The material referenced on February 5th is from "Building Better Secularists"
an essay by David Brooks published in the New York Times.

[www.nytimes.com]

The quotation

Quote

"Due to the instinct for truth in human nature, absolute lies are not as effective as some people think.

"With half-truths and quarter-truths, on the other hand, you can make people believe almost anything

".



shows up in a variety of sources, but none of them appear to tie
this quotation to a specific person.

[www.google.com]

Corboy, your source is tied into this google result:

Ron Hubbard and Rudolf Steiner - Uncle Taz



www.uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html




With half-truths and quarter-truths, on the other hand, you can make people believe almost anything. This is my point of departure, and I will come back to it

____________________________
Do you consider this a reliable source? I think if you're going to quote things, you should at least provide sources other than a random google reference. It is my impression that you are quoting things as true, when they may just be rumors.

If you are using different sources, I consider it important to list all sources so that others may check them to see if they may be facts.

Those of us fighting cults should endeavor to source our statements so that it is easy to spot the difference between our own opinion, a reliable source, or bringing up the ideas of others. It is not clear where you are getting your information from, and how you are using that information to assist others in the critical thinking department.
Cathleen Mann, PhD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2015 03:45AM by C.A. Mann, PhD.

Sometimes our opinions are the reliable source.

I find wikipedia to be a good start in time line and history but the good stuff is in talk section or check out the things have been deleted.

That is where the fight takes place.

This website as well has an enormous amount of information and well documented history on cults, including court documents.

Opinions are subjective by their very nature, so they are not a reliable source of information. However, expert opinions, such as those rendered in court, are supposed to be more informed and objective. I also disagree that Wikipedia is a reliable source. The only thing reliable about Wikipedia are the references or footnotes at the end. Wikipedia has written false or misleading statements many times.
Cathleen Mann, PhD

Opinions may be subjective but if the person clearly states this is their experience then it's hard to argue against it.

Wikipedia doesn't post anything. It's a free for all and people post.

The references are from books or articles written by those same people with opinions and experiences.

Richard Dawkins thinks all religions are cults and children should be protected from all of them. His opinion and his experience.

All I know is when it comes to cults it somehow involves being tricked.

Actually it's hard to rely on experiences, because the experiences vary greatly even if two or more people are in the same group. People's memories fade, get contaminated, or are inaccurate. Self report is the least reliable form of data.

I'm not sure how Richard Dawkins got into this, but your quoting of him does not really support your point. Dawkins never has said he has expert opinions on religion. He's an atheist, and his comments come from there. Instead of focusing on what people or groups believe, focus on whether they are practicing indoctrination tactics.

I agree that cults deceive. They have to because no one would affiliate otherwise.
Cathleen Mann, PhD

Agreed mostly with what you say.

In no way am I qualified to be discussing research at your level, whether it's a bell curve or standard deviations but I do know one thing...the average person like me doesn't liked to be deceived.

Even more painful is when family members are deceived by cults.

It's confusing since many stats come from surveys that rely on cult members experiences.

I'm not saying that we cannot rely on ex member accounts completely. Most former cult members are strong, resilient, and often confused as to what has happened to them. All cults are predatory, and use deception to trap people. Often it takes a good length of time to sort how the many ways people have been harmed by cults, that is very true.

I agree that deception is a major problem. However, my main point is that not everyone experiences the cult the same way, even if many people have left from the same group.

Cathleen Mann, PhD

I've read many of these new age books in the past few years trying to find something higher in life. Or more cosmic or greater then what I feel to be my somewhat mundane daily life. Working in a little town in a simple job (retail sales) begs me to seek more I guess. I've been pretty happy up to this point. Parties and friends and enjoying winter and summer sports (love golf). At some point a few years ago this feeling came upon me. I've read many books. The secret, celestine prophecy other buddhist books. Many people I’ve talked to ‘get’ this stuff but to me it just seemed like so much jumbo. Sometimes what was said in one chapter was even contradicted in the next chapter. I’m thinking ‘did any one even edit this stuff or reread it?’. So suffice to say I’ve not figured out much other than being more confused.

I agree to a point that people don't like to be deceived but I have seen examples where people really do actively want to be deceived. They don't want to know about the problems in the world or with a certain thing they are doing because they enjoy doing that.