Dogma:

See [www.culteducation.com]

Note the bold black text subheading "'Mind Control' in New Religious Movements : clarifying some issues."

Gordon Melton is perhaps the most outspoken and quoted so-called "cult apologist" for hire. He and other "cult apologists" have cited the supposed APA (American Psychological Association) position on "mind control" and one court decision regarding Margaret Singer's expert testimony (Fishman) to support their repeated claim that essentially--"mind control" does not exist.

The papers/articles archived (there are three linked below the previously mentioned subheading) clairfy the APA task force report and the controversy that surrounded it.

Anyone seriously interested can read through this archived material and come to their own conclusions based upon that documentation.

Here are the links:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

I am not aware on any new APA task force effort concerning cults and related persuasion techniques.

Also see the following historical documents, which should further clarify the APA task force effort during the 1980s--

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

FYI--Gordon Melton is not a mental health professional or a member of the APA. Most "cult apologists" are academics in the area of sociology and religious studies.

See the following links about the "cult apologists" controversy within academia--

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

THANKS for the reply - it's a lot to digest . . .

I believe brainwashing is very real. It also is a subtle process in which small servings are offered and drilled into the members until they have become totally compliant with the whims of the organization.

I do think that there is `something' called brainwashing / conditioning. I don't entirely understand the process, though.

But one observation I have made is that those who are brainwashed don't know they are; if you suspect you have been conditioned to think a certain way then this is healthy and a sign you are not brainwashed. Those in cults probably think [b:4d123f09e4]everyone else[/b:4d123f09e4] is brainwashed but themselves.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Note the following:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

IMO brainwashing most certainly exists, but there are different degrees of it.

A basic definition of brainwashing, as I have come to understand it through my own experiences, is a systematic process by which a person's resistance to thinking in the way that is desired by the group is removed, using processes that simply work on humans because of humans' complicated psychological nature, and that system and the progression through it is not successfully resisted by the person due to psychological factors or due to their not being aware of it.

Brainwashing does not require the people doing the brainwashing to understand the purposes behind it. Doing the deed is the defining factor, and this is regardless of whether or not any deception was deliberate.

In its most minimalistic form, it can be effected by the manipulation of the information about the religion (such as staggering the demonstration of the facts about it) as a means to get the person to believe parts of it that they would not have believed otherwise. In its strongest forms, it would be the classical cult-sucking-in weekend seminar with all of the fast brainwashing tools applied.

I also believe that the effectiveness of brainwashing varies among different kinds of people. If someone is more impressionable than average due to a psychological predisposition for it, they can become brainwashed with minimal 'effort', so to speak.

And additionally, one can't overlook that people can be more suggestable, and therefore vulnerable, during certain times in their lives (such as being young and in a "searching" mode, or soon after a personal crisis).

I can understand where my definition of the minimalistic level of brainwashing may be debatable. That could simply be called acclimation, or maybe even just indoctrination, and the term "brainwashing" could be reserved for just the higher levels of the process. I feel like that would represent a semantic difference in the use of the word, and I wouldn't be inclined to argue against someone's use of the word that way.

I imagine even the most nefariously brainwashed would have to concede that in the end it was their own choice to act.

Jonestown suiciders took their own lives. Suicide bombers pulled the pin.

Short of kidnapping, long-term indoctrination, and threats, accountability would be meaningless.

Irrespective of one's beliefs or not in brainwashing and mindcontrol, in order to at least combat the effects of a possible brainwashing and/or mind-control situation, one would have to assume oneself responsible for believing oneself brainwashed or mind controlled.

Or is that LGAT nonsense?

Quote
upsidedownnewspaper
Irrespective of one's beliefs or not in brainwashing and mindcontrol, in order to at least combat the effects of a possible brainwashing and/or mind-control situation, one would have to assume oneself responsible for believing oneself brainwashed or mind controlled.

I cannot figure out what you mean in that post. Maybe you can say the idea in a different way, and/or come up with an example situation to help.

Quote
upsidedownnewspaper
I imagine even the most nefariously brainwashed would have to concede that in the end it was their own choice to act.

Jonestown suiciders took their own lives. Suicide bombers pulled the pin.

Short of kidnapping, long-term indoctrination, and threats, accountability would be meaningless.

The initial brainwashing, in my opinion, often holds little to no choice for many individuals due to the typical circumstances behind it. I have watched it happen lots of times. The ignorance about what is being done to their minds combines with any pre-existing natural suceptability to it, and bam, there you go. The suceptability does not seem to be as big a problem as the ignorance, if they both exist in approximately the same degree. Information and knowledge before the fact can go a long way toward someone deciding it's time to get the hell up and walk away before things get out of hand.

Once that initial brainwashing is done and finished, and also the "honeymoon period" has passed, the question as to what kind of choice exists is complicated.

Part of what would go into a core cult member trying to make a choice to leave a cult (or disobey about something) depends on that person understanding that there IS a choice. That requires some level of critical thinking, as cult leaders endeavor to convince the victims that there is no valid choice other than cult involvement. And people's critical thinking skills, which are the tools they need to be able to help themselves in this event, are exactly what takes a big shit as a result of cult involvement.

It is like, for the person to be able to get out of the cult, they need to be able to hit a bullseye on a dartboard, but the cult environment has hidden all of the darts.

You would think that basic intelligence should make a critical difference in who will walk away from a cult at this stage and who won't, but for whatever whacked-out reason, in my experience it doesn't seem to. The dummies I saw leaving a large-ish cult I was observing might have been leaving for different reasons than the smart ones who did, but in the end, it was clear that at least in a statistical sense, "intelligence" was just not the defining factor. It could be the case that the smart people have more of a chance of recognizing that there is a real choice, but something else in the process cancels it out for them. The smart people, the ones you would think should know better, can stick around for a really, really long time.

The question of choice and accountability during the post-honeymoon stages of cult involvement seems complicated to me. Like... there are parents who have killed their kids because they refused to take them to the doctor due to cult beliefs. These were people whom I suspect had little-to-no real choice during the initial brainwashing, but when that initial superzealous state is over and done, what's the deal with what they could and could not have chosen to do in the circumstances?

Legally, I am pretty sure that the parents are found responsible if they kill their kids that way. That is a completely defensible and common-sense position on the matter, and a very easy one to agree with. But at the same time, it could also be possible for someone to place the blame squarely on the cult leader if he or she was the creator of the system, and the brainwasher, and the reenforcer of exactly this kind of behavior. That position could also be argued reasonably well.

Can both positions be right at the same time? or must it be just one, and which one would it be?

I donno.