interventionist, professional counselor, or expert. This would include accepting criticism without becoming defensive and the ability to see and correct problems. Debate should be based upon rational analysis. A person working in the cult recovery or education field should endeavor to emulate these characteristics. It is incumbent upon him or her to model this behavior, as it is the rejection of such values that quite often forms the basis for criticizing the leaders and dynamics of cults.
Cathleen A. Mann has a doctorate in psychology and has been a licensed counselor in the state of Colorado since 1994. Dr. Mann has done research regarding cult formation and the recruiting and retention practices of high demand groups. She has been court qualified as an expert in 7 states.
Interesting review of Steven Hassan's latest book by a well-known cult expert and psychologist.
Third installment of Steven Hassan’s trilogy adds little understanding
August 28, 2012
By Cathleen A. Mann, PhD
Introduction
Steven Hassan’s latest book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs, just released in summer, 2012, is the latest in what can be seen as a trilogy of sorts, starting with Combatting Mind Control in 1988 and then Releasing the Bonds in 2000. A large portion of the material in his latest book is a verbatim repetition of material from Releasing the Bonds. In his most recent book, Hassan reports that his sister was the impetus to changing his “approach” in interaction away from interventions, an activity that Hassan has been involved in for over 30 years. In the preface to this book, Hassan repeats the story of his introduction to and his exit from the Unification Church (Moonies) and how that exit helped him find his life work of education and liberation from “mind control cults”.
However, it is notable that in this third book, Hassan has greatly expanded his target audience due to what he says is cult activity “increasing exponentially,” and the “rise of the Internet”. Since Hassan maintains a substantial Internet presence through his Web site, www.freedomofmind.com, it could be argued that he has increased public sensitivity to cults, thereby magnifying the importance of his solutions, as well as providing a forum where he can extensively promote his own theories and agenda.
“Cults are on the rise” seems to be the theme of this latest book. But there is no proof of this claim. Hassan offers no scientific study or survey with statistics to prove his theory. It may be that “cults are on a downward turn,” or perhaps “cults have stayed the same”. These possibilities may not help in the marketing and sale of books, but they are two equal possibilities. Of course none of these statements regarding the growth or decline of cults is based upon scientific evidence. Hassan’s theories are not genuinely informative in any factual sense.
It seems to me that the Hassan’s purpose at conflating cult numbers is to frighten people and provide him with a marketing tool to sell books, rather than genuinely seeing so many groups and/or relationships as somehow being “cult-like”. He certainly hasn’t proven otherwise in this book.
It’s interesting to note that Mr. Hassan has written the preface to his new book. In the preface he offers the usual anecdotes and testimonies to his success. Hassan defines both the problem and the cure as “cult like traits seen at every level of society.” Postulating his theory about an overwhelming societal problem, Mr. Hassan then offers his own unique solution.
Defining terms
It is important to note that within his third book Hassan has added new ingredients to his definition of a cult. He claims in the first chapter that a cult uses (1) authoritarian leadership, (2) deception, and (3) destructive mind control. The title of his new book now mentions “beliefs,” but this is not in his definition. It is troubling that a book supposedly written to educate the public about cults would even enter into the area of “beliefs,” when almost all cult educators and experts don’t focus on beliefs, but rather on harmful practices. In fact, it is a myth that cults are solely defined by beliefs. After all, the First amendment or Establishment Clause of the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, which includes the right to believe whatever you wish. Hassan persists in using the term “destructive mind control,” which is not term used in any legal setting and that has no real meaning. Mind control seems quite ominous and rather sensational, but this term does nothing to further the discussion about the dynamics of cults and how they operate. The research done in this area does not mention the term “mind control,” but uses terms such as “undue influence”, which express a more precise and exact meaning.
Ultimate authority
Steve Hassan’s Twitter handle also can be seen as an interesting example of his problem with defining terms and labels. His Twitter handle is “cult expert”. Being qualified and in a court of law as an expert is typically meaningful proof of expertise.
But Mr. Hassan has never provided expert testimony in a court of law. What authority then, outside of Hassan himself, has officially recognized him as an expert concerning cults? Has some authority recognized Hassan as an expert in anything?
Steve Hassan’s latest book, just like the one before it, is self-published. If Mr. Hassan were in fact “the #1 exit counselor,” surely he could find a publisher. Having a publisher would bring in the much needed contribution of objective professional editing, and perhaps a peer review process, which would have made this a better and more credible book.
Starting with page 6, Hassan describes what he calls “common cult scenarios”. These accounts may be the factual descriptions of actual cases or composites, but they read like the most sensational examples of cult scenarios. Hassan repeatedly places himself at the center of these brief case examples as the hero. He never fails to come up with just the right thing to say to successfully get through to a cult member. Once again this fits a familiar pattern. Just like Hassan’s statement about the rise of cults, these scenarios appear self-serving, designed to elevate Mr. Hassan to a pedestal. Apparently, he is the one that can snap people out of a cult with just one or two artful remarks. He thus sets himself up as the ultimate authority on what to say and when to say it. There is no mention of similarly artful things, which family members can say, even though the supposed purpose of this book is “helping loved ones” out of cults. The definition of cult put forth by Mr. Hassan could be applied to many groups. He offers insufficient distinction between what he considers a cult and what might be considered an ordinary group. The message in this book seems to be that Steve Hassan has somehow become the final arbiter who will define such things for everyone.
Borrowing ideas
In Chapter 2, Hassan introduces Lifton’s eight criteria or psychological themes for thought control, another term used to define “mind control,” even though Lifton never used the words mind control in his work. Hassan also introduces Singer’s 6 criteria and brings in the social psychology construct of cognitive dissonance. Even though Hassan names the origins of these ideas, nowhere in the body of his book within any chapter does he include properly cited references. In fact, the reader is told near the end of the book that a bibliography is not available, but rather can be found at Hassan’s Web site. This is certainly not in keeping with any protocol of academic writing and seems like a device to minimize as much as possible the owners of the ideas that Hassan claims as his. Not including such text references when you have depended upon the ideas of others might be considered something akin to plagiarism.
In my opinion proper distinctions are not sufficiently made regarding what are actually Hassan’s purported ideas and the ideas he has copied from others, which have not been given proper attribution. And providing a general bibliography on a Web site simply does not meet either the academic criteria or ethical responsibility regarding meaningful attribution. Although Hassan is obviously not bound by such academic codes of honor, borrowing the ideas of others without citing them has frequently resulted in the expulsion of students from graduate school programs. No reputable academic journal would accept or countenance such omissions. Has Hassan fallen into an academic trap? Does he believe that what he learned from others years ago has somehow now been transformed into his own ideas? Is he somehow convinced that he now owns those ideas? The citation of sources is always an academic requirement and should be an author’s ethical responsibility, regardless of how long ago someone might have been introduced to the material.
The penchant that Steve Hassan has for borrowing upon the ideas of others without specifically cited attribution should be glaringly apparent to anyone familiar with Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP). According to Mr. Hassan’s first book Combatting Cult Mind Control; he has studied NLP extensively with its founders. He has also described how NLP and the writings of its predecessors influenced the development of his own cult intervention model. In Hassan’s latest book (p. 208-214) he discusses concepts and techniques that come from NLP such as Visual Kinesthetic Dissociation and the idea of representational systems. But he fails to cite their source. Hassan makes no mention of NLP whatsoever, nevertheless borrowing from it quite heavily. This is especially troubling, given that NLP remains highly controversial amongst people that study cults, particularly because it can be seen as a manipulative technique of persuasion. NLP also poses an ethical dilemma when used within the context of cult intervention work. The integrity of an intervention and for that matter the interventionist is compromised by the use of such deliberately deceptive techniques and manipulation.
BITE model
On page 23, Hassan introduces what he describes as the powerful BITE (Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotional control) model, something that he seems to see as a superior definition of the manipulation involved within cults. Much of the BITE model is borrowed material from a 30 year long tradition of social psychological research. In reading the elements of the BITE model within Hassan’s current book, that model has now been greatly expanded from his previous two books. The BITE model he now proposes is so broad that it could be applied a very wide array of groups. What is troubling is that Hassan has not provided any guidelines to separate out the groups, which might warrant the cult label and those that do not. The BITE model, as now applied by Hassan, has become a kind of philosophic construct not grounded in facts, but rather theories, many of them borrowed from others.
Hassanology
This composite philosophical approach as now devised by Mr. Hassan might be called “Hassanology”. In the world of cults Hassanology essentially depicts Steve Hassan as the ultimate savior. He is a hammer, and there is an ever expanding list of groups to be seen as nails. As they say, “When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail”. Of course this might once again simply reflect a convenient marketing strategy.
Hassan, repeating themes from his previous two books, introduces on page 52, this idea of dual identities, i.e. a pre-cult identity and a cult identity. There is no evidence of a cult identity v. a pre-cult identity. It is not even established that human behavior works in this way. These are not constructs that are generally accepted in psychology or professional counseling. These claims exist entirely within the confines “Hassanology”. Again, the tone of Mr. Hassan’s book is that these beliefs are true, rather than just one person’s untested ideas.
Another troubling claim is that Hassan believes that all cult members suffer from phobias (p.56). Again, Hassan presents his idea as an absolute truth, ignoring the fact that there is no scientific theory and/or scientific evidence to back it up. Hassan seems to think that his ideas on phobias mesh with his claim that all cults practice hypnosis. He doesn’t acknowledge any exceptions. According to Mr. Hassan all cults do these things. It is true that many cults teach members that leaving the group is wrong or bad, but where are the scientific studies that conclusively demonstrate that this practice constitutes phobia indoctrination?
Strategic interaction Approach
In Chapter 3, Hassan re-introduces his intervention model, the Strategic interaction Approach (SIA). He states that this model will “promote change and encourage growth in the family as well as in the cult member” (p. 36). Mr. Hassan promotes this model as the preferred alternative to “old style” deprogramming and/or “exit counseling”. However, what Hassan does not discuss here or for that matter in his two preceding books, is that his approach includes elements of counseling. And there is nothing specifically mentioned about the cult member being counseled explicitly understanding that they are participating in counseling, i.e. informed consent. In fact, it appears that Hassan does not see the need to offer his SIA counseling as a matter of choice, but instead uses the family dynamic as tool to keep the cult member talking and then to spring his counseling upon them without informed consent. All professional counseling requires such an understanding and explicit consent before it begins. Counseling, by its very nature, is persuasive and constitutes an unequal power dynamic. A licensed professional counselor that does not know this can do harm to people. People must agree and be amenable to receiving counseling, regardless of what the setting or stated goal may be. The ends do not justify the means. This principle is often cited concerning the questionable behavior of cults, and should apply to those attempting to help cult members as well.
It is important at this juncture to point out that there is really nothing new or unique about the SIA approach. It merely represents a reworking of family systems theory, with no credit given by Hassan to its pioneers, such as expert family systems practitioners Virginia Satir or the Milan Family System theorists. SIA relies heavily on the body of theory and practice within family systems. Hassan’s remarks about the superiority of the SIA over exit counseling within his books is a thinly disguised attempt to say his method is fundamentally more effective, and therefore has better results. However, nowhere does Hassan provide a base rate and/or any type or accepted statistical method defining his results or what constitutes a successful SIA type of family work with a cult member. Yes, Hassan provides anecdotal evidence selectively through testimonials, but there is no way to check if these are legitimate or edited for content. These testimonials are always glowing and positive, which is one of the major drawbacks to using testimonials; it’s deceiving and engenders the idea that your work with cult members is superior, always successful, and has better outcomes than any other approach. This is why professional organizations such as the APA (American Psychological Association) have discouraged reliance upon testimonials. In contrast, one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience is an over reliance on such anecdotal evidence, rather than scientific study.
Is the SIA approach the best approach? What happens when a cult member does not have a family suitable for the SIA approach? Is that situation ignored? The SIA approach, as advertised, has the family doing the bulk of the work and seems to include both deception and emotional blackmail to make it work. Current cult members are never told they are facing an intervention. They are not told they will be subjected to counseling. And they are in a situation where family members confront them with family issues and disappointments, often in a very emotional way, which may be used to persuade the cult member to leave the group.
In Chapter 13, the last chapter in the book, Hassan conjures up possible solutions to the “cult problem”. First, he suggests more involvement by the legal system. Apparently he doesn’t realize that the legal system is already actively involved in sorting through cult issues. Perhaps Mr. Hassan’s ignorance of this fact is because he has never testified in any legal proceeding. Second, Hassan calls for action by mental health professionals to join the “cause,” and that they should be trained in his SIA approach. However, such training would be of questionable value and essentially redundant, since SIA is merely family systems, which is quite familiar to mental health professionals. In what appears to be a contradiction, he also states that people can use his book to develop their own approach, working with their family members themselves. Why then the need to gather a group of mental health professionals under Mr. Hassan’s guidance if families can do this independently? He seems to cotradict himself.
Conclusion
Besides the problem of repeatedly borrowing other people’s ideas without cited attribution and a lack of objective evidence to prove his theories, Hassan’s latest book gives the impression that he sees his methodology as the only way. It’s curious that he includes pages on how to battle his critics. Isn’t it possible that other ideas might be valid? At the very least, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. Or has Hassanology become an “absolute science”?
It is interesting to note that on page 25 under the condition “thought control,” is listed the “[r]ejection of rational analysis, critical thinking and constructive criticism”. This is an excellent point and one that should be followed by every cult critic, cult interventionist, professional counselor, or expert. This would include accepting criticism without becoming defensive and the ability to see and correct problems. Debate should be based upon rational analysis. A person working in the cult recovery or education field should endeavor to emulate these characteristics. It is incumbent upon him or her to model this behavior, as it is the rejection of such values that quite often forms the basis for criticizing the leaders and dynamics of cults.
Cathleen A. Mann has a doctorate in psychology and has been a licensed counselor in the state of Colorado since 1994. Dr. Mann has done research regarding cult formation and the recruiting and retention practices of high demand groups. She has been court qualified as an expert in 7 states.
Re: Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
Posted by:
yasmin
()
Date: August 31, 2012 12:32AM
This is an interesting review.It does not seem particularly fair though.
Several of her points don't make a lot of sense. Printing a bibliography on the internet is not the same as "plagarism" .
While I am also sceptical of the cult/pre cult personality theory, it does not seem to have been an idea unique to Mr Hassan. And asking for scientific proof of this theory is perhaps similar to asking for proof of Freuds id/ego/superego.
An intervention whether for drugs/alcohol or any other is reason is of course fairly manipulative.It may be that Dr Mann feels no inteventions should ever be done.Fair enough.
And the point she raises about getting informed consent from the client is an important ethical issue.
Is deception ever appropriate in therapy, and if so, under what circumstances?
Counseling family members though, on how to relate to a family member who is not participating in the counseling sessions seems fairly typical of many types of counselors.
My understanding is that the APA is neutral on the whole idea of coercive influence in NRMs; in this case it seems that arguing over the definition of an "expert therapist" in this area is a little pointless.
To be honest, just Mo, but a lot of new theorists seem to write up their various approaches as if they have the one and only possible solution. Jungians don't normally acknowledge the benefits of family systems therapy in their write ups; family systems types don't talk about how great narrative therapy is. Certainly, it is good to acknowledge the existance of multiple possible approaches, but Mr Hassan is hardly the first therapist with a new theory to have written a book discussing its advantages.
Disclaimer regarding Steve Hassan
The Ross Institute of New Jersey/May 2013
See [www.culteducation.com]
The inclusion of news articles within the Ross Institute of New Jersey (RI) archives, which mention and/or quote Steven Hassan, in no way suggests that RI recommends Mr. Hassan or recognizes him in any way.
News articles that mention Steve Hassan have been archived for historical purposes only due to the information they contain about controversial groups, movements and/or leaders.
RI does not recommend Steven Hassan.
RI has received serious complaints about Steve Hassan concerning his fees. Mr. Hassan does not publicly disclose his fee schedule, but according to complaints Steve Hassan has charged fees varying from $250.00 per hour or $2,500.00 per day to $500.00 per hour or $5,000.00 per day. This does not include Mr. Hassan's expenses, which according to complaints can be quite substantial.
Steven Hassan has charged families tens of thousands of dollars and provided questionable results. One recent complaint cited total fees of almost $50,000.00. But this very expensive intervention effort ended in failure.
Dr. Cathleen Mann, who holds a doctorate in psychology and has been a licensed counselor in the state of Colorado since 1994 points out, "Nowhere does Hassan provide a base rate and/or any type or accepted statistical method defining his results..."
Steve Hassan has at times suggested to potential clients that they purchase a preliminary report based upon what he calls his "BITE" model. These "BITE reports" can potentially cost thousands of dollars.
See [corp.sec.state.ma.us]
Steve Hassan runs a for-profit corporation called "Freedom of Mind." Mr. Hassan is listed as the corporate agent for that business as well as its president and treasurer.
RI does not recommend "Freedom of Mind" as a resource.
RI also does not list or recommend Steve Hassan's books.
To better understand why Mr. Hassan's books are not recommended by RI read this detailed review of his most recently self-published book titled "Freedom of Mind."
See [www.cultnews.com]
Steve Hassan's cult intervention methodology has historically raised concerns since its inception. The book "Recovery from Cults" (W.W. Norton & Co. pp. 174-175) edited by Dr. Michael Langone states the following:
"Calling his approach 'strategic intervention [sic] therapy,' Hassan (1988) stresses that, although he too tries to communicate a body of information to cultists and to help them think independently, he also does formal counseling. As with many humanistic counseling approaches, Hassan’s runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework’s foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client."
RI has also learned that Mr. Hassan has had dual-relationships with his counseling clients. That is, clients seeing Mr. Hassan for counseling may also do professional cult intervention work with him.
Professionals in the field of cultic studies have also expressed concerns regarding Steven Hassan's use of hypnosis and Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP).
Based upon complaints and the concerns expressed about Mr. Hassan RI does not recommend Steve Hassan for counseling, intervention work or any other form of professional consultation.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2013 09:43PM by rrmoderator.
Several of her points don't make a lot of sense. Printing a bibliography on the internet is not the same as "plagarism" .
While I am also sceptical of the cult/pre cult personality theory, it does not seem to have been an idea unique to Mr Hassan. And asking for scientific proof of this theory is perhaps similar to asking for proof of Freuds id/ego/superego.
An intervention whether for drugs/alcohol or any other is reason is of course fairly manipulative.It may be that Dr Mann feels no inteventions should ever be done.Fair enough.
And the point she raises about getting informed consent from the client is an important ethical issue.
Is deception ever appropriate in therapy, and if so, under what circumstances?
Counseling family members though, on how to relate to a family member who is not participating in the counseling sessions seems fairly typical of many types of counselors.
My understanding is that the APA is neutral on the whole idea of coercive influence in NRMs; in this case it seems that arguing over the definition of an "expert therapist" in this area is a little pointless.
To be honest, just Mo, but a lot of new theorists seem to write up their various approaches as if they have the one and only possible solution. Jungians don't normally acknowledge the benefits of family systems therapy in their write ups; family systems types don't talk about how great narrative therapy is. Certainly, it is good to acknowledge the existance of multiple possible approaches, but Mr Hassan is hardly the first therapist with a new theory to have written a book discussing its advantages.
Disclaimer regarding Steve Hassan
The Ross Institute of New Jersey/May 2013
See [www.culteducation.com]
The inclusion of news articles within the Ross Institute of New Jersey (RI) archives, which mention and/or quote Steven Hassan, in no way suggests that RI recommends Mr. Hassan or recognizes him in any way.
News articles that mention Steve Hassan have been archived for historical purposes only due to the information they contain about controversial groups, movements and/or leaders.
RI does not recommend Steven Hassan.
RI has received serious complaints about Steve Hassan concerning his fees. Mr. Hassan does not publicly disclose his fee schedule, but according to complaints Steve Hassan has charged fees varying from $250.00 per hour or $2,500.00 per day to $500.00 per hour or $5,000.00 per day. This does not include Mr. Hassan's expenses, which according to complaints can be quite substantial.
Steven Hassan has charged families tens of thousands of dollars and provided questionable results. One recent complaint cited total fees of almost $50,000.00. But this very expensive intervention effort ended in failure.
Dr. Cathleen Mann, who holds a doctorate in psychology and has been a licensed counselor in the state of Colorado since 1994 points out, "Nowhere does Hassan provide a base rate and/or any type or accepted statistical method defining his results..."
Steve Hassan has at times suggested to potential clients that they purchase a preliminary report based upon what he calls his "BITE" model. These "BITE reports" can potentially cost thousands of dollars.
See [corp.sec.state.ma.us]
Steve Hassan runs a for-profit corporation called "Freedom of Mind." Mr. Hassan is listed as the corporate agent for that business as well as its president and treasurer.
RI does not recommend "Freedom of Mind" as a resource.
RI also does not list or recommend Steve Hassan's books.
To better understand why Mr. Hassan's books are not recommended by RI read this detailed review of his most recently self-published book titled "Freedom of Mind."
See [www.cultnews.com]
Steve Hassan's cult intervention methodology has historically raised concerns since its inception. The book "Recovery from Cults" (W.W. Norton & Co. pp. 174-175) edited by Dr. Michael Langone states the following:
"Calling his approach 'strategic intervention [sic] therapy,' Hassan (1988) stresses that, although he too tries to communicate a body of information to cultists and to help them think independently, he also does formal counseling. As with many humanistic counseling approaches, Hassan’s runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework’s foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client."
RI has also learned that Mr. Hassan has had dual-relationships with his counseling clients. That is, clients seeing Mr. Hassan for counseling may also do professional cult intervention work with him.
Professionals in the field of cultic studies have also expressed concerns regarding Steven Hassan's use of hypnosis and Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP).
Based upon complaints and the concerns expressed about Mr. Hassan RI does not recommend Steve Hassan for counseling, intervention work or any other form of professional consultation.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2013 09:43PM by rrmoderator.
Re: Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
Posted by:
The Anticult
()
Date: September 01, 2012 01:44PM
Interesting, you have to wonder...which legit academics are using the methods of science to research cult activities currently?
Its true that anecdotes are deceptive.
anecdotal (testimonial) evidence www.skepdic.com/testimon.html
Hopefully some serious research in this field can happen?
Its true that anecdotes are deceptive.
anecdotal (testimonial) evidence www.skepdic.com/testimon.html
Hopefully some serious research in this field can happen?
Re: Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
Posted by:
yasmin
()
Date: September 01, 2012 10:49PM
Hi Anticult,
yes more study would be helpful.
And of course someone describing a new theory is likely to describe case histories in a way that presents their theory well.
Dr Mann mentions NLP but there isn't much scientific data for the effectiveness of that either yet. In fact a couple of studies
Test of the eye movement hypothesis of Neurolinguistic Programming
and
Research Findings in Neurolinguistic Programming; Non Supportive Data or untestable theory?
seem to suggest that the eye movement hypothesis of NLP isn't accurate,and that NLP is not as effective as its proponents believe.
There are also some studies of abusive relationships, but not a lot of studies on NRMs, and most I could find seem to be pretty critical of the idea of effectivenss of hypnosis.
At the same time, it would be good to see a study on someone like Derren Brown. Statistically,what are chances that everyone in a mall would raise their right arm at the same time, for example?
Science is of course studied by humans who are more likely to pick topics to study where the results they produce are likely to enhance their careers.Hypnosis, coercion and NRMs seem to be a less popular topic, at least at the moment.
Re your comment about anecdotes; yes and no. Of course in a book such as this , it is likely that Mr Hassan is going to report positive rather than negative testemonies. Unless he has a 100% success rate, then he has obviously left out some relevant but less successful cases.
At the same time though, if a fact is reported accurately, then it remains a fact, regardless of who is reporting it.
If Mr Hassans BITE model was effective with some people ( if effectiveness is defined as leaving a group) then that remains a fact.
There are lots of questions though.
Are there other approaches that might work better? Should effectiveness be defined as leaving a group, or just as having received accurate information about the group? Should it be defined as good relationships with family despite membership in a group? In how many cases was Mr Hassans intervention unsuccessful?
Digression here...
I am not sure if you are familiar with thalidomide, which caused terrible birth defects/loss of limbs in many children?
The scientists tested it and found it was safe, so safe in fact that it was considered to be almost impossible to overdose on. So it was given to pregnant women as an antiemetic ( to prevent morning sickness).Children were born who either died or had severe birth defects such as lack of limbs ( estimates suggest that 50 % of those who took thalidomide during pregnancy had a child with birth defects).Most doctors sadly explained to their patients that this was a coincidence, and the birth defects were caused by a genetic problem.
They continued giving the medicine to other patients, despite the anecdotal data.
Dr William MacBride ( an Australian physician) was the first to look at these anecdotes and listen to the parents stories. I believe there are about 7500 adults still alive with severe birth defects from thalidomide.
Sometimes listening to anecdotes is an important way to learn facts. ( Much later, science caught up with the anecdotes,and discovered that thalidomide causes blood restriction to developing limbs in the womb).
Realize the above is not specifically relevant to Mr Hassans book; was more using it to point out that sometimes science does not yet have all the facts and that in those cases, multiple anecdotes can also be helpful in figuring out what is happening.
As you said, more information and studies would be really good.
Has anyone read any recent studies that are relevant/useful?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2012 11:09PM by yasmin.
yes more study would be helpful.
And of course someone describing a new theory is likely to describe case histories in a way that presents their theory well.
Dr Mann mentions NLP but there isn't much scientific data for the effectiveness of that either yet. In fact a couple of studies
Test of the eye movement hypothesis of Neurolinguistic Programming
and
Research Findings in Neurolinguistic Programming; Non Supportive Data or untestable theory?
seem to suggest that the eye movement hypothesis of NLP isn't accurate,and that NLP is not as effective as its proponents believe.
There are also some studies of abusive relationships, but not a lot of studies on NRMs, and most I could find seem to be pretty critical of the idea of effectivenss of hypnosis.
At the same time, it would be good to see a study on someone like Derren Brown. Statistically,what are chances that everyone in a mall would raise their right arm at the same time, for example?
Science is of course studied by humans who are more likely to pick topics to study where the results they produce are likely to enhance their careers.Hypnosis, coercion and NRMs seem to be a less popular topic, at least at the moment.
Re your comment about anecdotes; yes and no. Of course in a book such as this , it is likely that Mr Hassan is going to report positive rather than negative testemonies. Unless he has a 100% success rate, then he has obviously left out some relevant but less successful cases.
At the same time though, if a fact is reported accurately, then it remains a fact, regardless of who is reporting it.
If Mr Hassans BITE model was effective with some people ( if effectiveness is defined as leaving a group) then that remains a fact.
There are lots of questions though.
Are there other approaches that might work better? Should effectiveness be defined as leaving a group, or just as having received accurate information about the group? Should it be defined as good relationships with family despite membership in a group? In how many cases was Mr Hassans intervention unsuccessful?
Digression here...
I am not sure if you are familiar with thalidomide, which caused terrible birth defects/loss of limbs in many children?
The scientists tested it and found it was safe, so safe in fact that it was considered to be almost impossible to overdose on. So it was given to pregnant women as an antiemetic ( to prevent morning sickness).Children were born who either died or had severe birth defects such as lack of limbs ( estimates suggest that 50 % of those who took thalidomide during pregnancy had a child with birth defects).Most doctors sadly explained to their patients that this was a coincidence, and the birth defects were caused by a genetic problem.
They continued giving the medicine to other patients, despite the anecdotal data.
Dr William MacBride ( an Australian physician) was the first to look at these anecdotes and listen to the parents stories. I believe there are about 7500 adults still alive with severe birth defects from thalidomide.
Sometimes listening to anecdotes is an important way to learn facts. ( Much later, science caught up with the anecdotes,and discovered that thalidomide causes blood restriction to developing limbs in the womb).
Realize the above is not specifically relevant to Mr Hassans book; was more using it to point out that sometimes science does not yet have all the facts and that in those cases, multiple anecdotes can also be helpful in figuring out what is happening.
As you said, more information and studies would be really good.
Has anyone read any recent studies that are relevant/useful?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2012 11:09PM by yasmin.
Re: Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
Posted by:
Maple
()
Date: September 05, 2012 10:48AM
I've been thinking about this review. She is an academic who is involved in academic research. Hassan is a practitioner who has formulated an approach based on his practice and case studies. It's apples and oranges.
She criticizes him for not being an expert witness. That doesn't hold water with me and what I know of the field. Generally, you want an academic, PhD or MD to be an expert witness, not an Master's level practitioner who does no academic research. I discount much of what she says based on that.
She also makes an ad hominem attack on Hassan which further diminishes it as a serious review. (Many people who attain advanced standing in their fields have big egos, as do many authors. So what?). There are similar attacks about the latest book being an updated edition of the older books. I'm ok with that, too. Hassan's first book was responsible for many people leaving cults. The second two help family members figure out what to do.
What I liked best about his book is one of the things she doesn't like. He emphasizes the emotional and social aspects of helping people leave cults. In prior years, the cognitive aspect was emphasized, and rightly so. But it was incomplete. People need both, they need to learn to think their way out of a cult, to clear up fuzzy thinking, but they also need the social support to reintegrate into their communities. They needed to reintegrate emotionally and socially. It's a needed point. I'm not sure if I agree with the ways he does this in every case, but the overall message is excellent. Really excellent, to my mind.
Also the points about publishers not publishing his book is not a deal-killer for me. The level of publishing is declining with plenty of garbage being put out because it sells. I know some people (including solid academicians) who have struggled to get their books published. Also, since it's a self-published book, it is rough around the edges. Very rough, in some cases. To describe practice in a book is difficult. If he had professional editors, I'm sure that would be an asset.
The main point where I agree with her review has to do with NLP. NLP appears to be cultlike. But because they have borrowed heavily from cognitive-behavioral psychology, including CB methods and techniques, there is no difficulty with those techniques if used ethically. However, if he names NLP as a source, that is not ok, to my mind. (I don't remember if he actually mentions NLP or not, perhaps someone else does).
She criticizes him for not being an expert witness. That doesn't hold water with me and what I know of the field. Generally, you want an academic, PhD or MD to be an expert witness, not an Master's level practitioner who does no academic research. I discount much of what she says based on that.
She also makes an ad hominem attack on Hassan which further diminishes it as a serious review. (Many people who attain advanced standing in their fields have big egos, as do many authors. So what?). There are similar attacks about the latest book being an updated edition of the older books. I'm ok with that, too. Hassan's first book was responsible for many people leaving cults. The second two help family members figure out what to do.
What I liked best about his book is one of the things she doesn't like. He emphasizes the emotional and social aspects of helping people leave cults. In prior years, the cognitive aspect was emphasized, and rightly so. But it was incomplete. People need both, they need to learn to think their way out of a cult, to clear up fuzzy thinking, but they also need the social support to reintegrate into their communities. They needed to reintegrate emotionally and socially. It's a needed point. I'm not sure if I agree with the ways he does this in every case, but the overall message is excellent. Really excellent, to my mind.
Also the points about publishers not publishing his book is not a deal-killer for me. The level of publishing is declining with plenty of garbage being put out because it sells. I know some people (including solid academicians) who have struggled to get their books published. Also, since it's a self-published book, it is rough around the edges. Very rough, in some cases. To describe practice in a book is difficult. If he had professional editors, I'm sure that would be an asset.
The main point where I agree with her review has to do with NLP. NLP appears to be cultlike. But because they have borrowed heavily from cognitive-behavioral psychology, including CB methods and techniques, there is no difficulty with those techniques if used ethically. However, if he names NLP as a source, that is not ok, to my mind. (I don't remember if he actually mentions NLP or not, perhaps someone else does).
Re: Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: September 05, 2012 09:26PM
Maple:
It is a very serious review from a respected professional, acknowledged expert and mental health professional. Dr. Mann, the psychologist that reviewed Steve Hassan's book, has been qualifed and accepted as an expert witness in 12 states concerning the dynamics of groups called "cults" and "cult-like". This is both an objective measurement of her expertise and official recognition of her standing.
What "ad hominem attack"?
What specifically do you think was a personal ad hominem attack within the review?
I didn't see anything that would fit that description.
Please give an example of an ad hominem attack quoting specifically from the book review.
"Apples and oranges"?
Dr. Mann provides counseling to former cult members and the families of cult members. Steve Hassan often describes himself as a "mental health professional" and Dr. Mann is a mental health professional. Both have many years of experience dealing with cults and helping families with cult problems. Both are former cult members. It's "apples and apples".
Dr. Mann has been a tireless supporter of renintegrating former cult members into society. That's her personal and professional history.
It seems to me that her criticism of Steve Hassan is well-founded. She has raised serious issues concerning plagiarism, professional ethics and the use of NLP, which you seem to agree at least in part is a problem.
Dr. Mann's closing comments in the final paragraph sum it up succinctly:
"It is interesting to note that on page 25 under the condition “thought control,” is listed the “[r]ejection of rational analysis, critical thinking and constructive criticism”. This is an excellent point and one that should be followed by every cult critic, cult interventionist, professional counselor, or expert. This would include accepting criticism without becoming defensive and the ability to see and correct problems. Debate should be based upon rational analysis. A person working in the cult recovery or education field should endeavor to emulate these characteristics. It is incumbent upon him or her to model this behavior, as it is the rejection of such values that quite often forms the basis for criticizing the leaders and dynamics of cults."
It is a very serious review from a respected professional, acknowledged expert and mental health professional. Dr. Mann, the psychologist that reviewed Steve Hassan's book, has been qualifed and accepted as an expert witness in 12 states concerning the dynamics of groups called "cults" and "cult-like". This is both an objective measurement of her expertise and official recognition of her standing.
What "ad hominem attack"?
What specifically do you think was a personal ad hominem attack within the review?
I didn't see anything that would fit that description.
Please give an example of an ad hominem attack quoting specifically from the book review.
"Apples and oranges"?
Dr. Mann provides counseling to former cult members and the families of cult members. Steve Hassan often describes himself as a "mental health professional" and Dr. Mann is a mental health professional. Both have many years of experience dealing with cults and helping families with cult problems. Both are former cult members. It's "apples and apples".
Dr. Mann has been a tireless supporter of renintegrating former cult members into society. That's her personal and professional history.
It seems to me that her criticism of Steve Hassan is well-founded. She has raised serious issues concerning plagiarism, professional ethics and the use of NLP, which you seem to agree at least in part is a problem.
Dr. Mann's closing comments in the final paragraph sum it up succinctly:
"It is interesting to note that on page 25 under the condition “thought control,” is listed the “[r]ejection of rational analysis, critical thinking and constructive criticism”. This is an excellent point and one that should be followed by every cult critic, cult interventionist, professional counselor, or expert. This would include accepting criticism without becoming defensive and the ability to see and correct problems. Debate should be based upon rational analysis. A person working in the cult recovery or education field should endeavor to emulate these characteristics. It is incumbent upon him or her to model this behavior, as it is the rejection of such values that quite often forms the basis for criticizing the leaders and dynamics of cults."
Re: Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
Posted by:
The Anticult
()
Date: September 05, 2012 10:46PM
Everybody's work needs to be evaluated, criticized, measured, challenged, rebutted, using evidence and the methods of scientific research.
The field of objective cult studies seems to be still developing, as has special challenges to it, in that those in "cults" will use off-book dirty tricks to go after anyone who criticizes them. This is probably why most research academics will avoid the field!
In normal science, those you criticize won't go after you, or your family, or picket your house, or worse, like trying to destroy your life.
Everyone in this field needs to be open to criticism and evaluation using the standard methods of current research.
The above was a pretty tame and balanced critique by those standards. :-)
The field of objective cult studies seems to be still developing, as has special challenges to it, in that those in "cults" will use off-book dirty tricks to go after anyone who criticizes them. This is probably why most research academics will avoid the field!
In normal science, those you criticize won't go after you, or your family, or picket your house, or worse, like trying to destroy your life.
Everyone in this field needs to be open to criticism and evaluation using the standard methods of current research.
The above was a pretty tame and balanced critique by those standards. :-)
Re: Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
Posted by:
Maple
()
Date: September 09, 2012 12:00AM
I will make some further comments about other of her points in a later post.Quote
rrmoderator
Maple:
It is a very serious review from a respected professional, acknowledged expert and mental health professional. Dr. Mann, the psychologist that reviewed Steve Hassan's book, has been qualifed and accepted as an expert witness in 12 states concerning the dynamics of groups called "cults" and "cult-like". This is both an objective measurement of her expertise and official recognition of her standing.
What "ad hominem attack"?
What specifically do you think was a personal ad hominem attack within the review?
I didn't see anything that would fit that description.
Please give an example of an ad hominem attack quoting specifically from the book review.
Here's an example of what I meant:
"This composite philosophical approach as now devised by Mr. Hassan might be called “Hassanology”. In the world of cults Hassanology essentially depicts Steve Hassan as the ultimate savior. He is a hammer, and there is an ever expanding list of groups to be seen as nails. As they say, “When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail”. Of course this might once again simply reflect a convenient marketing strategy."
This strikes me as overly snarky. She is attributing motives that may or may not exist. This detracts from her argument. It made me wonder if she were a cult apologist when I first read it, but now am fully satisfield that she is a respected professional. I also think that she wrote the review in good faith, but made some poor choices in writing it. I don't believe Hassan went into cult counseling to strike it rich, nor does he disseminate his views for personal PR. The cost of potential lawsuits and harrassment make that unlikely. I believe he wrote the book in good faith.
I also tend to agree with Hassan that there are many groups that appear to be using these tactics that once did not. I'm not sure that Hassan is in a position to study and document them. I'm certainly not, but I see these tactics being used in public life increasingly. I could document the uses of these I've observed in my workplace, or in people I meet, or in other family members who have run into them. I view that with alarm and agree with Hassan. This increasing infiltration of our lives with cults and cultlike influences is something that Margaret Singer described with concern decades ago. Though there are other references, it was discussed in Singer's book, Cults In our Midst. I also took it that Hassan did not want to name the names of these groups and open himself to further lawsuits. I can't argue with that choice.
"Apples and oranges"?
Dr. Mann provides counseling to former cult members and the families of cult members. Steve Hassan often describes himself as a "mental health professional" and Dr. Mann is a mental health professional. Both have many years of experience dealing with cults and helping families with cult problems. Both are former cult members. It's "apples and apples".
No, they come from two different disciplines within the mental health community. That's the apples and oranges I meant. Masters level professionals, (esp social work and counseling) are more often practitioners and in the past had very little training in academic research, and doctoral level practitioners, (esp. clinical psychologists) trained to combine research and practice. In other words, these are different perspectives within the mental health community. Family members who are laypersons and perhaps don't have college level education may not be helped by scholarly writing (and indeed may be turned off by it). They may be helped by a book that serves as more of a guide with anecdotes. That's what I took Hassan's book to be. I agree that it is not well-written and with plenty of flaws. But I certainly disagree that it is not useful or was not written in good faith. Hassan's original book was responsible for many people coming out of cults. These are different niches and serve different needs. It's ok to point out flaws in a book, but with some acknowledgement of the strengths, or looking at the target audience.
Dr. Mann has been a tireless supporter of renintegrating former cult members into society. That's her personal and professional history.
It seems to me that her criticism of Steve Hassan is well-founded. She has raised serious issues concerning plagiarism, professional ethics and the use of NLP, which you seem to agree at least in part is a problem.
To state it more strongly, I think the NLP connection is an enormous problem. I'm not sure how much Hassan uses it today, though he once did. NLP training was (and still is) on the list of continuing ed programs for practitioners, so many people thought it was legit and some still do. It "borrows" heavily from cognitive psychology concepts and techniques that are recognized as sound, but misuses them. Had Dr. Mann focused on some of these issues in a more objective manner and left out the snarky tone, her review would not have been so much of a problem for me. She seems to accuse Hassan of having a big ego, but the snarky tone makes it a battle of two big egos.
Re: Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: September 09, 2012 12:33AM
Maple:
I don't see Dr. Mann's remarks about Steve Hassan as "snarky", nor are they ad hominem, which means specifically a personal attack.
Mann is questioning the expansion of Hassan's work to include almost anything in an ever widening scope and net. This can easily be seen as a "marketing strategy" to find new customers and sell more books. Frankly, he seems to be straining credulity here. And the reference to "Hassanology" is only a pun intended to point out the religious-like (without factual basis in research) claims Hassan often makes. And the resistance he seems to have regarding any criticism or questions concerning his claims.
Should we accept whatever Hassan says on the basis of faith?
FYI -- Steve Hassan has charged his clients very high fees, reportedly as much as $5,000 per day and as much as $500 per hour. At one point some years ago after criticism concerning his fees, Hassan posted an online fee schedule of $2,500 per day and $250 per hour. He also then admitted that some of his clients had mortgaged their homes to pay him, but rather flippantly added that no one he knew of had lost their house over such indebtedness. Steve Hassan now doesn't post his fee schedule online at his Web site.
I have received numerous complaints about Steve Hassan. Many of these complaints were regarding his very high fees.
Dr. Mann and Steve Hassan are both licensed professionals. The difference is that Dr. Mann has a PhD and Steve Hassan does not. Also, Dr. Mann is an officially recognized cult expert through numerous court proceedings and Steve Hassan is not. Other than that they have both provided counseling to individuals and families concerned about cults. And they are both former cult members concerned about cult issues.
What Dr. Mann has done is provide a much needed critique of a book that as you say is not that well written and contains plenty of flaws. As you also point out the NLP connection is an enormous problem and warrants attention.
Unless Steve Hassan is starting a religion based upon faith rather than facts and sound research, such as "Hassanology" as humerously suggested by Dr. Mann, he should be open to criticism and correction from other concerned professionals.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2012 12:39AM by rrmoderator.
I don't see Dr. Mann's remarks about Steve Hassan as "snarky", nor are they ad hominem, which means specifically a personal attack.
Mann is questioning the expansion of Hassan's work to include almost anything in an ever widening scope and net. This can easily be seen as a "marketing strategy" to find new customers and sell more books. Frankly, he seems to be straining credulity here. And the reference to "Hassanology" is only a pun intended to point out the religious-like (without factual basis in research) claims Hassan often makes. And the resistance he seems to have regarding any criticism or questions concerning his claims.
Should we accept whatever Hassan says on the basis of faith?
FYI -- Steve Hassan has charged his clients very high fees, reportedly as much as $5,000 per day and as much as $500 per hour. At one point some years ago after criticism concerning his fees, Hassan posted an online fee schedule of $2,500 per day and $250 per hour. He also then admitted that some of his clients had mortgaged their homes to pay him, but rather flippantly added that no one he knew of had lost their house over such indebtedness. Steve Hassan now doesn't post his fee schedule online at his Web site.
I have received numerous complaints about Steve Hassan. Many of these complaints were regarding his very high fees.
Dr. Mann and Steve Hassan are both licensed professionals. The difference is that Dr. Mann has a PhD and Steve Hassan does not. Also, Dr. Mann is an officially recognized cult expert through numerous court proceedings and Steve Hassan is not. Other than that they have both provided counseling to individuals and families concerned about cults. And they are both former cult members concerned about cult issues.
What Dr. Mann has done is provide a much needed critique of a book that as you say is not that well written and contains plenty of flaws. As you also point out the NLP connection is an enormous problem and warrants attention.
Unless Steve Hassan is starting a religion based upon faith rather than facts and sound research, such as "Hassanology" as humerously suggested by Dr. Mann, he should be open to criticism and correction from other concerned professionals.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2012 12:39AM by rrmoderator.
Re: Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
Posted by:
Maple
()
Date: September 09, 2012 01:54AM
That is very helpful information, rrmoderator. The complaints about the high fees should be taken quite seriously, given the very poor financial position of many ex-members.
I do still find some issues with the review and felt it gave misleading information, info that could hurt rather than help. Why not just leave those things out and focus on the obvious defects. I'm posting an example, though I could describe some others. I'd rather have seen a different review if there is concern about Hassan. Are there issues other than high fees? (Which are horrible enough in themselves.)
One of her points is that “Hassan, repeating themes from his previous two books, introduces on page 52, this idea of dual identities, i.e. a pre-cult identity and a cult identity. There is no evidence of a cult identity v. a pre-cult identity. It is not even established that human behavior works in this way. These are not constructs that are generally accepted in psychology or professional counseling. These claims exist entirely within the confines “Hassanology”. Again, the tone of Mr. Hassan’s book is that these beliefs are true, rather than just one person’s untested ideas.”
I took Hassan's concept to be the “on the ground” equivalent to “dissociative identity disorder not otherwise Specified” from the DSM-IV. Singer (1994) discusses how this is a common diagnosis given to cult members. Dissociative Identity Disorder used to be called “Multiple Personality Disorder” characterized by multiple personalities because it is an observable phenomenon. In an earlier paper Ofshe and Singer (1986), Singer discuss “Attacks on Peripheral versus Centeral Elements of Self and the Impact of Thought Reforming Techniques.” They discuss how it is the central elements of a person’s identity that are targeted by cults. In Cults in our Midst (Singer, 2003 ), Chapter Three Singer discusses “attacking the self” and “creating a new identity” in major sections.
Thus, I don’t have a problem with Hassan’s concept of a cult identity v a pre-cult identity. Just like with any other theorist, this may be a theory that has yet to be well supported by research. I do agree that Hassan might do better by starting with the DSM-IV definition and then following out that line of thought using Singer and others. But that does not take away from the concept as a valid one for discussion in a book about cults. To reiterate what I have said, she would do better to critique the weaknesses of this book, but I don’t find this to be one of them. In fact, I find it a useful concept, framed in a way that a non-academic family member would also find useful. She is an expert witness and I would expect that she would need to frame it in an academic way that would also hold up in a legal venue.
Although there there may be those who debate Singer’s views within the profession, Hassan’s references to a pre- and post-cult identity in a non-scholarly popular psychology book does not put him in the category of making things up. The profession has many debates within it, and acknowledging the sides is a more useful approach. As already noted, the statement that there is “no evidence” for something needs to be clarified as well. “How human behavior works” is a vast subject as well. Behaviorists have a very narrow view of it, whilst other schools of thought (e.g. psychodynamics, humanistic psychologists) have broader, though differing views.
Ofshe, Richard, and Singer, Margaret, (1986) Attacks on Peripheral versus Central Elements of Self and the Impact of Thought Reforming Techniques [www.icsahome.com]
Singer, Margaret (1994) Thought Reform Exists: Organized, Programmatic Influence. [www.icsahome.com]
In addition, I still find the "joke" to hurt the reviewer's case. I reacted negatively to it. Perhaps insiders would find it funny, but it just raised doubts about the reviewer's valid points. It also brought to light the issue of high fees which is perhaps the crux of the negative review and I'm glad to see it brought to light.
I think she is pointing to a pattern that it would be helpful for others to know about. Because she attacks some things that are valid (if poorly presented in the book), her case is weakened. There are a few other major points that struck me that way as well.
I do still find some issues with the review and felt it gave misleading information, info that could hurt rather than help. Why not just leave those things out and focus on the obvious defects. I'm posting an example, though I could describe some others. I'd rather have seen a different review if there is concern about Hassan. Are there issues other than high fees? (Which are horrible enough in themselves.)
One of her points is that “Hassan, repeating themes from his previous two books, introduces on page 52, this idea of dual identities, i.e. a pre-cult identity and a cult identity. There is no evidence of a cult identity v. a pre-cult identity. It is not even established that human behavior works in this way. These are not constructs that are generally accepted in psychology or professional counseling. These claims exist entirely within the confines “Hassanology”. Again, the tone of Mr. Hassan’s book is that these beliefs are true, rather than just one person’s untested ideas.”
I took Hassan's concept to be the “on the ground” equivalent to “dissociative identity disorder not otherwise Specified” from the DSM-IV. Singer (1994) discusses how this is a common diagnosis given to cult members. Dissociative Identity Disorder used to be called “Multiple Personality Disorder” characterized by multiple personalities because it is an observable phenomenon. In an earlier paper Ofshe and Singer (1986), Singer discuss “Attacks on Peripheral versus Centeral Elements of Self and the Impact of Thought Reforming Techniques.” They discuss how it is the central elements of a person’s identity that are targeted by cults. In Cults in our Midst (Singer, 2003 ), Chapter Three Singer discusses “attacking the self” and “creating a new identity” in major sections.
Thus, I don’t have a problem with Hassan’s concept of a cult identity v a pre-cult identity. Just like with any other theorist, this may be a theory that has yet to be well supported by research. I do agree that Hassan might do better by starting with the DSM-IV definition and then following out that line of thought using Singer and others. But that does not take away from the concept as a valid one for discussion in a book about cults. To reiterate what I have said, she would do better to critique the weaknesses of this book, but I don’t find this to be one of them. In fact, I find it a useful concept, framed in a way that a non-academic family member would also find useful. She is an expert witness and I would expect that she would need to frame it in an academic way that would also hold up in a legal venue.
Although there there may be those who debate Singer’s views within the profession, Hassan’s references to a pre- and post-cult identity in a non-scholarly popular psychology book does not put him in the category of making things up. The profession has many debates within it, and acknowledging the sides is a more useful approach. As already noted, the statement that there is “no evidence” for something needs to be clarified as well. “How human behavior works” is a vast subject as well. Behaviorists have a very narrow view of it, whilst other schools of thought (e.g. psychodynamics, humanistic psychologists) have broader, though differing views.
Ofshe, Richard, and Singer, Margaret, (1986) Attacks on Peripheral versus Central Elements of Self and the Impact of Thought Reforming Techniques [www.icsahome.com]
Singer, Margaret (1994) Thought Reform Exists: Organized, Programmatic Influence. [www.icsahome.com]
In addition, I still find the "joke" to hurt the reviewer's case. I reacted negatively to it. Perhaps insiders would find it funny, but it just raised doubts about the reviewer's valid points. It also brought to light the issue of high fees which is perhaps the crux of the negative review and I'm glad to see it brought to light.
I think she is pointing to a pattern that it would be helpful for others to know about. Because she attacks some things that are valid (if poorly presented in the book), her case is weakened. There are a few other major points that struck me that way as well.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.