Talk:Brainwashing/Merge proposal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mind control (also referred to as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, and thought reform[1]) refers to a broad range of psychological tactics thought to subvert an individual's control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decision making. Brainwashing and mind control theories originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes were thought to indoctrinate prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later adopted and expanded to explain a wider range of phenomena especially conversions to new religious movements. Mind control theories have always been controversial within scientific and legal contexts and currently most social scientists agree with the stances taken by the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association which have found no scientific merit in these theories.

The Korean War and the origin of brainwashing[edit]

The OED records its earliest known English-language usage of "brainwashing" by Edward Hunter in New Leader on 7 October 1950. During the Korean War, Hunter, who was working both as a journalist and a U.S. intelligence agent, turned out a steady stream of books and articles on the theme of Chinese brainwashing.[2] The Chinese term 洗腦 (xǐ năo, literally "wash brain") originally referred to methodologies of coercive persuasion used in the 改造 (gǎi zào, "reconstruction", "change", "altering") of the so-called feudal (封建 fēng jiàn) thought-patterns of pre-revolutionary Chinese citizens. The goal of the Maoist regime in China was to transform an individual with a "feudal" or capitalist mindset into a "right-thinking" member of the new social system. To that end they developed techniques that would break down the psychic integrity of the individual with regard to information processing, information retained in the mind and individual values. Chosen techniques included, dehumanizing of individuals by keeping them in filth, sleep deprivation, partial sensory deprivation, psychological harassment, inculcation of guilt, group social pressure.[citation needed] The term punned on the Taoist custom of "cleansing/washing the heart" (洗心 xǐ xīn) prior to conducting certain ceremonies or entering certain holy places, and in Chinese. Hunter, and those who picked up the term used it to explain why, unlike in earlier wars, a relatively high percentage of American GIs defected to the enemy side after becoming prisoners-of-war. It was believed that the Chinese in North Korea were using these techniques to disrupt the ability of captured troops to effectively organize and resist their imprisonment.[3] British radio operator Robert W. Ford[4] and British army Colonel James Carne also claimed to have been subjected to brainwashing techniques during their war era imprisonment by the Chinese.

After the war, two studies of the repatriation of American prisoners of war by Robert Lifton[5] and by Edgar Schein[6] concluded that brainwashing (called "thought reform" by Lipton and "coercive persuasion" by Schein) had a transient effect. Both researchers found that the Chinese mainly used coercive persuasion to disrupt the ability of the prisoners to organize and maintain morale and hence to escape. By placing the prisoners under conditions of physical and social deprivation and disruption, and then by offering them more comfortable situations such as better sleeping quarters, quality food, warmer clothes or blankets the Chinese did succeed in getting some of the prisoners to make anti-American statements. Nevertheless, the majority of prisoners did not actually adopt Communist beliefs, instead behaving as though they did in order to avoid the plausible threat of extreme physical abuse. Both researchers also concluded that such coercive persuasion succeeded only on a minority of POWs, and that the end-result of such coercion remained very unstable, as most of the individuals reverted to their previous condition soon after they left the coercive environment. In 1961 they both published books expanding on these findings. Schein published Coercive Persuasion[7] and Lifton published Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.[8] More recent writers like Mikhail Heller have suggested that Lifton's model of brainwashing may be relevant to the use of mass propaganda in other communist states like the former Soviet Union.[9]

Korean war era mind control theories have been criticized in recent years. According to forensic psychologist Dick Anthony, the CIA invented the concept of "brainwashing" as a propaganda strategy to undercut communist claims that American POWs in Korean communist camps had voluntarily expressed sympathy for communism. Anthony stated that definitive research demonstrated that fear and duress, not brainwashing, caused western POWs to collaborate. He argued that the books of Edward Hunter (whom he identified as a secret CIA "psychological warfare specialist" passing as a journalist) pushed the CIA brainwashing-theory onto the general public. He further asserted that for twenty years, starting in the early 1950s, the CIA and the Defense Department conducted secret research (notably including Project MKULTRA) in an attempt to develop practical brainwashing techniques, and that their attempt failed.[citation needed]

New religious movements and the shift of focus[edit]

After the Korean war applications of mind control theories in the United States shifted in focus from politics to religion. Starting in the 1960s an increasing number of American youths were coming into contact with new religious movements and those who converted suddenly adopted beliefs and behaviors that differed greatly from those of their families and friends, in some cases they neglected or even broke contact with their loved ones. In the 1970s the Anti-cult movement applied mind control theories to explain these sudden and seemingly dramatic religious conversions.[10][11][12] The media was quick to follow suit[13] and social scientists sympathetic to the anti-cult movement, who were usually psychologists developed more sophisticated models of brainwashing.[11] While some psychologists were receptive to these theories sociologists were for the most part skeptical of their ability to explain conversion to NRMs.[14] In the years that followed brainwashing controversies developed between NRM members, various academic researchers, and cult-critics.

Theories of mind control and religious conversion[edit]

Over the years various theories of conversion and member retention have been proposed that link mind control to NRMs, and particularly those religious movements referred to as "cults" by their critics. These theories resemble the original political brainwashing theories with some minor changes. For instance Philip Zimbardo discusses mind control as "the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes,"[15] and he suggests that any human being is susceptible to such manipulation.[16] In a 1999 book Robert Lifton also applied his original ideas about thought reform to Aum Shinrikyo, concluding that in this context thought reform was possible without violence or physical coercion. Margaret Singer who also spent time studying the political brainwashing of Korean prisoners of war agreed with this conclusion and in her book Cults in our Midst she describes six conditions which would create an atmosphere in which thought reform is possible.[17]

The subject has even been approached from the perspective of neuroscience and social psychology. Kathleen Taylor suggests that "brainwashing" is activated by manipulation of the prefrontal cortex rendering the person more susceptible to black and white thinking.[18] Meanwhile, in Influence, Science and Practice, social psychologist Robert Cialdini argues that mind control is possible through the covert exploitation of the unconscious rules that underlie and facilitate healthy human social interactions. He states that common social rules can be used to prey upon the unwary. Using categories, he offers specific examples of both mild and extreme mind control (both one on one and in groups), notes the conditions under which each social rule is most easily exploited for false ends, and offers suggestions on how to resist such methods.[citation needed]

Deprogramming and the anti-cult movement[edit]

The theories of Singer, Lifton and other researchers have been adopted and adapted by various non-academic "cult" critics from the inception of the anti-cult movement. These critics often accuse the religious groups they oppose of using mind control techniques to unethically recruit and maintain members. At first many of these opponents advocated or engaged in deprogramming as a method to free group members from cult mind control. However the practice of coercive deprogramming fell out of favor in the West and was largely replaced by exit counseling. For instance exit counselor Steve Hassan promotes what he calls the BITE model in his book Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves.[19] The BITE model describes various controls over human 1) behavior, 2) information, 3) thought, and 4) emotion.[19] Hassan claims that cults recruit and retain members by using, among other things, systematic deception, behavior modification, the withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques (such as the induction of phobias). He refers to all of these techniques collectively as mind control.

Critics of mind control theories of conversion caution against the broader implications of these models. For instance, in the 1998 Enquete Commission report on "So-called Sects and Psychogroups" in Germany a review was made of the BITE model. The report concluded that "control of these areas of action is an inevitable component of social interactions in a group or community. The social control that is always associated with intense commitment to a group must therefore be clearly distinguished from the exertion of intentional, methodical influence for the express purpose of manipulation."[20] Indeed virtually all of these models share the notion that converts are in fact innocent "victims" of mind-control techniques.[14] Hassan suggests that even the cult members manipulating the new converts may themselves be sincerely misled people.[21] By considering NRM members innocent "victims" of psychological coercion these theories open the door for psychological treatments. Sociologists like Eileen Barker have criticized these theories precisely because they function to justify costly interventions like deprogramming or exit counseling.[22] For similar reasons scholars like Barker have also criticized mental health professionals like Margaret Singer for accepting lucrative expert witness jobs in court cases involving NRMs.[22] Singer was perhaps the most publicly notable scholarly proponent of brainwashing theories of religious conversion, and became the focal point of the theory's relative demise within her discipline.[11]

Scholarly opposition[edit]

The majority of scholars in the study of religion reject theories of mind control.[23] James Richardson, states that if the NRMs had access to powerful brainwashing techniques, one would expect that NRMs would have high growth rates, while in fact most have not had notable success in recruitment. Most adherents participate for only a short time, and the success in retaining members has been limited.[24] For this and other reasons, sociologists like David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cults" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible."[25] In addition, to Bromley, Thomas Robbins, Eileen Barker, Newton Maloney, Massimo Introvigne, John Hall, Lorne Dawson, Anson Shupe, Gordon Melton, Marc Galanter, Saul Levine amongst other scholars researching NRMs have argued and established to the satisfaction of courts and relevant professional associations and scientific communities that there exists no scientific theory, generally accepted and based upon methodologically sound research, that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement. [26]

A minority of sociologists disagree with this consensus. For instance, Benjamin Zablocki sees strong indicators of mind control in some NRMs and suggests that the concept should be researched without bias. Stephen A. Kent has also published several articles about brainwashing.[27][28] These scholars tend to see the APA's decision as one of no consensus while the majority of scholars see it as a rejection of brainwashing and mind control as legitimate theories.

Legal issues, the APA and DIMPAC[edit]

Main article: APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control

Since their inception mind control theories have also been used in various legal proceedings against "cult" groups. For instance, in 1980 ex-Scientologist Lawrence Wollersheim successfully sued the Church of Scientology in a California court which decided in 1986 that church practices had been conducted in a psychologically coercive environment and so were not protected by religious freedom guarantees.[citation needed] Others who have tried claiming a "brainwashing defense" for crimes committed while purportedly under mind control, like Patty Hearst, Steven Fishman and Lee Boyd Malvo have been not been successful.

In 1983 American Psychological Association (APA) asked Margaret Singer to chair a taskforce called the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC) to investigate whether brainwashing or "coercive persuasion" did indeed play a role in recruitment by such movements. Before the taskforce had submitted its final report, the APA submitted on February 10, 1987 an amicus curiæ brief in an ongoing court case related to brainwashing. The brief repudiated Singer's theories on "coercive persuasion" and suggested that brainwashing theories were without empirical proof.[29] Afterward the APA filed a motion to withdraw its signature from the brief since Singer's final report had not been completed.[30] However, on May 11, 1987, the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because the brainwashing theory espoused "lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur", and concluded that "after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue."[31]

Two critical letters from external reviewers Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi and Jeffery D. Fisher accompanied the rejection memo. The letters criticized "brainwashing" as an unrecognized theoretical concept and Singer's reasoning as so flawed that it was "almost ridiculous."[32] After her findings were rejected Singer sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" and lost.[33] Benjamin Zablocki and Alberto Amitrani interpreted the APA's response as meaning that there was no unanimous decision on the issue either way, suggesting also that Singer retained the respect of the psychological community after the incident.[34] Yet her career as an expert witness ended at this time. She was meant to appear with Richard Ofshe in the 1990 U.S. v. Fishman Case, in which Steven Fishman claimed to have been under mind control by the Church of Scientology in order to defend himself against charges of embezzlement, but the courts dissalowed her testimony. In the eyes of the court, "neither the APA nor the ASA has endorsed the views of Dr. Singer and Dr. Ofshe on thought reform"[35]

After that time U.S. courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that such theories were not part of accepted mainline science according to the Frye Standard (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Yet there have been two court cases since this time where testimonies about mind control have been examined in accordance with the more recent Daubert standard.[citation needed]

In popular culture[edit]

Main article: Mind control in popular culture

Print media[edit]

  • In George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949 before the popularization of the term "brainwashing"), the fictional totalitarian government of Oceania uses brainwashing-style techniques to erase nonconformist thought and rebellious personalities.
  • In the novel Night of the Hawk by Dale Brown, the Soviets capture and brainwash U.S. Air Force Lieutenant David Luger, transforming him into the Russian scientist Ivan Ozerov.
  • In the novel A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess (film adaptation by Stanley Kubrick), the protagonist undergoes a re-education process called the "Ludovico technique" in an attempt to remove his violent tendencies.
  • Vernor Vinge speculates on the application of technology to achieve brainwashing in Rainbows End (ISBN 0-312-85684-9), portraying separately the dangers of JITT (Just-in-time training) and the specter of YGBM (You gotta believe me). This picks up on themes of "mindrot" and controlled "Focus" in Vinge's earlier novel A Deepness in the Sky.

Video media[edit]

Brainwashing became a common trope of films, television and games in the late twentieth century: a convenient means of introducing changes in the behavior of characters and a device for raising tension and audience uncertainty in the climate of Cold War and outbreaks of terrorism. For a classic example:

  • the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate makes the concept of brainwashing a central theme. Specifically, Communist brainwashers turn a soldier into an assassin through something akin to hypnosis.
  • the 1974 film The Parallax View includes a brainwashing scene where the main character watches a film. The film shows a word followed by a picture representing that word, such as MOTHER followed by related photograph. Over time the images and words become opposites to induce reverse associativity, such as the word MOTHER followed by images of destruction.

See also[edit]

Wikiquote has quotations related to Brainwashing/Merge proposal.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Langone, Michael, Cults & Mind Control, International Cultic Studies Association
  2. ^ Marks, John (1979). "8. Brainwashing". The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-0773-6. Retrieved 2008-12-30. In September 1950, the Miami News published an article by Edward Hunter titled " 'Brain-Washing' Tactics Force Chinese into Ranks of Communist Party." It was the first printed use in any language of the term "brainwashing," which quickly became a stock phrase in Cold War headlines. Hunter, a CIA propaganda operator who worked under cover as a journalist, turned out a steady stream of books and articles on the subject. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Browning, Michael (2003-03-14). "Brainwashing agitates victims into submission". Palm Beach Post. Palm Beach. ISSN 1528-5758. Retrieved 2008-07-05. During the Korean War, captured American soldiers were subjected to prolonged interrogations and harangues by their captors, who often worked in relays and used the "good-cop, bad-cop" approach, alternating a brutal interrogator with a gentle one. It was all part of "Xi Nao," washing the brain. The Chinese and Koreans were making valiant attempts to convert the captives to the communist way of thought.
  4. ^
  5. ^ Lifton, Robert J. (1954-04). "Home by Ship: Reaction Patterns of American Prisoners of War Repatriated from North Korea". American Journal of Psychiatry. 110 (10): 732–739. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.110.10.732. PMID 13138750. Retrieved 2008-03-30. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |doi_brokendate= ignored (|doi-broken-date= suggested) (help) Cited in Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism
  6. ^ Schein, Edgar (1956-05). "The Chinese Indoctrination Program for Prisoners of War: A Study of Attempted Brainwashing". Psychiatry. 19 (2): 149–172. PMID 13323141. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Cited in Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism
  7. ^ Schein, Edgar H. (1971). Coercive persuasion; A socio-psychological analysis of the "brainwashing" of American civilian prisoners by the Chinese Communists. New York: W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-00613-1.
  8. ^ Lifton, RJ (1989) [1961]. Thought reform and the psychology of totalism; a study of "brainwashing" in China. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-4253-2.
  9. ^ Heller, Mikhail (1988). Cogs in the Soviet wheel: the formation of Soviet man. Translated by David Floyd. London: Collins Harvill. ISBN 0-00-272516-9. Dr [Robert J.] Lifton draws attention to a fact of exceptional importance: the effect of 'brainwashing' and its methods is felt even by those whom he calls the 'apparent resisters', those who seem not to succumb to the intoxication. This study showed that they do assimilate what has been hammered into their brain but the effect comes only a certain time after their liberation, like the explosion of a delayed-action bomb. It is not hard to imagine the effect which 'education' and 're-education' has upon the Soviet citizen, who is exposed from the day he is born to 'brainwashing', bombarded every day, round the clock, by all the means of propaganda and persuasion. Heller's footnote explains the phrase "the means of propaganda and persuasion" as "[t]he official name for the means of communication in the USSR. The accepted abbreviation is SMIP [literally from the Russian phrase meaning 'means of mass information and propaganda']."
  10. ^ Melton, J. Gordon (1999-12-10). "Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory". CESNUR: Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 2009-06-15. In the United States at the end of the 1970s, brainwashing emerged as a popular theoretical construct around which to understand what appeared to be a sudden rise of new and unfamiliar religious movements during the previous decade, especially those associated with the hippie street-people phenomenon.
  11. ^ a b c Bromley, David G. (1998). "Brainwashing". Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-0761989561. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Barker, Eileen: New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. London: Her Majesty's Stationery office, 1989.
  13. ^ Wright, Stewart A. (1997). "Media Coverage of Unconventional Religion: Any 'Good News' for Minority Faiths?". Review of Religious Research. 39 (2): 101–115.
  14. ^ a b Barker, Eileen (1986). "Religious Movements: Cult and Anti-Cult Since Jonestown". Annual Review of Sociology. 12: 329–346.
  15. ^ Zimbardo, Philip G. (2002). "Mind Control: Psychological Reality or Mindless Rhetoric?". Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved 2008-12-30. Mind control is the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that involves a set of basic social psychological principles. Conformity, compliance, persuasion, dissonance, reactance, guilt and fear arousal, modeling and identification are some of the staple social influence ingredients well studied in psychological experiments and field studies. In some combinations, they create a powerful crucible of extreme mental and behavioral manipulation when synthesized with several other real-world factors, such as charismatic, authoritarian leaders, dominant ideologies, social isolation, physical debilitation, induced phobias, and extreme threats or promised rewards that are typically deceptively orchestrated, over an extended time period in settings where they are applied intensively. A body of social science evidence shows that when systematically practiced by state-sanctioned police, military or destructive cults, mind control can induce false confessions, create converts who willingly torture or kill 'invented enemies,' and engage indoctrinated members to work tirelessly, give up their money—and even their lives—for 'the cause.' {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 333 (help)
  16. ^ Zimbardo, P (1997). "What messages are behind today's cults?". Monitor on Psychology: 14.
  17. ^ Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace, Margaret Thaler Singer, Jossey-Bass, publisher, April 2003, ISBN 0-78796-741-6]
  18. ^ Taylor, Kathleen Eleanor. [[Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control|Brainwashing: the dream of mind control]]. Oxford University Press. p. 215. ISBN 9780192804969. Retrieved 2009-07-30. Your susceptibility to brainwashing (and other forms of influence) has much to do with the state of your brain. This will depend in part on your genes: research suggests that prefrontal function is substantially affected by genetics. Low educational achievement, dogmatism, stress, and other factors which affect prefrontal function encourage simplistic, black-and-white thinking. If you have neglected your neurons, failed to stimulate your synapses, obstinately resisted new experiences, or hammered your prefrontal cortex with drugs (including alcohol), lack of sleep, rollercoaster emotions, or chronic stress, you may well be susceptible to the totalist charms of the next charismatic you meet. This is why so may young people baffle their more phlegmatic elders by joining cults, developing obsessions with fashions and celebrities, and forming intense attachments to often unsuitable role models. {{cite book}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  19. ^ a b Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Steven Hassan, Ch. 2, Aitan Publishing Company, 2000
  20. ^ Final Report of the Enquete Commission on "So-called Sects and Psychogroups" New Religious and Ideological Communities and Psychogroups in the Federal Republic of Germany
  21. ^ Hassan, Steven (1988). Combatting cult mind control. Rochester, Vt: Park Street Press. ISBN 0-89281-243-5.
  22. ^ a b Barker, Eileen (1995). "The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 34 (3): 287–310.
  23. ^ Melton, J. Gordon (10 December 1999). "Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory". CESNUR: Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 5 September 2009. Since the late 1980s, though a significant public belief in cult-brainwashing remains, the academic community-including scholars from psychology, sociology, and religious studies-have shared an almost unanimous consensus that the coercive persuasion/brainwashing thesis proposed by Margaret Singer and her colleagues in the 1980s is without scientific merit.
  24. ^ Richardson, James T. (1985-06). "The active vs. passive convert: paradigm conflict in conversion/recruitment research". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 24 (2): 163–179. doi:10.2307/1386340. Retrieved 2008-07-05. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  25. ^ Brainwashing by Religious Cults
  26. ^ CESNUR - Brainwashing and Mind Control Controversies
  27. ^ Brainwashing and Re-Indoctrination Programs in the Children of God/The Family
  28. ^ Dr. Stephen A. Kent (1997-11-07). "Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Force (RPF)" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-08-16. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  29. ^ CESNUR - APA Brief in the Molko Case. [t]he methodology of Drs. Singer and Benson has been repudiated by the scientific community [... the hypotheses advanced by Singer comprised] little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data [...] [t]he coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept. [...] The theories of Drs. Singer and Benson are not new to the scientific community. After searching scrutiny, the scientific community has repudiated the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of Drs. Singer and Benson. The validity of the claim that, absent physical force or threats, "systematic manipulation of the social influences" can coercively deprive individuals of free will lacks any empirical foundation and has never been confirmed by other research. The specific methods by which Drs. Singer and Benson have arrived at their conclusions have also been rejected by all serious scholars in the field.
  30. ^ Motion of the American Psychological Association to Withdraw as Amicus Curiae
  31. ^ American Psychological Association Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) (1987-05-11). "Memorandum". CESNUR: APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures. CESNUR Center for Studies on New Religion. Retrieved 2008-11-18. BSERP thanks the Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control for its service but is unable to accept the report of the Task Force. In general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur.
  32. ^ APA memo and two enclosures
  33. ^ Case No. 730012-8 Margaret Singer v. American Psychological Association
  34. ^ Amitrani, Alberto (2001). "Blind, or just don't want to see? Mind Control in New Religious Movements and the American Psychological Association". Cultic Studies Review. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  35. ^ Brainwashed! Scholars of Cults Accuse Each Other of Bad Faith, Lingua Franca, December 1998.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Look up mind control in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


Category:Conspiracy theories Category:Popular psychology Category:Public opinion

de:Bewusstseinskontrolle es:Control mental fr:Manipulation mentale ja:マインドコントロール pt:Controle mental ru:Манипулирование сознанием sq:Mendje kontrolli zh:精神控制

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brainwashing/Merge_proposal&oldid=789363208"