
#redirect mind control
Mind control theories are based on the premise that an outside source can control an individual's thought , behavior or consciousness. Such theories have ethical and legal implications. The mind control theories as applied to membership in cult assumes that no one would join such a group if he knew what he was getting into. The recruit is not to be held responsible for his actions, since he was "under control". Neither scientists nor sociologists generally consider this model a viable theory. Theories vary as to the feasibility of such control and the methods used to attain it (either direct or more subtle). When these methods are used forcibly, most sources refer to it as "brainwashing" (a term originally applied during the Korean War to POWs held by Communist China and North Korea). Clearly, many influences from the outside world influence people's minds, such as advertising, media manipulation, and propaganda. == Methods and theories == === Personal Mind control === Some theories of mind control are based on personal use and achievement, such as the Silva Method. === Hypothetical technologies of mind control=== Hypothesized forms of mind control technology have included the use of drugs, hypnosis, Pavlovian conditioning, repetitive indoctrination, torture and Subliminal_message stimuli. Government groups have actually experimented with all of these methods, with widely varying degrees of success. Possible symptoms of schizophrenia (and sometimes of other forms of psychosis) include the belief that one is subject to external mind control, often by use of some form of technology. These often involve less plausible proposed mind-control technologies such as the use of microwave radiation or lasers to control thoughts, often by intelligence agency and by secret society . However, others note that in fact these technologies do exist, in varying forms. Extremely low frequency technology appears the most common and most well-documented. From the 1950s to the 1970s, both the Soviet Union and the United States carried out several experiments using ELF pulse transmissions to mimic human nerve impulses, in effect implanting certain states of consciousness -- particularly emotions -- by radiation. Scientists found that certain ELF frequencies, when transmitted in pulse mode, could induce emotions in subjects. Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, a former Finland physician and a well-known Ufology and Conspiracy theory, sees many 'schizophrenics' as misdiagnosed victims of mind-control experiments. Physical implants discovered in the cerebral tissue of such 'schizophrenics' have allegedly substantiated such claims. Some believers in mind control assert that no one has immunity to mind control: a person could just start talking to a someone on the street, and nearly instantly, he becomes a victim. Other sources believe that such mind control does not exist, and that attempts at mind control cannot subvert free will. ===U.S. Government research into mind control=== A CIA research program which included experiments on human participants, known principally by the codename MKULTRA, began in 1950, largely in response to alleged Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean uses of mind-control techniques (popularly known as "brainwashing") on U.S. prisoner of war in Korea. The general consensus sees MKULTRA as a failure, although because most of the MKULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 by order of then-Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms, it is impossible to have a complete understanding of the more than 150 individually-funded research projects sponsored by MKULTRA and the related CIA programs. ===Subliminal advertising=== ''Outline:'' * James Vicary coined the term "subliminal advertising" . * The publication in 1957 of Vance Packard's ''The Hidden Persuaders'' brought the term to the attention of the general public. * In 1973 the book ''Subliminal Seduction'' claimed that advertising made widespread use of subliminal techiques and could in theory be used as a form of mind control. ===Does control of brain processes amount to mind control?=== With intense modern magnets and the technique of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or repetitive TMS (rTMS), researchers have succeeded in transiently suppressing certain thought processes — such as the conjugation of verbs — with fleeting magnetic pulses to specific areas of the brain. The technique has proved a valuable tool for testing hypotheses about the role and interplay between brain regions in particular cognitive activities and psychiatric symptoms such as clinical depression. The extent and viability of these capabilities as "mind control" remain controversial and disputed. For example, antidepressant drugs and mood stabilizers have a definite effect on mood, through what is believed to be a direct action on the chemistry of the brain. However, most people would not say that this constituted mind control, and people on these drugs do not feel "controlled". This raises the question: if outsiders can control brain processes at the electrical or chemical level without this amounting to "mind control", where does free will lie? ==Cults and mind control controversies== The term "mind control" evolved from theories of brainwashing after these theories had been found not applicable and discredited with regard to cult. (Note that sociologists and other experts often dispute about what constitutes a "cult".) Some theorists maintain that merely by "milieu control" or censoring all information that might dissuade belief a group of manipulators may take control of the mind of a person who is otherwise free to end his association with the group (see especially Steve Hassan and Flo Conway). In the anti-cult movement and Christian countercult movement ''mind control'' has the meaning of strong influence acquired and maintained by manipulation. Some persons have claimed a "brainwashing defense" for crimes committed while purportedly under mind control (see Patty Hearst) or may sue their erstwhile captors after escaping from either a "cult" (religious mind controller) or "deprogrammer" (anti-religious mind controller). According to James T. Richardson on his ''"Brainwashing" Claims and Minority Religions Outside the United States: Cultural Diffusion of a Questionable Concept in the Legal Arena'', while heavy on theory, the mind control model is light on evidence: :The ACM movement has collected some information to support its belief that religious groups successfully employ mind-control techniques. But the data is unreliable. The information typically represents a very small sample size. It is not practical to obtain information before, during and after an individual has been in a NRM. Often, their data is disproportionately obtained from former members of a religious organization who have been convinced during ACM counseling that they have been victims of mind-control.[http://www.religioustolerance.org/brain_wa.htm] Sociologists David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cult"s are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible".[http://www.religioustolerance.org/brain_wa.htm] ===Mind control and deprogramming=== Opponents of some new religious movements accused so-called "cult"s of coercing recruits to join (and members to remain) via strong influence acquired and maintained by manipulation (see also anti-cult movement and Christian countercult movement). Many of these opponents advocate deprogramming as necessary to "free" the victim of a cult from mind control. Opponents of deprogramming generally regard it as an even worse violation of personal autonomy than any (possible) loss of personal freedom attributable to the allegedly deceptive recruiting tactics of new religions. These opponents complain that targets of deprogramming are (1) victims of deception, (2) denied due process and (3) forced to endure more intense manipulation by their supposed rescuers than they encountered during their previous group membership. ===Mind control and the Unification Church=== Bob and Gretchen Passantin have written: :''One good indicator of the non-existence of mind-control techniques is the ineffectiveness of NRM recruitment programs. "Eileen Barker documents that out of 1000 people persuaded by the Moonies [Unification Church] to attend one of their overnight programs in 1979, 90% had no further involvement. Only 8% joined for more than one week..."'' [http://www.religioustolerance.org/brain_wa.htm] Tyler Hendricks, former president of the Unification Church, estimates approximately 100,000 people "moved into" the Unificaton Church as full-time members from the 1970s to the 1990s. Membership in the church was 8,600 in 2004 (counting only those who joined as adults, and excluding the children of members). This is an attrition rate of 93%. Taking Barker's figures with Hendricks' figures, it appears that less than 0.5% of people who stayed overnight became long-term members. ===Mind control and faith=== Leon Festinger based his theory of the cognitive dissonance, a component of Hassan's Mind Control model, on his observation that the faith of most members of a Unidentified_flying_object cult was unshattered by failed prophecy. [http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html]. Barrett who is affiliated with CESNUR and Eileen Barker, whom some anti-cult activists consider ''cult apologists'', wrote that logical arguments are irrelevant when trying to persuade some members to leave a movement due to the certainty that they have about their faith which he sees as not confined to cults, but also occurring in some forms of mainstream religion. He also wrote that some members do not leave the movement even though they realize that things are wrong. See also Cult#Leaving_a_cult.2C_reasons_and_empirical_evidence. In a article by the evangelical Christianity writers Bob and Gretchen Passantino, first appearing in Cornerstone magazine, titled ''Overcoming The Bondage Of Victimization: A Critical Evaluation of Cult Mind Control Theories'' they challenge the validity of mind control theories and the alleged "victimization" by mind-control, and assert in their conclusion: :"[...] the Bogey Man of cult mind control is nothing but a ghost story, good for inducing an adrenaline high and maintaining a crusade, but irrelevant to reality. The reality is that people who have very real spiritual, emotional, and social needs are looking for fulfillment and significance for their lives. Ill-equipped to test the false gospels of this world, they make poor decisions about their religious affiliations. Poor decisions, yes, but decisions for which they are personally responsible nonetheless. As Christians who believe in an absolute standard of truth and religious reality, we cannot ignore the spiritual threat of the cults. We must promote critical thinking, responsible education, biblical apologetics, and Christian evangelism. We must recognize that those who join the cults, while morally responsible, are also spiritually ignorant." [http://answers.org/CultsAndReligions/mind_control.html] ===American Psychological Association task force on mind control=== The American Psychological Association (APA) in 1984 allowed Margaret Singer, the main proponent of anti-cult mind control theories, to set up a working group called Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC). In 1987 the DIMPAC committee submitted its final report to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On May 11, 1987 the Board rejected the report and concluded that its kind of mind control theories, used in order to distinguish "cults" from religions, did not form part of accepted psychological science (American Psychological Association 1987). Although the APA memorandum only dismissed the theories of brainwashing and mind control as presented in the DIMPAC report — without prejudice to theories of influence and control other than those advocated by the DIMPAC committee - the results of the APA document proved devastating for the anti-cult movement[6]. In fact, the DIMPAC theories rejected by APA largely corresponded to the anti-cult position as a whole. Starting from the Steven Fishman case (1990) (where a defendant accused of commercial fraud raised as a defense that he was not fully responsible since he was under the mind control of Scientology) American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Margaret Singer and her associate Richard Ofshe filed suits against the APA and the American Sociological Association (who had supported APA's 1987 statement) but they lost in 1993 and 1994. In 2002 Dr. Philip Zimbardo commented on the request by former members of new religious movements (NRMs) to reconsider the APA's position on the possibility of mind control [http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/pc.html] ===Steve Hassan and his BITE model for cults=== The term ''destructive mind control'', as used by self-proclaimed expert on "destructive cults" and anti-cult movement Steve Hassan is part of his BITE model [http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm]. The BITE model advances a theory that mind control is a set of techniques to get control over people by manipulation and deception. Hassan's critics argue that Steve Hassan uses the term "mind control" (for what they see as essentially a strong form of influence) only to justify the forcible extraction of believers from religious groups. They argue that Hassan does not merely say that fraudulent salesmanship persuaded the believers; he claims that these groups literally take away a victim's freedom of mind. For this reason an involuntary procedure must operate in order to "rescue" a "victim" from a "destructive cult", for "victims" may not realize their victimhood status and may resist rescuing. Hassan, after taking part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, distances himself from this practice and the criminal activities associated with that occupation and refers to his method as "strategic interaction". ==Mind control in conspiracy theory== Mind control is a common feature in many conspiracy theories, as it provides a mechanism by which an alleged conspiracy could maintain control over innocent people, prevent knowledge of the conpiracy's actions and, in some cases, cause the conspiracy theorist's intended audience from believing him. The means by which victims are alleged to be controlled varies according to the nature of the theory: theories centering on existing governmental groups usually feature mind control via subliminal messages or other technological means, while theories focusing on secret society such as the Freemasonry and the Illuminati are more likely to involve supernatural or magical means, or particularly fanciful technology such as "mind control satellite]]s". Theories that involve the United States government frequently refer to MKULTRA. Radio waves are frequently claimed to be used for mind control: radio and television broadcast towers, and more recently cell phone towers, are often considered suspect. J.D. Salinger's novel The Catcher in the Rye was rumored to be a device for FBI/CIA mind control at one time. ==Mind control in fiction== Mind control has proven a popular subject in fiction, featuring in books and films such as ''The Ipcress File'', and ''The Manchurian Candidate'', which has the premise that controllers could hypnotize a person into murdering on command while retaining no memory of the killing. The TV series ''The Prisoner'' featured mind control as a recurring plot element. George Orwell's novel ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' features a description of mind control, both directly by torture, and indirectly, in the form of pervasive mind control by the use of Newspeak, a constructed language designed to remove the possibility, Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis of articulating or of even thinking subversive thoughts. In science fiction, fantasy and superhero fiction, mind control often appears as the means whereby a person literally seizes control of the minds of the victims to the point where not only their bodies come under direct control, but also their consciousnesses as well, so that they become puppets or slaves to the controller. Fiction often depicts this process taking place electronically; the trademark equipment of the ''Batman'' supervillain The Mad Hatter—headgear designed to put victims under his control when placed in direct physical contact with the head—furnishes one example of this. In addition, characters with powerful telepathy or parapsychology abilities, like Professor X and Jean Grey of the X-Men, can do the same with mental concentration against a target. ''The Illuminatus! Trilogy'' pokes fun at conspiracy theorists' assertions of pervasive mind control. The best known example for the book is the ''fnord'', a word that the populace at large has been programmed since birth to not consciously notice, but to associate with a sense of fear and general unease; it is supposedly inserted into published works on current events, such as magazines and newspapers, but is absent from advertising, leading people to avoid knowledge of the world and to be obedient consumers. ''See also'': mind uploading ==Mind control as entertainment== Hypnotism has often been used by stage performers to make volunteers do strange things, such as clucking like a chicken, for the entertainment of audiences. The British psychological illusionist Derren Brown performs more sophisticated mental tricks in his television programmes, ''Derren Brown: Mind Control''. ==See also== * Anti-psychiatry * Brain implant * Brainwashing * Cognotechnology * Conditioning * Deprogramming * Hypnosis * love bombing * Milgram experiment * MKULTRA, the United States Central Intelligence Agency's former mind-control project. * Psychotronics * New Freedom Commission on Mental Health * William Sargant * Subliminal messages * Thought reform * Tin-foil hat ==References== *Bromley, D.B., Shupe, A.D., ''Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare'', Beacon Press, Boston, (1981). * Hadden, Jeffrey K., ''[http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/brainwashing.htm The Brainwashing Controversy]''. * Introvigne. Massimo, [http://www.cesnur.org/testi/gandow_eng.htm ''“Liar, Liar”: Brainwashing, CESNUR and APA.''] (Rebuttal to DIMPAC report) * Keith, Jim, ''Experiments in Mind-Control'' * Kilde, Rauni Leena, M.D., Former Chief Medical Officer of Finland [http://www.raven1.net/kilde1.htm ''Microwave Mind-Control''] * Lifton, Robert J., ''Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism'' (1961); *Passantino Bob and Gretchen. ''Overcoming The Bondage Of Victimization.A Critical Evaluation of Cult Mind Control Theories''. (1994) Cornerstone Magazine. [http://answers.org/CultsAndReligions/mind_control.html Available online] * Schein, Edgar H. et al., ''Coercive Persuasion'' (1961) * Shapiro,K. A. Pascual-Leone, A., Mottaghy, F. M., Gangitano, M., & Caramazza, A. (2001). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=11564316&dopt=Citation Grammatical distinctions in the left frontal cortex]. ''Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience'', 13(6), 713-720 ==External links== * [http://rinf.com/conspiracies/mind-control.html Mind Control Archive] Includes documents, video, audio and links * [http://research.zonebg.com/en/indexen.htm Mental Matrixes] - Psychic research * The Converging Technologies Report, which details the creation of a hive mind using cybernetic technologies within the next 10-30 years: ''[http://wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/ Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance]'' * [http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist23.html Report of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control, November 1986] * Steve Hassan [http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm Extensive definition of mind control especially with regard to cults] * [http://www.rense.com/general17/imp.htm Mind-Control and Cybernetics] * [http://www.freedomofmind.com Steve Hassan's website] * [http://www.skepdic.com/mindcont.html Skeptic dictionary entry on the various meanings and forms of mind control] * [http://www.nlptrainingreviews.com/random/sublm00.html A Critical Overview of Suggestion Control Research] * [http://www.cesnur.org/conferences/BrainWash.htm "Brainwashing" : Career of a Myth in the United States and Europe - Paper delivered by Dr Massimo Introvigne at the CESNUR-REMID conference held in Marburg, Germany, on March 27-29, 1998] * [http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b09.html Anton Hein's apologetics index/countercult website about mind control] * [http://www.fwbo-files.com/CofC.htm#Summary Essay by Mark Dunlop about cults and mind control] * [http://www.snopes2.com/business/hidden/popcorn.htm Snopes on subliminal advertising] * [http://www.skepdic.com/mindcont.html Skeptic dicionary entry on the various meanings and forms of mind control] * [http://www.rickross.com/mind_control.html Rick Ross' archive on mind control] Popular psychology Anti-cult terms and concepts
==Scholarly anti-cult activism, references== The following quotes seem to be relevant to the issue of mind control, as mind control concept is being used as substitute for already discredited "brainwashing" theory by anti-cult activists, a scientific base to promote the message about dangers of cults, so to speak. By checking the links other scholarly opinion could be found. "In the 1970s the new concept of "moral panic" was developed (see Jenkins 1998) in order to explain how some social problems become overconstructed and generate exaggerate fears. Moral panics are defined as socially constructed social problems characterized by a reaction, both in media representation and in political forums, out of proportion to the actual threat, often based on folk statistics that, although not confirmed by scholarly studies, are repeated from media to media and may inspire political measures." *[http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Vienna.htm] One area where reports of Type II are still very much uncertain is mind control ... . They seem to believe that a real problem exist and that something should be done. It seems that the radical extent of criticism of the brainwashing theories by most (English-speaking) mainline scholars has not yet been appreciated even by Type II reports. Behind these labels, however, there is often in Type II reports a legitimate concern for consumer protection. *[http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Vienna.htm] -- :"Totalitarian regimes use repression of freedom of speech to homogenize the population. Repression can range from simple censorship through character assassination to outright state sponsored murder. One notorious example is Stalin with his purges." Is character assassination really repression of free speech? Surely just a successful use of Rhetoric? --User:Harryfdoherty 15:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- The article seemed decidedly opposed to the proposition that there actually is such a thing as mind control; I've tried to make it more :NPOV. I and many other people believe that there is such a thing as brainwashing. I do believe there is such a thing as :Free will and determinism. I say this not in order to get into a debate about these topics (I'm not interested, really) but because I want us to be careful about how we characterize the different beliefs involved here. Many intelligent, well-informed people believe that some lives have been essentially stunted or destroyed due to their involvement with brainwashing cults. You might, for whatever reason, think that use of such terms as "brainwashing cults" is itself indicative of socially counterproductive theorizing: but it is not the place of Wikipedia to take a stand that it is (or isn't). There is room here to explain the facts and arguments that lead people to believe that there are "evil, brainwashing cults," and ''also'' to explain the facts and arguments that lead people to believe that the very notion of "evil, brainwashing cults" is wrongheaded and insidious. --User:LMS Maybe I shouldn't have started this article at all, as I feel too strongly about the issue to assume the NPOV. Sometimes, even when I have a strong opinion on a topic and WANT to slant it my way, I have been able to adhere so closely to NPOV that no one alters a single word. I guess this was not such an occasion. On the other hand, I have noticed a trend: many of the articles which I've started as stubs have blossomed nicely into well-developed (and :neutral) articles, thanks to others. Anyway, I want to work with you -- not against you -- so I am open to suggestions. -- User:Ed Poor ------ Yo, we need to merge mind control and thought control. :Merged, now the article needs a good edit for NPOV. :And I have also merged Brainwashing as well. ------------------ From the "Brainwashing" talk page: :Can we identify those two studies? user:Wesley ------------ Removed this text from the article: :Totalitarian regimes use repression of freedom of specch to homogenize population, which goes from censorship to state sponsored murder. One notorious example is Stalin with his purges, but not even the US is immune from state control. The modern world is in fact characterized by unpreceded increase in powers of the state, which can often be very oppressive. :See hypnotism and the book 1984 by George Orwell. ---- Some cult related pages in Wikipedia link to Brainwashing, which links here. This ends up equivocating ''indoctrination'' and ''mind control'', which I think are different enough topics to have their own pages (indoctrination more from a social psychology standpoint), but I don't know how to separate the two given that there is sort of a continuous spectrum between the two. Any suggestions? --hb ---- I strongly believe that mind control and propaganda are closely related. Once you believe that a message comes from a reliable source then it works as mind control. Proganda is a message disseminated to a large group. I wrote a small essay about 'brainwashing' based on my own unfortunate experience that has been published online http://www.surrealist.org/betrayalofthespirit/brainwashing.html Andries K.D. --- I wrote an entry on thought reform but the lay out needs some changes. I am shocked that it is so easy to edit entries on wikipedia. After all, any lunatic could write rubbish. But don't worry in this case. Unfortunately I am an expert on the subject due to my own experience and much reading and thinking. Andries K.D. ------ User:Titansolaris' edits:
"In two weeks the sheeplike masses of any country can be worked up by the newspapers into such a state of excited fury that men are prepared to put on uniforms and kill and be killed, for the sake of the sordid ends of a few interested parties. Compulsory military service seems to me the most disgraceful symptom of that deficiency in personal dignity from which civilized mankind is suffering today."
(Albert Einstein, 1934) That said, of course Goebbels needs to be mentioned in an article about mind control and propaganda. Maybe even more information about him and about what methods he and the nazis used to influence the public opinion would be nice. But be careful it doesn't get out of ballance and that can happen fast since it is a natural thing that it is much harder to get information about the historical losers than to get information about the propaganda tricks the winners used (and still use). And if it gets out of ballance and the reader gets the impression propaganda is mostly a thing the "bad guys" use then the historical winners propaganda machine has been successful and you have become a propaganda tool yourself. Knowing how limited my English is and also out of respect to the original authors of this entry I leave it to others to follow or not to follow my suggestions and edit this article. -Stefan (first time wiki poster) P.S.: Here is the part from the German wiki that I think should be in the English one too:
"Der Ursprung der modernen Propaganda liegt in Amerika und Großbritannien zur Zeit des Ersten Weltkriegs. In den USA wurde 1916, während der Amtszeit von Woodrow Wilson, die Creel-Kommission ins Leben gerufen, die unter Beteiligung von John Dewey, Walter Lippmann und des neugegründeten britischen Propagandaministeriums die Aufgabe hatte, das pazifistisch gestimmte amerikanische Volk gegen die Deutschen zu mobilisieren. Dies wurde ein grosser Erfolg. Lippmann verfasste später eine Demokratietheorie, die besagt dass das Volk im wesentlichen aus zwei Klassen besteht. Zum einen die Klasse der Spezialisten, die aktiv mit den Angelegenheiten der Allgemeinheit betraut sind und die Entscheidungen treffen, zum anderen die grosse Mehrheit, die mangels eigenen Wissens zur Unterstützung der "vernünftigen" Entscheidungen der Spezialisten gebracht werden müsse." Maybe someone more capable of the English language than me could translate it in an appropriate way (and doublecheck the facts). P.P.S.: Maybe the mind control article should also be linked to the article on FUD, since those two topics seem to be very close related to me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD) "'Course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." -Dennis Miller ---- I strongly disagree with a redirect from brainwashing to mind control. They are different concepts. Mind control is more subtle than brain washing. Mind control is not discredited but brainwashing is. User:Andries 09:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) I have re-seperated the articles mind control and brainwashing. They both need a lot of additions and editing. Feel free if you know about the subject. User:Andries 18:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- I strongly disagree with the following paragraph in the article: :"People's minds are clearly influenced by many influences from the outside world, such as advertising, media manipulation, and propaganda, however they are generally aware of these influences. The remainder of this article is about mind control that occurs either without the knowledge, or without the consent, of the individual. " The usual meaning of mind control in the anti-cult movement is that of using propaganda and misleading people without the knowledge of the people. When people know that something is manipulation or propaganda hen it loses its effectiveness. I will delete or re-write the paragraph unless somebody has well founded objections. Besides according to some in the anti cult movementent mind control is just a strong form of inluence. Mind control in cults has everything to do with changing a person belief system. One can't directly control a mind, only indirectly by changing a person's belief system and basic attitudes through manipulation. User:Andries 19:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- == Cults and mind control == Many people believe that cults entrap or enslave members through mind control which is, in this sense, essentialy a strong form of influence. A counter-cult deprogramming movement has developed to counter cult mind control, and has, in turn, been accused of using mind control techniques. Deprogramming is not more in use and has been replaced with exit counseling which is voluntarily. Deprogrammers have often been able to get judges to issue conservatorships authorizing them to rescue people. There is considerable disagreement about how cults actually operate. Steve Hassan who practices a form of exit counseling and is an ex member of the Unification Church (which is a purported cults) has developed a model of mind control which he called the BITE model [http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm]. Many ex members of cults try to understand how it is possible that they have been entrapped so long and so deeply and believe in the truth of mind control theories which help them to explain and understand their own experiences. ---- The above section assumes the truth of "mind control". * ''rescue people'' and ''they have been entrapped so long and so deeply'' -- this phrase implies that the people were victims of mind control. Is there anything about Hassan's BITE model at Steve Hassan? That would be the place for his POV. Also, we should mention that Hassan began as a deprogrammer and only shifted to "exit counseling" later -- possibly to avoid legal complications, like jail for kidnapping (I have personal knowledge of one case). Let's work on this section, then put it back. I'm not "censoring": I'm trying to get accuracy and neutrality. Anyone who's for Accuracy and Neutrality is welcome to join in or even take over. I'm here to help. --User:Ed Poor 15:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Steve Hassan's POV is quite influential and hence should be discussed in the article. It is just an influential theory to understand cults and many ex-members of cults accept it as the complete truth. Personally I believe the cult phenomenon is too complex for Hassan's model but I do believe that his model has some merits. User:Andries 15:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) Perhaps then we should create a section within mind control on Steve Hassan's ideas. We could also place Margaret Sanger's here, too. Or briefly introduce each advocate's ideas here, and then linke to a fuller exposition at Steve Hassan and Margaret Singer. The last thing I want to do is hide these ideas. I just want them described accurately and neutrally. We might also try to find out how many people in various countries still subscribed to these theories. --User:Ed Poor 18:13, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ed, why not discuss it here? Don't delete but improve. I think that mind control in the meaning/definition/description of Steve Hassan is just a set of techniques of manipulative strong influence. I guess that everybody agrees that this exists. One could ask, why does he call it 'Mind control' if it is so common. May be to make his theories more attractive and interesting? User:Andries 05:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) :I've personally met Steve Hassan and talked with him; plus I've read his book. His website is http://www.freedomofmind.com/ :The primary reason people advocate the theory of "mind control" is to justify the forcible extraction of believers from religious groups. Advocates like Hassan don't merely say that the members were persuaded by fraudulent salesmanship, like a recruit duped into joining the Marines -- they claim that these groups literally take away a victim's freedom of mind. The victim "snaps" and becomes incapable of making a responsible decision; hence, they are not responsible for what they've decided. It is this aspect of the Mind Control theory which was finally rejected by U.S. courts. :Of course, the lay public is free to continue to believe in discredited science. There are still people who believe that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, in terms of intelligence: there's no law against their feeling this way, but the Wikipedia shouldn't endorse this view. :I think the article on mind control should say how many people believe that it's real, and what sorts of people these are. It should clarify what scholars in the fields of sociology, psychology and law say, as well. --User:Ed Poor 15:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Removed== I removed the footersince this article is not because the history, development and lore of mind control is much more than primarily about cults. User:Davodd 11:03, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
:Davodd, I disagree that this article is not primarily about cults. when you do a google search on the term mind control then you will find out that it is primarily used with regards to cults. Two sections of this article deal with cults and the other sections are sheer fiction. So I think the [...] applied to religious movements are not scientific", but that is a misrepresentation, since they actually only made that judgement against the specific theory being offered in the ''Molko'' case: the APA deemed ''specific'' research that had been done on a hypothesis of brainwashing to have failed to meet rigorous scientific standards. The APA did not state that such hypotheses were thereby disproven or "not scientific"; to the contrary, the APA even suggested an alternate hypothesis of effective brainwashing, which it suggested might be consistent with the data Singer ''et al'' had failed to account for properly in their research. The difference between what the APA actually said, and Introvigne's version, is similar to the difference between "He was not found guilty" and "He was found 'not guilty'". -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 18:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Ed, please read Brainwashing#Brainwashing_controversies, Antaeus and I edited that article and after much back and forth, my assessement is that what we have there is a pretty good summary of the APA 's ''amicus curiæ''. --User:Zappaz 20:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::I do not see the difference between (1) "failed to meet rigorous scientific standards" and (2) "not part of psychological or social science". Please elaborate. User:Ed Poor user talk:Ed Poor 17:49, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
::::There's not much difference between (1) and (2). But between (1)/(2) and "are a mere tool used in order to deny the status of religion to groups perceived as deviant or subversive," there is a much larger difference. The former correctly notes that the theories under discussion are ''unproven''; the latter goes beyond the truth and asserts them to be ''disproven'' -- if a reasonable person ''could believe'' that a group's recruitment methods could amount to mental coercion, then Introvigne's argument that such theories are just a "mere tool" used to disenfranchise unpopular groups falls apart. Introvigne's representation would have you believe that anyone studying the possibility that a particular new religious movement's recruitment techniques are in fact coercive for particular personality types is ignoring the clear statement of the APA -- for doesn't he state that such theories are "not part of psychological or social science"? But in fact, that's the very theory the APA proposed in the ''Molko'' brief. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::Sorry Antaeus, but I do not follow. The discussion here is about the difference between the statements ''(1) "failed to meet rigorous scientific standards" and (2) "not part of psychological or social science"''. Not about what Introvigne said or did not say. Do you really believe that reader's will understand these minute nuances? --User:Zappaz 02:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::::Well, I'm more interested in what Ed thinks, Zappaz, since he was the one who asked the question I was answering. That was "the question I was answering", by the way, not "the only question, the one which makes any question that you feel is important to consider irrelevant." The question ''I'' feel is important to address, which is how this particular discussion began, is whether Introvigne's representation of the scientific community's position was a "gem" or subtly flawed. Ed is asking me where I see inconsistency between scientific consensus and Introvigne's representation of that consensus; I am answering. For you to stride in and announce "But the ''only'' question is whether ''these two statements'' are inconsistent with ''each other''! This conversation has ''nothing'' to do with the larger question of whether Introvigne is misrepresenting the scientific community's position!" is to be either a) filtering out reality or b) artificially declaring that one side has the authority and right to decide what "the question" is and the other does not. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 15:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Antaeus, don't you tire of these diatribes? I still do not know where you stand in regard to the distinction between statements such as "failed to meet rigouros standards" and "not part of social science". --User:Zappaz 17:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Well, then, I can't help you any further with your failure to comprehend, Zappaz. I'm pretty sure it's clear to everyone else that the question "are Introvigne's claims consistent with scientific consensus" is not completely and affirmatively settled by pointing and saying "Here, these are two sentences by Introvigne which are consistent with each other! That ''must'' equate to consistency between all Introvigne's claims and the consensus of the scientific community!" -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::Am I the only one does not understand you, Antaeus? We are no talking just about Introvigne (It is obvious by now you do not appreciate his writings...) You know what? Put Introvigne aside for a moment. Based on the information we have collated so far about this subject, do you really believe these theories have any merit? --User:Zappaz 02:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==The theory as propaganda==
I followed the link you provided, Zappaz, and the first part of the section is quite a shocker. Apparently the theory of brainwashing was not intended scientificially, i.e., to account for observed facts with a verifiable cause-and-effect hypothesis. Rather, it was made up out of whole cloth as mere political propaganda. That is, the people advancing the theory KNEW it was false, and were only using it to save face: "Those boys would NEVER have gone over to enemy, unless their minds had snapped under a heretofore unknown and irreplicable force. I don't know how those Commies did it (and God knows, we tried to duplicate there results!) but they turned those boys into Zombies."
I submit that if a theory was made up only for political purposes then it fails to meet rigorous scientific standards and is not part of psychological or social science. (Just my own POV, of course.)
I further submit that it is likely that purveyors of the "cult brainwashing" theory likewise made up their theory not because they believed it was true but merely to save face. I will supply some quotes from sociologists who think this way, and ''with your permission'' add them to mind control and/or brainwashing.
==The Blame Game==
* Researchers Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton in their book The Mind Manipulators suggest that "brainwashing" or "mind control" are convenient ways to rationalize one's actions and thereby avoid taking responsibility. Anyone can commit an act such as joining an unpopular group and afterwards claim, "I was programmed to do so." Scheflin and Opton point out that esoteric notions such as "brainwashing" allow people to forget that they are responsible for their own actionsin a manner that compares with the insanity plea in legal cases. [http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/statements/brainwashing.htm]
* Parents are under strong pressure not to blame either themselves or their children for cult involvement. Once a young person becomes convinced that the new religion is not nearly as lofty, appealing, or benevolent as once thought, he or she too comes under the same pressure: not to blame oneself for misplaced idealism or naivet. (Bromley and Shupe 198-202) [ibid]
* The brainwashing explanation provided families with a superficially plausible model of seemingly "bizarre" behavior that did not place any stigma on either themselves or their errant (cult) family members, and it came embellished with the legitimacy of science. Even more importantly, it created the basis for placing a diverse array of new religious groups under the rubric cults. (Bromley and Hammond 221-224) [ibid]
:Oh... there is much more... --User:Zappaz 19:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::#Anthony, Dick. 1990. ''"Religious Movements and 'Brainwashing' Litigation."'' in Dick Anthony and Thomas Robbins, In Gods We Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
::#Anthony, Dick, and Thomas Robbins. 1994. ''"Brainwashing and Totalitarian Influence,"'' in Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, Vol 1: 457-471.
::#Anthony, Dick, and Thomas Robbins. 1991. ''"Law, Social Science and the 'Brainwashing' exception to the First Amendment,"'' Behavioral Science Law. 10/1
::#Barker, Eileen, 1984. ''"The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing?"''. New York: Basil Blackwell. 305 pps.
::#Barker, Eileen, 1982. ''"Who'd Be a Moonie? A Comparative Study of Those Who Join the Unification Church in Britain." ''in Brian Wilson (ed.), The Social Impact of New Religious Movements. New York: Rose of Sharon Press.
::#Bromley, David G. 1983. ''"Conservatorships and Deprogramming: Legal and Political Prospects."'' in Bromley, David G. and James T. Richardson, (eds). The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. 267-293.
::#Bromley, David G. and James T. Richardson, Eds. 1983. ''"The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy"''. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. 367 pps.
::#Cialdini, Robert B. 1993. ''"Influence: Science and Practice"''. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. Third Edition.
::#Davis Joseph E., 1993. ''"Thought Control, Totalism and The Extension of the Anti-Cult Critiques Beyond the 'Cults'"''. Dexter, MI: Tabor House. 77 pps.
::#Fort, J. 1985. ''"What Is 'Brainwashing,' and Who Says so?"'' in B. Kilborne, (ed.), Scientific Research and New Religions: Divergernt Perspectives . San Francisco: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 57-63.
::#Grinsburg, Gerald, and James T. Richardson, 1998. ''"'Brainwashing'" Evidence in Light of Daubert. in Law and Science: Current Legal Issues"''. Hellen Reece Editor, 265-288.
::#Richardson, James T., and Massimo Introvigne, 2001. ''"'Brainwashing' Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on 'Sects' and 'Cults.'" ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40/2(June): 143-168.
::#Robbins, Thomas, 2001. ''"Combatting 'cults' and 'Brainwashing' in the United States and Western Europe: A Comment on Richardson and Introvigne's Report." '' Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40/2(June): 169-175.
::#Soper, J. Christopher, 2001. ''"Tribal Instince and Religious Persecution: Why Do Western European States Behave So Badly?"'' Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40/2(June): 177-180.
::#Massimo Introvigne, and James T. Richardson, 2001. ''"Western Europe, Postmodernity, and the Shadow of the French Revolution: A Response to Soper and Robbins." ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40/2(June): 181-185
::#Richardson, James T. 1997. ''"'Brainwashing' Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on 'Cults' and 'Sects,'"''
::#Richardson, James T. 1997. ''"Sociology, 'Brainwashing' Claims About New Religion, and Freedom of Religion"''. in P. Jenkins and S. Kroll-Smith (eds.), Sociology on Trial: Sociologists As Expert Witnesses. New York: Praeger.
::#Richardson, James T. 1996. ''"'Brainwashing' Claims and Minority Religions Outside the United States: Cultural Diffusion of a Questionable Concept in the Legal Arena,"'' Brigham Young University Law Review, No. 4, 873-904.
::#Richardson, James T. 1993. ''"A Social Psychological Critique of 'Brainwashing' Claims About Recruitment to New Religions."'' in David Bromley and Jeffrey K. Hadden, (eds.) The Handbook of Cults and Sects in America. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 75-97.
::#Richardson, James T. 1991. ''"Cult/Brainwashing Cases and the Freedom of Religion." ''Journal of Church and State. 33: 55-74.
::#Richardson, James T. and Brock Kilbourne. 1983. ''"Classical and Contemporary Applications of Brainwashing Theories: A Comparison and Critique"'' in David G. Bromley and James T. Richardson (eds.) The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy. New York: Edwin Mellen. 29-45.
There are also some thought-provoking articles [http://www.cesnur.org/testi/se_brainwash.htm here]. --User:Zappaz 20:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==Uncle Ed mini-blog==
Pro-mind-control quote:
Delgado and other writers see "cult indoctrinees" becoming disoriented and even incapacitated through a combination of poor diet, sleep deprivation, manipulated social bonding, appeals to fear and guilt, behavioral conditioning and, above all, dissociative and trance states induced through "hypnotic" processes associated with meditation, repetitive chanting, glossolalia and other experiential rituals, which are said to enhance suggestibility and impair judgmental and cognitive functions. [http://www.cesnur.org/2003/porn.htm]
Anti-mind control (could be intro to mind control article]].
The mind control model of membership in new religious movement asserts that people never (or rarely) join of their own free will but are sucked in willy-nilly via advanced techniques that not even the CIA have figured out how to duplicate. Once programmed, they seem to innately possess the ability to seize the minds of others!
It should not be necessary to examine in detail the indoctrination or conversion methods of the many groups labeled as "cults" in order to conclude that "mind control" is a myth. The scenario of mindless robots who carry out the wishes of others, while believing they are doing as they please, may make exciting movies, but it is not consistent with human psychology. People who conform to behavioral expectations of a group have made a choice to do so. (Reign 323-324) [http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/statements/brainwashing.htm]
Deception on the part of pro-deprogramming movement:
Q.What is involuntary deprogramming as you understand it?
A.To the best of my understanding, when the family decides that there is no other way to talk to the person but by keeping them at a location until they have heard the correct information about the group.
Q.Through the use of force?
A.No.
Q.How do you keep someone against their will without force?
A.You lock the door. [23] (cited in [http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm])
I'm thinking of a radical new slant for this article. User:Ed Poor user talk:Ed Poor 23:08, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Look forward to it. --User:Zappaz 01:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
===What's a cult?===
a cult is an organization --an organization can be large or small; size is not the determinant -- that has expressive devotion to a leader, principle or idea.
Q.Is the Catholic Church a cult?
A.Under that broad definition, yes.
Q.Is the Democratic Party a cult?
A.Under this definition of cult above, yes. [http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm]
Deprogrammers' definition of "cult" is so broad as to include Catholics and Democrats. User:Ed Poor user talk:Ed Poor 23:12, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
:yep. Let's write an article: Debunking of the anti-cult movement myths. --User:Zappaz 01:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==Is it absolutely irresistable, or what?==
I found an interesting discussion on the limits of mind control [http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/terms.htm here]:
* Absolute (Barker): 'If people are the victims of mind control, they are rendered incapable of themselves making the decision as to whether or not to join a movement - the decision is made for them.'
* Less than absolute: Cult mind control does not directly overcome a person's free will, but rather it influences their belief system and worldview, which in turn influences how a person exercises their free will, and the choices they make.
I wonder what Steve Hassan and Margaret Singer have written about the robotic vs. strong-influence distinction? User:Ed Poor user talk:Ed Poor 20:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
==Consistency of the Courts==
Currently, the article reads "American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science." Patty Hearst's conviction comes to mind, but her sentence was not surprisingly commuted (courts ordinarily tend to be less consistent when subjected to high powered lawyers and their wealthy clients). Similarly, some domestic violence victims have been granted clemency after convictions for murdering controlling spouses. Perhaps some mention of pardons - and the common sense reasoning behind such belated reprieves - is in order? User:Ombudsman 01:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==Coercive persuasion==
At this moment, the Coercive persuasion page redirects to the Brainwashing article. This was well-intended, I'm sure, but it doesn't clear up any of the confusion. There are several synonymous terms which need distinguishing.
The distinctions are important, for weighty ethical and legal issues depend on them. All agree that "mild" persuasion is okay, both (A) in selling a product or service and (B) in sharing one's religious or political views.
On the other hand, we also all agree that "undue pressure" or duress renders certain kinds of agreements as invalid, such as a contract signed under duress. (One example from the movies is so well-known, I needn't even mention its title: The gangster tells the hotel owner, "Either your brains or your signature are going to be on this contract.") Another, less-known example concerns propaganda broadcasts by North Vietnam featuring American POWs "confessing" to war crimes and so on; one of the prisoners blinked his eyes in morse code, repeatedly spelling out the word T-O-R-T-U-R-E (was this John McCain?).
So we attempt to draw a line: if someone has been "brainwashed" into doing something "bad", we try to determine how much or little to blame them. Patty Hearst was not simply declared innocent, but I suppose she didn't spend much time in jail either. Likewise, there's the battered wife defense ("I couldn't leave him, but I couldn't bear the abuse, so I killed him.") which some juries have accepted.
It's a complex issue, not a black and white one. I don't think Wikipedia can afford to endorse either of the extreme views:
* Anti-cult movement: people join NRMs because of cult mind control, and deprogrammers must perform the heroic task of rescuing these victims
* ''the other side'': people join NRMs entirely of their own free will, and the only folks engaging in coercive persuasion are the professional faith breakers who kidnap and torment our members
To describe the middle ground between these extremes will take careful and skillful writing. I hope we're ready and willing to accept the challenge. User:Ed Poor user talk:Ed Poor 14:38, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
== scientific community? ==
This sentence needs a citacion, or I will remove. Thanks.
:''Instead of using the terms "brainwashing" or its modern variant of "mind control", the scientific community prefers to use terms like social influence , "deception", "propaganda" or "communal reinforcement" to describe the mechanisms and strategies of cults.''
*Which scientific community? This is a POV generalization.
*What mechanisms and strategies? needs specifics.
--User:Zappaz 06:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I changed it. Hope it is better now. I also removed the paragraph victimization that consisted entirely of non-notable opinions. User:Andries 08:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Zappaz, why dod you keep inserting, non-scholarly non-notable opinions in cult related articles? I find it difficult to be patient with you and to maintain faith in your willingness to adhere to NPOV standards when you keep on doing that after I warned you several times about that. You continue to give me the impression that you are not serious about NPOV standards but only about pushing your POV to the maximum. User:Andries 15:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::For the nth time, I ask you to lower your rethoric and stop making acussations that are unwarranted. Note that Wikipedia has no place for advocacy. Your insistence in inserting text that is unnatributted and original research, is innapropriate for an encyclopedia. I regard to the text that you deleted, now re-instated, please refrain form dwoing so. These writers are notable (do a Google test). Thanks. --User:Zappaz 16:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::On the contrary, what I inserted is well-known scholarly research. I do not engage in rhetoric but I am very specific. I do not think that these Gretchen and Bob are notable scholars of relgion. Why don't you give a detailed reply to what I write in order to convince me and others that the accusations that I make are unwarranted? User:Andries 16:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::I will ask for a request for comments. User:Andries 17:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Oh, and by the way, I do not agree with the merger with brainwashing. User:Andries 17:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Zappaz, even David V. Barrett who is very mild about ""cults" acknowlegdges that cultists are unopen for logic and proof in his book the ''New Believers''. I had not inserted this in the general cult article because I was afraid that I would break copyright because there is already so much by him. User:Andries 17:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Zappaz, besides how can you seriously doubt the fact that some cultists are unopen for logic and proof. Try to reason with one about his faith. I mean, most people know this from experience, at least I do. User:Andries 18:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Andries, from now on I will not respond to any of your comments in which you make acussations against me. If you have citations for text you want to add, please do so. Otherwise, I will post a comment here and after a few days I will delete the text as customary. This is non-negotiable and in line with Wikiedia policy. In regard to your comment about ''cultists are unopen for logic and proof'' I know that that is your POV. But note that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy of any kind. It is an encyclopedia. So please follow guidelines and cite your sources. Thanks. --User:Zappaz 18:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::I already gave two sources: Leon Festinger and Barrett. User:Andries 19:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::If both anti-cult activists like Hassan and cult apologists, like Barrett agree about something then we can safely assume that it is true and can be written down as an undisputed fact, regardless of my POV. User:Andries 19:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::You may also want to read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox --User:Zappaz 19:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::How can you make a request for comment and then delete the text disputed? That is not the way to work. If you put an RfC you need tyo wait and hear from fellow editors. --User:Zappaz 19:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I did not think of that. User:Andries 19:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Zappaz, I fail to see any academic credentials of Bob and Gretchen Passantino. They are just countercult activists. Why can't you cite a notable scholar like Bromley instead? User:Andries 19:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::Their POV is notable inasmuch as they are part of the counter-cult movement and at the same time they negate the validity of the mind control theories that most anti-cultist fervently adhere to. I think their POV adds value to this controversial topic. And they are well respected writers in their constituency. --User:Zappaz 19:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::::then a short mention that not all counter cult activist agree on this concept would suffice and is appropriate but this extensive quote that puts the blame all on the (ex-)cultist which is beyond what even cult apologists do is not according to NPOV guidelines. It is crazy not to mention that there is false advertizing, deception, or propaganda by cults and put all the blame on the (ex-)cultist. User:Andries
:::::::This is an article about mind control (a.k.a. brainwashing, a.k.a. thought control), not an article about cults, apologists, apostates or anti-cult. These are explored on their respective articles. --User:Zappaz 22:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::Zappaz, then do not give such prominence to a non-scholarly, non-notable opinion that goes beyond the opinions of scholars who are the most lenient about cults in belittling the harm done by cults and the responsibility for getting into the cults. That is why I think your edit break NPOV guidelines. User:Andries 22:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I changed it accordingly. I hope you can live with it. User:Andries 20:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is not about what you think is crazy, what you believe, or what you think you know. This is an encyclopedia with guidelines that need to be respected and not a place for advocacy of any kind. You placed an RfC, now you need to show patience and allow other editors to make comments about the text you want to delete. Also note that you cannot revert more than 3 times in 24 hrs. --User:Zappaz 22:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I just gave it a try. May be you agreed with the new wording. User:Andries 22:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
===Using RfC===
You need to learn how to use RfC, Andries. Please read RfC. What you have done, is a joke (Deleting disputed text three times, after posting the RfC, then changing the RfC summary). If your intention was to negotiate the dispute between us, we could have done it. But if you chose an RfC, you need to leave it alone and let other editors make comments if they wish to do so. --User:Zappaz 22:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I disagree Zappaz. The opinions between is have come closer. We only disagree about the prominence given to their opinions. The RFc guidelines do not say anything that you cannot change the text after the contributors have come closer to each other. Andries22:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::(Interesting is the fact that you only want prominence of opinions that support your anti-cult POV. And you accuse me of not being serious about NPOV ... oh well... ) I am going for a walk in the park... Suggest you do the same. Let's revisit this in 7 days with the hope that by that time we have some useful comments from fellow editors. --User:Zappaz 22:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::The difference between you and me is that I do not insist on keeping non-notable, non scholarly quotes in the cult related articles. I do not extensively quote anti-cult activists, except in ACM articles that describe their views. I consider some of your edits foul play, like the Bob and Gretchen Passantino quotes here. Andries 11:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::That is the problem, Andries. That you consider an edit "foul play" says it all. This is an encyclopedia not a forum or USENET. Use these to advocate your POV. Thanks. In regard of yor yet-another-acussation against me, you need to demonstrate that the citations I provide are not notable. They are. On the other hand, I need to go article by article, removing snippets of text you added to the articles on the subject of "cults" and new religions, just because your opinion, and without consideration for looking for a citation or reference to back it up with. I am comitted to comb all these articles and excise text that have no support. --User:Zappaz 17:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Because Gretchen and Bob Passantino have no academic credentials in sociology of religion, psychology of religion, or relgious scholarship the burden of proof that their quotes are notable is on you. I do not have to proof that they are not notable enough to have their lengthy quotes here. It would be so easy for me to insert non-notable, non-scholarly quotes by anti-cult scholars here and elsewhere but I have refrained from doing so because I consider this inappropriate and foul play. Please do comb the text for some of my unsupported snippets (that you most probably won't find) User:Andries 17:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Gretchen and Bob Passantino:
* Founders of Christian discernment ministry, Answers in Action. Closely associated with the Christian Research Institute.
* Outspoken opponents of theories of cult mind-control.
* Many articles written for the Cornestone magazine.
These three points above, makes it highly relevant to this article. Notablity is not related only to academics credentials. Note that neither Encarta, nor Britannica have articles on "Mind Control". So, if we have one in WP (and that is the great thing about WP) expect to find narrower distinctions about what is notable for this article. --User:Zappaz 20:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Neither "Christian discernment ministry", nor "Answers in Action", nor Christian research institute", nor "Passantino", nor "Cornerstone magazine" give one hit in the +500,000 article in the English Wikipedia. I think this strongly indicates that they are not notable. And to say that their opinion is notable because they are critics of the mind control theory is quite strange when there are notable, scholarly critics of the mind control theory. Why can't you cite those? User:Andries 00:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== RfC Summary ==
Dispute whether the quotes by Evangelical Christian writers Bob and Gretchen Passantino are notable enough to deserve to have a complete section to their POV or should their POV mentioned succintly that "not all counter cult activists like Bob and Gretchen Passantino believe in mind control"? Mind_control#Victimization See also Talk:Cult#Benjamin_Zablocki_notable.3F
==NPOV?==
There are a lot of examples of bias in this article that are tempting me into putting the NPOV tag up on the article. I'm refraining for now, hopefully to have some discussion here. One example of many: or may sue their erstwhile captors after escaping from either a "cult" (religious mind controller) or "deprogrammer" (anti-religious mind controller). I submit that "anti-religious" as used here is a personal opinion, and not a definite fact regarding self-described "deprogrammers". To go into the matter properly, the article would have to go off on a tangent describing the controversy over the ethics of "deprogramming", which is too far outside the scope of the article. Thus a more appropriate solution is a link to the article on deprogramming and an opinion-free, NPOV take on deprogramming within *this* article. I would suggest simply removing the opinionated, parenthetical descriptors of cults and deprogrammers. If I get no response here, I'll just go ahead and do so. Cheers! -User:Kasreyn
:: * Kasreyn, I disagree. Laballing deprogrammers as anti-religious is not a personal opinion. The definition of deprogramming is: To counteract or try to counteract the effect of an indoctrination, especially a religious or cult indoctrination.(The American Heritage Dictionary). Cult is just a derogatory synonym of religion. Deprogramming, when used on religious (or "cult") members is anti-religious.--User:J.Tell 02:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::By that logic, police officers are "anti-people". Why? Because police officers try to stop criminals, and criminals are by definition people. Therefore, police officers are anti-people. Of course, what shows that logic to be false is observing that not all people are criminals, and thus police officers are not "anti-people" just because they are against a ''specific'' group of people, i.e., criminals. Similarly, those who oppose the actions of cults are not necessarily opposing ''all'' religions, but just those religions which are cults. I realize that doesn't make any sense if you're confused and think that "cult is just a derogatory synonym of religion," but for those who understand that "cult" has a great many definitions, some of which do not even require that the group in question be religious in nature, it makes perfect sense. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::I provided a definition as worded by an actual dictionary. Antaeus, what is your source for your unstated defintion? Or are you thinking of a definition that you made up in your mind? Perhaps you never looked it up in a real dictionary?--User:J.Tell 02:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::If you are saying that you looked up "cult" in your dictionary and it said the only definition was "a derogatory synonym of religion" then throw it in the trash and go out and get a real dictionary. If "cult" and "religion" denoted the exact same thing then there would be no need for cult checklists, would there? One wouldn't find secular political movements like Lyndon LaRouche's being called cults, would one? Bottom line: if your dictionary listed "derogatory synonym for religion" as ''one'' definition of cult, you made a mistake in saying cult was "just" a derogatory synonym for religion. And if your dictionary listed that as the only definition, it's a piece of crap, and maybe you should start wondering about the person who sold it to you. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 03:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::::What kind of obscure logic is that? Here J. Tell is offering the definition of the American Heritage Dictrionary. Here is another one from Webster. '': to dissuade from convictions usually of a religious nature often by coercive means''. --User:Zappaz 03:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::::: * Thanks Zappaz. Now, not only have I pointed out that deprogramming is anti-religious or "anti-cult", but you have shown that it is often coercive.
::::::: * User:Antaeus Feldspar, two definitions of deprogramming have been stated, you haven't imparted any; you're response mainly heckles me and my dictionary regarding a definition for "cult" which I did not give. I stated my POV regarding the term cult: "Cult is just a derogatory synonym of religion." Those are my words(IMHO), not a dictionary's. Where did I say that was from a dictionary? Also, I believe it is a broadly shared opinion that "''cult''" is derogatory.--User:J.Tell 04:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::: That's rather odd. [www.dictionary.com] lists the American Heritage Dictionary amongst its sources, and here is the first definition listed for cult: "1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." Note "generally considered to be extremist or false" and "living in an unconventional manner". I think this is grounds to accept that "cult" is not a synonym of religion, but a subtype of religion widely understood to be harmful to their practisers. :::::::: As to my own views, I didn't put them in the article because I don't think that's warranted, but in my opinion, cults use coercion (albeit not as obviously as deprogrammers do, but deprogrammers have a lot less time to work with) to recruit their victims, and therefore, again in my opinion, coercion is morally, if not yet legally, justifiable in order to restore the person to their rational pre-coerced state (or as nearly as possible, since altered personalities probably can't ever be fully restored). I certainly won't argue that this is illegal at present; I can only hope that in time, cults who harm their followers will be, too. Is this subjective? Hell, yes. But it seems criminally negligent to just throw up our hands and refuse to draw up a legal definition of a harmful cult. I believe such a definition can be made that would not interfere with voluntarily chosen, positive religions. :::::::: Now, I don't include this because I entertain hopes of including this point of view in the article, J. Tell - I just wanted to make you aware that many people have a viewpoint vastly different from yours - many people think the deprogrammers are the good guys. Many of us are sick of seing cults like the Scientologists and Moonies get away with terrible, often criminal behavior - tax free - while hiding behind the unimpeachable mantle of "religion". There is precedent for denying such things. The U.S. Census refuses to accept "Jedi" as a religion, though they managed to do it in Australia. (I'm not making that up.) And just try smoking a joint in front of a cop and explaining you're Rastafarian. So there is already precedent in this country for deciding which belief systems deserve protection as religions. What's the big deal about going after these groups that are hurting their believers? Best wishes, -User:Kasreyn :::::::: I didn't realize that you were trying to win a debate over the definition of "deprogrammer", because I don't see any such debate. What I was disputing was your assertion that wherever the word "cult" appeared in such a definition, one could substitute "religion", since (in your words) "Cult is just a derogatory synonym of religion." The "just" makes a false assertion, since some people ''may'' employ it as a derogatory synonym for religion but even minimal research makes it clear that there are other definitions which are not supersets, subsets, or synonyms of religion. Now you are admitting that this assertion, on which hangs the proposal that we should label all deprogrammers "anti-religious", is your own POV. Needless to say, that isn't a good enough reason for such conflation. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 13:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::::: I can't tell: are you replying to J. Tell or me? I assume to him b/c of nesting of your comment. -User:Kasreyn :::::::::: I was replying to J.Tell; he was the one arguing that deprogrammers should be characterized as "anti-religious". -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 11:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::::: But they are, aren't they? They are about talking someone and making him/her rescind his/her spiritual beliefs via coercive means. They do not deprogram people to stop consuming sugar are they?--User:Zappaz 22:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::: Objection already answered, but since you didn't read it the first time: we do not call police officers "anti-people" because they track down and arrest criminals, and criminals are a subset of people. It would be even more ludicrous to call deprogrammers "anti-religious" because they try to counter what they see as cult indoctrination, since only under ''some'' (not all) definitions of "cult" is it even a subset of religion. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::Your logic is is truly perverse ... How can you compare police officers to deprogrammers? Unless you refer to police brutality, that is. :) User:Jossifresco 03:01, May 7, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::: If I understand Feldspar correctly, his point was not really about police officers, but was an example being used to demonstrate the flawed logic of the statement "deprogrammers are anti religious". In the sense that cults are considered religions by some, this might be seen as true in a sense. However, the efforts of deprogrammers are specifically devoted towards that subset of religions known as cults. They are anti-cult; to call them anti-religion is an error of over-generalization. ::::::::::::: Feldspar's point was to make another example of over-generalization by way of analogy: calling police "anti-people" is technically true during an arrest, because criminals are people. However, it is an obvious over-generalization, by which Feldspar intended you to realize that "deprogrammers are anti-religion" was an over-generalization as well. If you need more help, please reply and I'll be happy to explain further. -User:Kasreyn :If you're saying that the article should not assert that cults engage in religious mind control OR that deprogrammer engage in anti-religious mind control, than I agree with you. Both assertions are controversial; neither has been established as a fact. :There are two major and opposing points of view about cults and deprogrammers: (1) cults brainwash via mind control, and deprogrammers free cult victims to think for themselves; (2) it's not true that "cults" use mind control, and deprogrammers exploit people's gullibility / desire to save face. It would be hard for Wikipedia to determine which (if any) of this is really true, so we're better off ducking conclusions and just describing the controversy. User:Ed Poor user talk:Ed Poor 19:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) :: An encyclopaedia should contain mostly facts. A controversy can be described, but focusing on controversy is what happens when logic has been weakened by propaganda. (IMHO of course).--User:J.Tell 02:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I would appreciate J. Tell's and Kasreyn in NPOVing this article. Two pair of new eyes will do wonders. Be bold! :) --User:Zappaz 03:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I'll do my best, over time.--User:J.Tell 04:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::What is "NPOVing" something? Adding the NPOV tag? That only takes one person though. Bear with me, I'm fairly new to wikipedia. -User:Kasreyn :::::"NPOVing" is the process of bringing in article into conformity with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Welcome aboard, -User:Willmcw 20:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) ==Pandora Project== *What about the Pandora project? Anybody to go for it? User:Male1979 Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week#Brain_implant_.28May_23.29 09:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC) == See also == I've removed some articles from the "See Also" section where the articles make clear that their relevance to mind control is tenuous at best. For instance, neither Texas Medication Algorithm Project nor New Freedom Commission on Mental Health make any mention of it whatsoever. Thought police and thought crime are almost antithetical to the article topic, since any authority which possessed an effective method of mind control would have no need for the less-effective modality of criminalizing thoughts or appointing guardians to enforce that criminalization. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 01:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Decision to remove those related articles is based on "someone's" POV. He didn't remove a non-sense article, but insists on removing the ones mentioned, among several others. Please explain each topic and why it should not be in ''Mind control#See also''.--User:AI 02:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I have already explained why I removed the four mentioned above, and you will need to actually ''answer'' those reasonings before demanding more. As for the "several others", they number exactly two: one I removed and later decided was relevant enough to restore; the other has no actual connection to mind control whatsoever but only to the fact that our current President once mispronounced a word related to it. Would you care to explain how "two" becomes "several others" in your world? As for your prejudicial observation that "Decision to remove those related articles is based on 'someone's' POV" -- why, yes. ''Every'' decision about what is, or is not, relevant to link to is reflective of ''someone's'' POV. Your decision to remove an article about an emblematic symbol of the debate over mind control is ''certainly'' reflective of your own POV. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) === Tinfoil hat === This has been removed because the article tinfoil hat is non-sense. If you disagree, state reason(s) here.--User:AI 02:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It is clearly not Wikipedia:patent nonsense; you will therefore have to explain why you are making the claim that it is "nonsense" and what you are trying to indicate by that term. Perhaps you are under the impression that an article is 'nonsense' if the information in it is unfavorable to you, but somehow I do not think you can point to a single sentence of the article which is untrue. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Tinfoil hat may be a candidate for deletion according to "incomplete" policy. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Hoaxes.--User:AI 16:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Ah, and I see you've improperly tried to get the article speedy-deleted. It seems you don't comprehend the important distinction between a hoax article and an article about a hoax, so let me clarify: A hoax article is one where editors try to fool Wikipedia into printing something which is not true. An article about a hoax is one where it is described how some party or parties (possibly unknown) tried and possibly succeeded in getting people (not necessarily at all connected with Wikipedia) to believe something which is not true. :::In short, only if it were untrue that hats made of tinfoil have ''ever'' been worn by the mentally disturbed as protection from feared mind control and if it were untrue that they have ever been widely believed to be the favored headgear of the paranoid and if it was untrue that the phrase "tinfoil hat" had entered the common vernacular as a shorthand for intimating that someone suffered from paranoia, would it be a hoax article and a candidate for deletion under your "'incomplete' policy". -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 00:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Mind_control:
Mind-control
Mind_Control
Mind_control
Mind_control
Mind_controlled
Mind_Control_(Canibus_album)
Mind Control
#redirect mind control
Mind control
Mind control theories are based on the premise that an outside source can control an individual's thought , behavior or consciousness. Such theories have ethical and legal implications. The mind control theories as applied to membership in cult assumes that no one would join such a group if he knew what he was getting into. The recruit is not to be held responsible for his actions, since he was "under control". Neither scientists nor sociologists generally consider this model a viable theory. Theories vary as to the feasibility of such control and the methods used to attain it (either direct or more subtle). When these methods are used forcibly, most sources refer to it as "brainwashing" (a term originally applied during the Korean War to POWs held by Communist China and North Korea). Clearly, many influences from the outside world influence people's minds, such as advertising, media manipulation, and propaganda. == Methods and theories == === Personal Mind control === Some theories of mind control are based on personal use and achievement, such as the Silva Method. === Hypothetical technologies of mind control=== Hypothesized forms of mind control technology have included the use of drugs, hypnosis, Pavlovian conditioning, repetitive indoctrination, torture and Subliminal_message stimuli. Government groups have actually experimented with all of these methods, with widely varying degrees of success. Possible symptoms of schizophrenia (and sometimes of other forms of psychosis) include the belief that one is subject to external mind control, often by use of some form of technology. These often involve less plausible proposed mind-control technologies such as the use of microwave radiation or lasers to control thoughts, often by intelligence agency and by secret society . However, others note that in fact these technologies do exist, in varying forms. Extremely low frequency technology appears the most common and most well-documented. From the 1950s to the 1970s, both the Soviet Union and the United States carried out several experiments using ELF pulse transmissions to mimic human nerve impulses, in effect implanting certain states of consciousness -- particularly emotions -- by radiation. Scientists found that certain ELF frequencies, when transmitted in pulse mode, could induce emotions in subjects. Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, a former Finland physician and a well-known Ufology and Conspiracy theory, sees many 'schizophrenics' as misdiagnosed victims of mind-control experiments. Physical implants discovered in the cerebral tissue of such 'schizophrenics' have allegedly substantiated such claims. Some believers in mind control assert that no one has immunity to mind control: a person could just start talking to a someone on the street, and nearly instantly, he becomes a victim. Other sources believe that such mind control does not exist, and that attempts at mind control cannot subvert free will. ===U.S. Government research into mind control=== A CIA research program which included experiments on human participants, known principally by the codename MKULTRA, began in 1950, largely in response to alleged Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean uses of mind-control techniques (popularly known as "brainwashing") on U.S. prisoner of war in Korea. The general consensus sees MKULTRA as a failure, although because most of the MKULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 by order of then-Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms, it is impossible to have a complete understanding of the more than 150 individually-funded research projects sponsored by MKULTRA and the related CIA programs. ===Subliminal advertising=== ''Outline:'' * James Vicary coined the term "subliminal advertising" . * The publication in 1957 of Vance Packard's ''The Hidden Persuaders'' brought the term to the attention of the general public. * In 1973 the book ''Subliminal Seduction'' claimed that advertising made widespread use of subliminal techiques and could in theory be used as a form of mind control. ===Does control of brain processes amount to mind control?=== With intense modern magnets and the technique of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or repetitive TMS (rTMS), researchers have succeeded in transiently suppressing certain thought processes — such as the conjugation of verbs — with fleeting magnetic pulses to specific areas of the brain. The technique has proved a valuable tool for testing hypotheses about the role and interplay between brain regions in particular cognitive activities and psychiatric symptoms such as clinical depression. The extent and viability of these capabilities as "mind control" remain controversial and disputed. For example, antidepressant drugs and mood stabilizers have a definite effect on mood, through what is believed to be a direct action on the chemistry of the brain. However, most people would not say that this constituted mind control, and people on these drugs do not feel "controlled". This raises the question: if outsiders can control brain processes at the electrical or chemical level without this amounting to "mind control", where does free will lie? ==Cults and mind control controversies== The term "mind control" evolved from theories of brainwashing after these theories had been found not applicable and discredited with regard to cult. (Note that sociologists and other experts often dispute about what constitutes a "cult".) Some theorists maintain that merely by "milieu control" or censoring all information that might dissuade belief a group of manipulators may take control of the mind of a person who is otherwise free to end his association with the group (see especially Steve Hassan and Flo Conway). In the anti-cult movement and Christian countercult movement ''mind control'' has the meaning of strong influence acquired and maintained by manipulation. Some persons have claimed a "brainwashing defense" for crimes committed while purportedly under mind control (see Patty Hearst) or may sue their erstwhile captors after escaping from either a "cult" (religious mind controller) or "deprogrammer" (anti-religious mind controller). According to James T. Richardson on his ''"Brainwashing" Claims and Minority Religions Outside the United States: Cultural Diffusion of a Questionable Concept in the Legal Arena'', while heavy on theory, the mind control model is light on evidence: :The ACM movement has collected some information to support its belief that religious groups successfully employ mind-control techniques. But the data is unreliable. The information typically represents a very small sample size. It is not practical to obtain information before, during and after an individual has been in a NRM. Often, their data is disproportionately obtained from former members of a religious organization who have been convinced during ACM counseling that they have been victims of mind-control.[http://www.religioustolerance.org/brain_wa.htm] Sociologists David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cult"s are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible".[http://www.religioustolerance.org/brain_wa.htm] ===Mind control and deprogramming=== Opponents of some new religious movements accused so-called "cult"s of coercing recruits to join (and members to remain) via strong influence acquired and maintained by manipulation (see also anti-cult movement and Christian countercult movement). Many of these opponents advocate deprogramming as necessary to "free" the victim of a cult from mind control. Opponents of deprogramming generally regard it as an even worse violation of personal autonomy than any (possible) loss of personal freedom attributable to the allegedly deceptive recruiting tactics of new religions. These opponents complain that targets of deprogramming are (1) victims of deception, (2) denied due process and (3) forced to endure more intense manipulation by their supposed rescuers than they encountered during their previous group membership. ===Mind control and the Unification Church=== Bob and Gretchen Passantin have written: :''One good indicator of the non-existence of mind-control techniques is the ineffectiveness of NRM recruitment programs. "Eileen Barker documents that out of 1000 people persuaded by the Moonies [Unification Church] to attend one of their overnight programs in 1979, 90% had no further involvement. Only 8% joined for more than one week..."'' [http://www.religioustolerance.org/brain_wa.htm] Tyler Hendricks, former president of the Unification Church, estimates approximately 100,000 people "moved into" the Unificaton Church as full-time members from the 1970s to the 1990s. Membership in the church was 8,600 in 2004 (counting only those who joined as adults, and excluding the children of members). This is an attrition rate of 93%. Taking Barker's figures with Hendricks' figures, it appears that less than 0.5% of people who stayed overnight became long-term members. ===Mind control and faith=== Leon Festinger based his theory of the cognitive dissonance, a component of Hassan's Mind Control model, on his observation that the faith of most members of a Unidentified_flying_object cult was unshattered by failed prophecy. [http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html]. Barrett who is affiliated with CESNUR and Eileen Barker, whom some anti-cult activists consider ''cult apologists'', wrote that logical arguments are irrelevant when trying to persuade some members to leave a movement due to the certainty that they have about their faith which he sees as not confined to cults, but also occurring in some forms of mainstream religion. He also wrote that some members do not leave the movement even though they realize that things are wrong. See also Cult#Leaving_a_cult.2C_reasons_and_empirical_evidence. In a article by the evangelical Christianity writers Bob and Gretchen Passantino, first appearing in Cornerstone magazine, titled ''Overcoming The Bondage Of Victimization: A Critical Evaluation of Cult Mind Control Theories'' they challenge the validity of mind control theories and the alleged "victimization" by mind-control, and assert in their conclusion: :"[...] the Bogey Man of cult mind control is nothing but a ghost story, good for inducing an adrenaline high and maintaining a crusade, but irrelevant to reality. The reality is that people who have very real spiritual, emotional, and social needs are looking for fulfillment and significance for their lives. Ill-equipped to test the false gospels of this world, they make poor decisions about their religious affiliations. Poor decisions, yes, but decisions for which they are personally responsible nonetheless. As Christians who believe in an absolute standard of truth and religious reality, we cannot ignore the spiritual threat of the cults. We must promote critical thinking, responsible education, biblical apologetics, and Christian evangelism. We must recognize that those who join the cults, while morally responsible, are also spiritually ignorant." [http://answers.org/CultsAndReligions/mind_control.html] ===American Psychological Association task force on mind control=== The American Psychological Association (APA) in 1984 allowed Margaret Singer, the main proponent of anti-cult mind control theories, to set up a working group called Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC). In 1987 the DIMPAC committee submitted its final report to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On May 11, 1987 the Board rejected the report and concluded that its kind of mind control theories, used in order to distinguish "cults" from religions, did not form part of accepted psychological science (American Psychological Association 1987). Although the APA memorandum only dismissed the theories of brainwashing and mind control as presented in the DIMPAC report — without prejudice to theories of influence and control other than those advocated by the DIMPAC committee - the results of the APA document proved devastating for the anti-cult movement[6]. In fact, the DIMPAC theories rejected by APA largely corresponded to the anti-cult position as a whole. Starting from the Steven Fishman case (1990) (where a defendant accused of commercial fraud raised as a defense that he was not fully responsible since he was under the mind control of Scientology) American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Margaret Singer and her associate Richard Ofshe filed suits against the APA and the American Sociological Association (who had supported APA's 1987 statement) but they lost in 1993 and 1994. In 2002 Dr. Philip Zimbardo commented on the request by former members of new religious movements (NRMs) to reconsider the APA's position on the possibility of mind control [http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/pc.html] ===Steve Hassan and his BITE model for cults=== The term ''destructive mind control'', as used by self-proclaimed expert on "destructive cults" and anti-cult movement Steve Hassan is part of his BITE model [http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm]. The BITE model advances a theory that mind control is a set of techniques to get control over people by manipulation and deception. Hassan's critics argue that Steve Hassan uses the term "mind control" (for what they see as essentially a strong form of influence) only to justify the forcible extraction of believers from religious groups. They argue that Hassan does not merely say that fraudulent salesmanship persuaded the believers; he claims that these groups literally take away a victim's freedom of mind. For this reason an involuntary procedure must operate in order to "rescue" a "victim" from a "destructive cult", for "victims" may not realize their victimhood status and may resist rescuing. Hassan, after taking part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, distances himself from this practice and the criminal activities associated with that occupation and refers to his method as "strategic interaction". ==Mind control in conspiracy theory== Mind control is a common feature in many conspiracy theories, as it provides a mechanism by which an alleged conspiracy could maintain control over innocent people, prevent knowledge of the conpiracy's actions and, in some cases, cause the conspiracy theorist's intended audience from believing him. The means by which victims are alleged to be controlled varies according to the nature of the theory: theories centering on existing governmental groups usually feature mind control via subliminal messages or other technological means, while theories focusing on secret society such as the Freemasonry and the Illuminati are more likely to involve supernatural or magical means, or particularly fanciful technology such as "mind control satellite]]s". Theories that involve the United States government frequently refer to MKULTRA. Radio waves are frequently claimed to be used for mind control: radio and television broadcast towers, and more recently cell phone towers, are often considered suspect. J.D. Salinger's novel The Catcher in the Rye was rumored to be a device for FBI/CIA mind control at one time. ==Mind control in fiction== Mind control has proven a popular subject in fiction, featuring in books and films such as ''The Ipcress File'', and ''The Manchurian Candidate'', which has the premise that controllers could hypnotize a person into murdering on command while retaining no memory of the killing. The TV series ''The Prisoner'' featured mind control as a recurring plot element. George Orwell's novel ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' features a description of mind control, both directly by torture, and indirectly, in the form of pervasive mind control by the use of Newspeak, a constructed language designed to remove the possibility, Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis of articulating or of even thinking subversive thoughts. In science fiction, fantasy and superhero fiction, mind control often appears as the means whereby a person literally seizes control of the minds of the victims to the point where not only their bodies come under direct control, but also their consciousnesses as well, so that they become puppets or slaves to the controller. Fiction often depicts this process taking place electronically; the trademark equipment of the ''Batman'' supervillain The Mad Hatter—headgear designed to put victims under his control when placed in direct physical contact with the head—furnishes one example of this. In addition, characters with powerful telepathy or parapsychology abilities, like Professor X and Jean Grey of the X-Men, can do the same with mental concentration against a target. ''The Illuminatus! Trilogy'' pokes fun at conspiracy theorists' assertions of pervasive mind control. The best known example for the book is the ''fnord'', a word that the populace at large has been programmed since birth to not consciously notice, but to associate with a sense of fear and general unease; it is supposedly inserted into published works on current events, such as magazines and newspapers, but is absent from advertising, leading people to avoid knowledge of the world and to be obedient consumers. ''See also'': mind uploading ==Mind control as entertainment== Hypnotism has often been used by stage performers to make volunteers do strange things, such as clucking like a chicken, for the entertainment of audiences. The British psychological illusionist Derren Brown performs more sophisticated mental tricks in his television programmes, ''Derren Brown: Mind Control''. ==See also== * Anti-psychiatry * Brain implant * Brainwashing * Cognotechnology * Conditioning * Deprogramming * Hypnosis * love bombing * Milgram experiment * MKULTRA, the United States Central Intelligence Agency's former mind-control project. * Psychotronics * New Freedom Commission on Mental Health * William Sargant * Subliminal messages * Thought reform * Tin-foil hat ==References== *Bromley, D.B., Shupe, A.D., ''Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare'', Beacon Press, Boston, (1981). * Hadden, Jeffrey K., ''[http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/brainwashing.htm The Brainwashing Controversy]''. * Introvigne. Massimo, [http://www.cesnur.org/testi/gandow_eng.htm ''“Liar, Liar”: Brainwashing, CESNUR and APA.''] (Rebuttal to DIMPAC report) * Keith, Jim, ''Experiments in Mind-Control'' * Kilde, Rauni Leena, M.D., Former Chief Medical Officer of Finland [http://www.raven1.net/kilde1.htm ''Microwave Mind-Control''] * Lifton, Robert J., ''Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism'' (1961); *Passantino Bob and Gretchen. ''Overcoming The Bondage Of Victimization.A Critical Evaluation of Cult Mind Control Theories''. (1994) Cornerstone Magazine. [http://answers.org/CultsAndReligions/mind_control.html Available online] * Schein, Edgar H. et al., ''Coercive Persuasion'' (1961) * Shapiro,K. A. Pascual-Leone, A., Mottaghy, F. M., Gangitano, M., & Caramazza, A. (2001). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=11564316&dopt=Citation Grammatical distinctions in the left frontal cortex]. ''Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience'', 13(6), 713-720 ==External links== * [http://rinf.com/conspiracies/mind-control.html Mind Control Archive] Includes documents, video, audio and links * [http://research.zonebg.com/en/indexen.htm Mental Matrixes] - Psychic research * The Converging Technologies Report, which details the creation of a hive mind using cybernetic technologies within the next 10-30 years: ''[http://wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/ Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance]'' * [http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist23.html Report of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control, November 1986] * Steve Hassan [http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm Extensive definition of mind control especially with regard to cults] * [http://www.rense.com/general17/imp.htm Mind-Control and Cybernetics] * [http://www.freedomofmind.com Steve Hassan's website] * [http://www.skepdic.com/mindcont.html Skeptic dictionary entry on the various meanings and forms of mind control] * [http://www.nlptrainingreviews.com/random/sublm00.html A Critical Overview of Suggestion Control Research] * [http://www.cesnur.org/conferences/BrainWash.htm "Brainwashing" : Career of a Myth in the United States and Europe - Paper delivered by Dr Massimo Introvigne at the CESNUR-REMID conference held in Marburg, Germany, on March 27-29, 1998] * [http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b09.html Anton Hein's apologetics index/countercult website about mind control] * [http://www.fwbo-files.com/CofC.htm#Summary Essay by Mark Dunlop about cults and mind control] * [http://www.snopes2.com/business/hidden/popcorn.htm Snopes on subliminal advertising] * [http://www.skepdic.com/mindcont.html Skeptic dicionary entry on the various meanings and forms of mind control] * [http://www.rickross.com/mind_control.html Rick Ross' archive on mind control] Popular psychology Anti-cult terms and concepts
Mind control
==Scholarly anti-cult activism, references== The following quotes seem to be relevant to the issue of mind control, as mind control concept is being used as substitute for already discredited "brainwashing" theory by anti-cult activists, a scientific base to promote the message about dangers of cults, so to speak. By checking the links other scholarly opinion could be found. "In the 1970s the new concept of "moral panic" was developed (see Jenkins 1998) in order to explain how some social problems become overconstructed and generate exaggerate fears. Moral panics are defined as socially constructed social problems characterized by a reaction, both in media representation and in political forums, out of proportion to the actual threat, often based on folk statistics that, although not confirmed by scholarly studies, are repeated from media to media and may inspire political measures." *[http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Vienna.htm] One area where reports of Type II are still very much uncertain is mind control ... . They seem to believe that a real problem exist and that something should be done. It seems that the radical extent of criticism of the brainwashing theories by most (English-speaking) mainline scholars has not yet been appreciated even by Type II reports. Behind these labels, however, there is often in Type II reports a legitimate concern for consumer protection. *[http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Vienna.htm] -- :"Totalitarian regimes use repression of freedom of speech to homogenize the population. Repression can range from simple censorship through character assassination to outright state sponsored murder. One notorious example is Stalin with his purges." Is character assassination really repression of free speech? Surely just a successful use of Rhetoric? --User:Harryfdoherty 15:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- The article seemed decidedly opposed to the proposition that there actually is such a thing as mind control; I've tried to make it more :NPOV. I and many other people believe that there is such a thing as brainwashing. I do believe there is such a thing as :Free will and determinism. I say this not in order to get into a debate about these topics (I'm not interested, really) but because I want us to be careful about how we characterize the different beliefs involved here. Many intelligent, well-informed people believe that some lives have been essentially stunted or destroyed due to their involvement with brainwashing cults. You might, for whatever reason, think that use of such terms as "brainwashing cults" is itself indicative of socially counterproductive theorizing: but it is not the place of Wikipedia to take a stand that it is (or isn't). There is room here to explain the facts and arguments that lead people to believe that there are "evil, brainwashing cults," and ''also'' to explain the facts and arguments that lead people to believe that the very notion of "evil, brainwashing cults" is wrongheaded and insidious. --User:LMS Maybe I shouldn't have started this article at all, as I feel too strongly about the issue to assume the NPOV. Sometimes, even when I have a strong opinion on a topic and WANT to slant it my way, I have been able to adhere so closely to NPOV that no one alters a single word. I guess this was not such an occasion. On the other hand, I have noticed a trend: many of the articles which I've started as stubs have blossomed nicely into well-developed (and :neutral) articles, thanks to others. Anyway, I want to work with you -- not against you -- so I am open to suggestions. -- User:Ed Poor ------ Yo, we need to merge mind control and thought control. :Merged, now the article needs a good edit for NPOV. :And I have also merged Brainwashing as well. ------------------ From the "Brainwashing" talk page: :Can we identify those two studies? user:Wesley ------------ Removed this text from the article: :Totalitarian regimes use repression of freedom of specch to homogenize population, which goes from censorship to state sponsored murder. One notorious example is Stalin with his purges, but not even the US is immune from state control. The modern world is in fact characterized by unpreceded increase in powers of the state, which can often be very oppressive. :See hypnotism and the book 1984 by George Orwell. ---- Some cult related pages in Wikipedia link to Brainwashing, which links here. This ends up equivocating ''indoctrination'' and ''mind control'', which I think are different enough topics to have their own pages (indoctrination more from a social psychology standpoint), but I don't know how to separate the two given that there is sort of a continuous spectrum between the two. Any suggestions? --hb ---- I strongly believe that mind control and propaganda are closely related. Once you believe that a message comes from a reliable source then it works as mind control. Proganda is a message disseminated to a large group. I wrote a small essay about 'brainwashing' based on my own unfortunate experience that has been published online http://www.surrealist.org/betrayalofthespirit/brainwashing.html Andries K.D. --- I wrote an entry on thought reform but the lay out needs some changes. I am shocked that it is so easy to edit entries on wikipedia. After all, any lunatic could write rubbish. But don't worry in this case. Unfortunately I am an expert on the subject due to my own experience and much reading and thinking. Andries K.D. ------ User:Titansolaris' edits:
== Mind Control motivations == The necessicity of mind control is self explanatory. It is to control the mind. Analyzing the relative words mind and [[control] is important. A mind is structured of diverse and distinct information. Some formal information structures are coined as parameters. These parameters could be anything from ethical values ( see ethics ) to a memory value ( sound, feeling, etc... ). These values are normally complement and relative to their opposing values, e.g. Good vs Bad, or Smart vs Stupid. These values seem to be used by our awareness to make decisions. E.G. It is bad to kill, thus one shall not kill. This is an example on which one would base a decision upon a certain value. Those values are basically yes or no, if looked upon from the root point of view. If in some case, values would be induced throught unseeming messages, such as movies , culture, music or even political doctrines, these values, if not analyzed would then become embedded mental values. They would serve of base to make further decisions, when a situation is present and where an action need to be made ( See branch to action ). If you have been experiancing unexplicable actions, it is most probable case of embedded mental values at runtime. == How to avoid Mind Control == It is important to understand that to be obsolete against any form of mind control, you must question incomming information. You must ask yourself if this advantages you or not. Is it garbage information or not ? In the case the information received is garbage, it is in your choice to ignore that given information or not. If you ignore it, the values of the information will not be apart of your embedded mental values.This appears to be somewhat POV to me, and bordering on a how-to guide (see what Wikipedia is not). Some terms being used here such as "embedded mental values" and "branch to action" seem to be novel, and thus appear to be original research (see what Wikipedia is not, again). Other bits I can't understand at all. -- User:The Anome 10:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) I have removed the text cited above, for the reasons given above. If you disagree with this, please discuss this here. -- User:The Anome 14:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- I don't understand why the book by Steve Hassan is mentioned nowhere. I find this the most authorative book about the subject. Unfortunately I gave it away. Here is his definition of mind control http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm User:Andries 22:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Is this brainwashing in action? Some suggestions.== Comparing the English and German wikipedia entries on mind control and propaganda (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) I found it somehow strange that the English version doesn't mention the (British and US American) origins of modern propaganda at all. This combined with the fact that the English entry starts with Hitler, Goebbels and Stalin is somehow remarkable, I think. Is this the result or an attempt of brainwashing? If it is important to talk about propaganda in history then it is important to not only talk about those who lost in the end (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) but to talk about the winners too. It is maybe even more important, because they still have the power to continuesly spread their propaganda. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are no threat to anybody anymore. And mind you, the one who wins is not always right and criminal acts don't become rightful just because you are fighting for a rightful cause or because you have proven military superiour. Maybe some links to internet resources on how the current US administration got the American public into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and therefor was a threat to American citizens would be more important for people of today than what happened before most of us (or even our parents) were born. Also starting with a Goebbels quote makes it seem like propaganda would be always a bad thing while it could be argued that propaganda is just a neutral tool. A tool that can be used for good and bad things. A tool that might even be necessary for any leader in a modern mass society. And why the Goebbels quote at all? You can't even name when or where he said that. Googling for it I couldn't find anything about the origin of this quote or if he really said it at all. I tried it both in English and German. So right now I doubt that he said it at all. Also I'm quite sure he did believe in that idea. But would a "genius" like he is called in the article call himself (even indirectly) a liar while he still needs peoples trust? So if you still feel the need to quote someone on propaganda, why does it have to be Goebbles? The first part of this Einstein quote might even be more relevant than the quote used right now:
"In two weeks the sheeplike masses of any country can be worked up by the newspapers into such a state of excited fury that men are prepared to put on uniforms and kill and be killed, for the sake of the sordid ends of a few interested parties. Compulsory military service seems to me the most disgraceful symptom of that deficiency in personal dignity from which civilized mankind is suffering today."
(Albert Einstein, 1934) That said, of course Goebbels needs to be mentioned in an article about mind control and propaganda. Maybe even more information about him and about what methods he and the nazis used to influence the public opinion would be nice. But be careful it doesn't get out of ballance and that can happen fast since it is a natural thing that it is much harder to get information about the historical losers than to get information about the propaganda tricks the winners used (and still use). And if it gets out of ballance and the reader gets the impression propaganda is mostly a thing the "bad guys" use then the historical winners propaganda machine has been successful and you have become a propaganda tool yourself. Knowing how limited my English is and also out of respect to the original authors of this entry I leave it to others to follow or not to follow my suggestions and edit this article. -Stefan (first time wiki poster) P.S.: Here is the part from the German wiki that I think should be in the English one too:
"Der Ursprung der modernen Propaganda liegt in Amerika und Großbritannien zur Zeit des Ersten Weltkriegs. In den USA wurde 1916, während der Amtszeit von Woodrow Wilson, die Creel-Kommission ins Leben gerufen, die unter Beteiligung von John Dewey, Walter Lippmann und des neugegründeten britischen Propagandaministeriums die Aufgabe hatte, das pazifistisch gestimmte amerikanische Volk gegen die Deutschen zu mobilisieren. Dies wurde ein grosser Erfolg. Lippmann verfasste später eine Demokratietheorie, die besagt dass das Volk im wesentlichen aus zwei Klassen besteht. Zum einen die Klasse der Spezialisten, die aktiv mit den Angelegenheiten der Allgemeinheit betraut sind und die Entscheidungen treffen, zum anderen die grosse Mehrheit, die mangels eigenen Wissens zur Unterstützung der "vernünftigen" Entscheidungen der Spezialisten gebracht werden müsse." Maybe someone more capable of the English language than me could translate it in an appropriate way (and doublecheck the facts). P.P.S.: Maybe the mind control article should also be linked to the article on FUD, since those two topics seem to be very close related to me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD) "'Course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." -Dennis Miller ---- I strongly disagree with a redirect from brainwashing to mind control. They are different concepts. Mind control is more subtle than brain washing. Mind control is not discredited but brainwashing is. User:Andries 09:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) I have re-seperated the articles mind control and brainwashing. They both need a lot of additions and editing. Feel free if you know about the subject. User:Andries 18:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- I strongly disagree with the following paragraph in the article: :"People's minds are clearly influenced by many influences from the outside world, such as advertising, media manipulation, and propaganda, however they are generally aware of these influences. The remainder of this article is about mind control that occurs either without the knowledge, or without the consent, of the individual. " The usual meaning of mind control in the anti-cult movement is that of using propaganda and misleading people without the knowledge of the people. When people know that something is manipulation or propaganda hen it loses its effectiveness. I will delete or re-write the paragraph unless somebody has well founded objections. Besides according to some in the anti cult movementent mind control is just a strong form of inluence. Mind control in cults has everything to do with changing a person belief system. One can't directly control a mind, only indirectly by changing a person's belief system and basic attitudes through manipulation. User:Andries 19:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- == Cults and mind control == Many people believe that cults entrap or enslave members through mind control which is, in this sense, essentialy a strong form of influence. A counter-cult deprogramming movement has developed to counter cult mind control, and has, in turn, been accused of using mind control techniques. Deprogramming is not more in use and has been replaced with exit counseling which is voluntarily. Deprogrammers have often been able to get judges to issue conservatorships authorizing them to rescue people. There is considerable disagreement about how cults actually operate. Steve Hassan who practices a form of exit counseling and is an ex member of the Unification Church (which is a purported cults) has developed a model of mind control which he called the BITE model [http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm]. Many ex members of cults try to understand how it is possible that they have been entrapped so long and so deeply and believe in the truth of mind control theories which help them to explain and understand their own experiences. ---- The above section assumes the truth of "mind control". * ''rescue people'' and ''they have been entrapped so long and so deeply'' -- this phrase implies that the people were victims of mind control. Is there anything about Hassan's BITE model at Steve Hassan? That would be the place for his POV. Also, we should mention that Hassan began as a deprogrammer and only shifted to "exit counseling" later -- possibly to avoid legal complications, like jail for kidnapping (I have personal knowledge of one case). Let's work on this section, then put it back. I'm not "censoring": I'm trying to get accuracy and neutrality. Anyone who's for Accuracy and Neutrality is welcome to join in or even take over. I'm here to help. --User:Ed Poor 15:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Steve Hassan's POV is quite influential and hence should be discussed in the article. It is just an influential theory to understand cults and many ex-members of cults accept it as the complete truth. Personally I believe the cult phenomenon is too complex for Hassan's model but I do believe that his model has some merits. User:Andries 15:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) Perhaps then we should create a section within mind control on Steve Hassan's ideas. We could also place Margaret Sanger's here, too. Or briefly introduce each advocate's ideas here, and then linke to a fuller exposition at Steve Hassan and Margaret Singer. The last thing I want to do is hide these ideas. I just want them described accurately and neutrally. We might also try to find out how many people in various countries still subscribed to these theories. --User:Ed Poor 18:13, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ed, why not discuss it here? Don't delete but improve. I think that mind control in the meaning/definition/description of Steve Hassan is just a set of techniques of manipulative strong influence. I guess that everybody agrees that this exists. One could ask, why does he call it 'Mind control' if it is so common. May be to make his theories more attractive and interesting? User:Andries 05:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) :I've personally met Steve Hassan and talked with him; plus I've read his book. His website is http://www.freedomofmind.com/ :The primary reason people advocate the theory of "mind control" is to justify the forcible extraction of believers from religious groups. Advocates like Hassan don't merely say that the members were persuaded by fraudulent salesmanship, like a recruit duped into joining the Marines -- they claim that these groups literally take away a victim's freedom of mind. The victim "snaps" and becomes incapable of making a responsible decision; hence, they are not responsible for what they've decided. It is this aspect of the Mind Control theory which was finally rejected by U.S. courts. :Of course, the lay public is free to continue to believe in discredited science. There are still people who believe that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, in terms of intelligence: there's no law against their feeling this way, but the Wikipedia shouldn't endorse this view. :I think the article on mind control should say how many people believe that it's real, and what sorts of people these are. It should clarify what scholars in the fields of sociology, psychology and law say, as well. --User:Ed Poor 15:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Removed== I removed the footer
::::::: * User:Antaeus Feldspar, two definitions of deprogramming have been stated, you haven't imparted any; you're response mainly heckles me and my dictionary regarding a definition for "cult" which I did not give. I stated my POV regarding the term cult: "Cult is just a derogatory synonym of religion." Those are my words(IMHO), not a dictionary's. Where did I say that was from a dictionary? Also, I believe it is a broadly shared opinion that "''cult''" is derogatory.--User:J.Tell 04:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::::: That's rather odd. [www.dictionary.com] lists the American Heritage Dictionary amongst its sources, and here is the first definition listed for cult: "1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." Note "generally considered to be extremist or false" and "living in an unconventional manner". I think this is grounds to accept that "cult" is not a synonym of religion, but a subtype of religion widely understood to be harmful to their practisers. :::::::: As to my own views, I didn't put them in the article because I don't think that's warranted, but in my opinion, cults use coercion (albeit not as obviously as deprogrammers do, but deprogrammers have a lot less time to work with) to recruit their victims, and therefore, again in my opinion, coercion is morally, if not yet legally, justifiable in order to restore the person to their rational pre-coerced state (or as nearly as possible, since altered personalities probably can't ever be fully restored). I certainly won't argue that this is illegal at present; I can only hope that in time, cults who harm their followers will be, too. Is this subjective? Hell, yes. But it seems criminally negligent to just throw up our hands and refuse to draw up a legal definition of a harmful cult. I believe such a definition can be made that would not interfere with voluntarily chosen, positive religions. :::::::: Now, I don't include this because I entertain hopes of including this point of view in the article, J. Tell - I just wanted to make you aware that many people have a viewpoint vastly different from yours - many people think the deprogrammers are the good guys. Many of us are sick of seing cults like the Scientologists and Moonies get away with terrible, often criminal behavior - tax free - while hiding behind the unimpeachable mantle of "religion". There is precedent for denying such things. The U.S. Census refuses to accept "Jedi" as a religion, though they managed to do it in Australia. (I'm not making that up.) And just try smoking a joint in front of a cop and explaining you're Rastafarian. So there is already precedent in this country for deciding which belief systems deserve protection as religions. What's the big deal about going after these groups that are hurting their believers? Best wishes, -User:Kasreyn :::::::: I didn't realize that you were trying to win a debate over the definition of "deprogrammer", because I don't see any such debate. What I was disputing was your assertion that wherever the word "cult" appeared in such a definition, one could substitute "religion", since (in your words) "Cult is just a derogatory synonym of religion." The "just" makes a false assertion, since some people ''may'' employ it as a derogatory synonym for religion but even minimal research makes it clear that there are other definitions which are not supersets, subsets, or synonyms of religion. Now you are admitting that this assertion, on which hangs the proposal that we should label all deprogrammers "anti-religious", is your own POV. Needless to say, that isn't a good enough reason for such conflation. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 13:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::::: I can't tell: are you replying to J. Tell or me? I assume to him b/c of nesting of your comment. -User:Kasreyn :::::::::: I was replying to J.Tell; he was the one arguing that deprogrammers should be characterized as "anti-religious". -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 11:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::::: But they are, aren't they? They are about talking someone and making him/her rescind his/her spiritual beliefs via coercive means. They do not deprogram people to stop consuming sugar are they?--User:Zappaz 22:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::: Objection already answered, but since you didn't read it the first time: we do not call police officers "anti-people" because they track down and arrest criminals, and criminals are a subset of people. It would be even more ludicrous to call deprogrammers "anti-religious" because they try to counter what they see as cult indoctrination, since only under ''some'' (not all) definitions of "cult" is it even a subset of religion. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::Your logic is is truly perverse ... How can you compare police officers to deprogrammers? Unless you refer to police brutality, that is. :) User:Jossifresco 03:01, May 7, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::: If I understand Feldspar correctly, his point was not really about police officers, but was an example being used to demonstrate the flawed logic of the statement "deprogrammers are anti religious". In the sense that cults are considered religions by some, this might be seen as true in a sense. However, the efforts of deprogrammers are specifically devoted towards that subset of religions known as cults. They are anti-cult; to call them anti-religion is an error of over-generalization. ::::::::::::: Feldspar's point was to make another example of over-generalization by way of analogy: calling police "anti-people" is technically true during an arrest, because criminals are people. However, it is an obvious over-generalization, by which Feldspar intended you to realize that "deprogrammers are anti-religion" was an over-generalization as well. If you need more help, please reply and I'll be happy to explain further. -User:Kasreyn :If you're saying that the article should not assert that cults engage in religious mind control OR that deprogrammer engage in anti-religious mind control, than I agree with you. Both assertions are controversial; neither has been established as a fact. :There are two major and opposing points of view about cults and deprogrammers: (1) cults brainwash via mind control, and deprogrammers free cult victims to think for themselves; (2) it's not true that "cults" use mind control, and deprogrammers exploit people's gullibility / desire to save face. It would be hard for Wikipedia to determine which (if any) of this is really true, so we're better off ducking conclusions and just describing the controversy. User:Ed Poor user talk:Ed Poor 19:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) :: An encyclopaedia should contain mostly facts. A controversy can be described, but focusing on controversy is what happens when logic has been weakened by propaganda. (IMHO of course).--User:J.Tell 02:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I would appreciate J. Tell's and Kasreyn in NPOVing this article. Two pair of new eyes will do wonders. Be bold! :) --User:Zappaz 03:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I'll do my best, over time.--User:J.Tell 04:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::What is "NPOVing" something? Adding the NPOV tag? That only takes one person though. Bear with me, I'm fairly new to wikipedia. -User:Kasreyn :::::"NPOVing" is the process of bringing in article into conformity with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Welcome aboard, -User:Willmcw 20:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) ==Pandora Project== *What about the Pandora project? Anybody to go for it? User:Male1979 Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week#Brain_implant_.28May_23.29 09:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC) == See also == I've removed some articles from the "See Also" section where the articles make clear that their relevance to mind control is tenuous at best. For instance, neither Texas Medication Algorithm Project nor New Freedom Commission on Mental Health make any mention of it whatsoever. Thought police and thought crime are almost antithetical to the article topic, since any authority which possessed an effective method of mind control would have no need for the less-effective modality of criminalizing thoughts or appointing guardians to enforce that criminalization. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 01:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Decision to remove those related articles is based on "someone's" POV. He didn't remove a non-sense article, but insists on removing the ones mentioned, among several others. Please explain each topic and why it should not be in ''Mind control#See also''.--User:AI 02:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I have already explained why I removed the four mentioned above, and you will need to actually ''answer'' those reasonings before demanding more. As for the "several others", they number exactly two: one I removed and later decided was relevant enough to restore; the other has no actual connection to mind control whatsoever but only to the fact that our current President once mispronounced a word related to it. Would you care to explain how "two" becomes "several others" in your world? As for your prejudicial observation that "Decision to remove those related articles is based on 'someone's' POV" -- why, yes. ''Every'' decision about what is, or is not, relevant to link to is reflective of ''someone's'' POV. Your decision to remove an article about an emblematic symbol of the debate over mind control is ''certainly'' reflective of your own POV. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) === Tinfoil hat === This has been removed because the article tinfoil hat is non-sense. If you disagree, state reason(s) here.--User:AI 02:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :It is clearly not Wikipedia:patent nonsense; you will therefore have to explain why you are making the claim that it is "nonsense" and what you are trying to indicate by that term. Perhaps you are under the impression that an article is 'nonsense' if the information in it is unfavorable to you, but somehow I do not think you can point to a single sentence of the article which is untrue. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Tinfoil hat may be a candidate for deletion according to "incomplete" policy. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Hoaxes.--User:AI 16:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Ah, and I see you've improperly tried to get the article speedy-deleted. It seems you don't comprehend the important distinction between a hoax article and an article about a hoax, so let me clarify: A hoax article is one where editors try to fool Wikipedia into printing something which is not true. An article about a hoax is one where it is described how some party or parties (possibly unknown) tried and possibly succeeded in getting people (not necessarily at all connected with Wikipedia) to believe something which is not true. :::In short, only if it were untrue that hats made of tinfoil have ''ever'' been worn by the mentally disturbed as protection from feared mind control and if it were untrue that they have ever been widely believed to be the favored headgear of the paranoid and if it was untrue that the phrase "tinfoil hat" had entered the common vernacular as a shorthand for intimating that someone suffered from paranoia, would it be a hoax article and a candidate for deletion under your "'incomplete' policy". -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 00:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Mind_control:
Mind-control
Mind_Control
Mind_control
Mind_control
Mind_controlled
Mind_Control_(Canibus_album)
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
