Talk:Brainwashing/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Brainwashing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mind control and recruitment rates

I see no reason that "Mind control and recruitment rates" should be here, it seems irrelevant to teh subject and the article. Any arguments as to why it should be kept? Smilingman 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not belong there as it assumes that recruitment to a religion is based on mind control. Move the text it to New religious movements ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

invisible master

I saw a link before for invisible master and an article to go with it sounded like fiction but what ever why was it removed?(maybe i am wrong and the memory was implanted}Ansolin 08:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mind Control by SkewsMe.com

I've been putting in time on this, my long overdue essay on the subject. I've tried to be comprehensive and as objective as I can given the controveries regarding this subject matter.

Wikipedia already credits my Brain Implants essay as the basis for its article.

I only hope that my Mind Control essay receives similar attention.

http://www.skewsme.com/mind_control.html

Sorry, your essay rambles, provides no sources, and completely blurs the distinction between "mind control" and "persuasion". Perhaps the intro of the Wikipedia article should clarify this. See below, "Mind control and free will" --Uncle Ed 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I provide links after every section to either direct sources or articles that list the direct sources. Mind Control and Persuasion are also very interconnected. As far as "rambling," I'll have to look into it.

Hi. It does seem odd that, to read this wikipedia entry on Mind Control, the reader is left with no awareness of the multiple successful CIA programs to create Dissociative Identity Disorder (aka Multiple Personality Disorder) for the military and intelligence value. Dr. Ewen Cameron and Dr. George Estabrooks are two of the well-known scientists involved in the programs, called BLUEBIRD and ARTICHOKE, which successfully produced the so-called "Manchurian Candidate". This is very important piece of history which has somehow been altogether left out of the Wikipedia article. Here is one source of historical information on this subject, I offer to those who are developing this article, in the spirit of 'reality-check':

"In The C.I.A. Doctors: Human Rights Violations By American Psychiatrists, Dr. Ross provides proof, based on 15,000 pages of documents obtained from the C.I.A. through the Freedom of Information Act, that there have been pervasive, systematic violations of human rights by American psychiatrists over the last 65 years. As well, he proves that the Manchurian Candidate "super spy" is fact, not fiction. He describes the experiments conducted by psychiatrists to create amnesia, new identities, hypnotic access codes, and new memories in the minds of experimental subjects.

"The funding of the experiments by the C.I.A., Army, Navy and Air Force is proven by the C.I.A. documents and the doctors' own publications. The C.I.A. Doctors proves that there were extensive violations of human rights by psychiatrists in North America throughout the second half of the twentieth century, perpetrated not by a few renegade doctors, but by leading psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmacologists, neurosurgeons and medical schools.

"The C.I.A. Doctors was originally published in 2000 as BLUEBIRD: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality By Psychiatrists. Stvjns 01:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, but please cite some sources. No evidence=no inclusion. --66.83.20.147 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In the "Cults" section

There is a quote that "the majority of scholars reject mind control"... Is this supposed to mean that they reject the use of mind control? The existance of mind control?

This part of the page is rather poorly written/thought out - there is no clear idea of what this section is even about. While it appears that someone knew what they were talking about, those with no prior knowledge of the subject remain a bit lost.

Can someone who understands this add some structure?

The topic is too broad

Mind Control, as a subject, is too broad. The Russian Psychs who cut out pieces of people's brain, surely controlled people's minds. Removing pieces of the organ people think with in order to understand how to manipulate people surely counts as "mind control". "Mind Influence" too falls under "mind control". Advertising companies spend large sums of money to find out what "button word" will trigger reactions. Policiticans (such as Bush) have demonized "the enemy" for hundreds of years. And of course, every person who has been married for a length of time can attest that their spouse uses "mind control". heh! It is too broad a topic. Terryeo 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to mention these aspects in the article. Do you have some sources about Russian brain surgery, and the effects it had on people? What sorts of manipulations were the experimenters able to perform? (Not get people to commit murders as in The Manchurian Candidate, surely?)

There's been a lot of debate over the degree to which social influences such as advertising affect human behavior. Are researchers all of one mind about whether this amounts to "control"? Who agrees or disagrees with this? For those who disagree, what grounds do they give? Do human beings have the capacity of making individual choices, despite social pressure (such as peer pressure and social norms)?

Do legislators and judges agree that "he made me do it" is a defense for crimes provoked or even ordered by a third party? The My Lai incident comes to mind, as well as the U.S. Army's code of conduct and SERE training.

Broad it is, but maybe we can work on it together. --Uncle Ed 17:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Involuntary hypnosis

Cut from intro:

Electromagnetic manipulation of neurons, since the discovery that neural cells could be fired by establishing a potential voltage across a neural cell membrane in the 1930s, has been suggested as a technology, as has the use of hypnosis on unsuspecting victims by U.S. Government agents by using a device which is based on the microwave auditory effect (also called the "microwave hearing effect" or "Frey effect"). This type of hypnosis claimed to typically be delivered while the person is sleeping and completely unaware that it is happening. The fact that the victim is unaware of it (and therefore cannot stop it from being done) makes it the only method by which hypnosis can be considered actual mind control.

Er, the fact? This is begging the question. The entire article is about the DEBATE over whether a person can be made into a mind control victim against their will. And here, the intro was saying that the victim "cannot stop it from being done". We definitely need a source for this.

If it's a fact, it should be EASY to find a source on Google. I'll leave it to other to do that. Once this passage is properly sourced, it can be put back. --Uncle Ed 14:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in unsourced, but you're misrepresenting "fact" in the context in which it appears. 68.166.69.245 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is poorly written, lacks sources, and I'm getting rid of it. -- CronoDAS 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another problematic paragraph that I'm cutting unless it can be sourced:

In addition, both the United States Secret Service (for its use of hypnosis un unwilling victims via the Microwave Auditory Effect) and the Central Intelligence Agency (for its use of brainwashing on an unwilling American victim temporarily residing in a Canadian mental health hospital) have been caught and sued successfully for acts which can be considered 'mind control.'

--CronoDAS 21:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mind control and free will

Mind control means making someone do something against their will (or without their knowing it). Persuasion means getting someone to want to do the thing you want them to do.

What psychologists and judges have considered in the United States over the past few decades is whether mind control (as defined in the above paragraph) is possible at all. Wikipedia will make no judgment on this weighty question, but merely note that the APA called the idea "unscientific" while noting that "anti-cult" activists still promote the idea.

It will be interesting to our readers to expand upon the ethical implications of mind control, should it ever found to be possible. Does a zombie still have free will? Is it responsible for its actions? Can a government program an unsuspecting person to be a killer (as in novels like The Manchurian Candidate or The Bourne Supremacy)? Or can a person volunteer for mind control and lose a bad habit like smoking or over-eating?

Also interesting to our readers would be a much larger article (possibly organized in the form of a "portal article") about all the various ways one person (or group) can persuade another person to do something (or believe or feel something), as well as HOW and WHY people resist such persuasion.

Taking myself as an example, I wonder WHY I believe that the earth goes around the sun in an elliptical orbit, when I've never bothered to check the calculations. I know enough analytical geometry and calculus to do the math, but frankly I've just taken everyone's word for it. What made me trust them? Or, more to the point, why did I choose to trust them?

Anyway, there lies the distinction between the Mind Control and Voluntary Persuasion models of human decision making. The former says a person can be forced into certain thoughts and behaviors. The latter says that all thoughts and behaviors are chosen.

There is a ocean of difference between these views, with many shades of gray in it. If you put a gun to my head and order me to give you my wallet, did I "choose" to do it (and live) or was I "forced at gun point" to do it? Not an easy question, is it? --Uncle Ed 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

MK-ULTRA & Hypnosis

The section on MKULTRA directly contradicts Wikipedia's article on MKULTRA, which states that "There is no evidence that the CIA (or anyone else) has actually succeeded in controlling a person's actions through the "mind control" techniques that are known to have been attempted in the MKULTRA projects. The file destruction makes a full investigation of claims impossible." Anybody wanna clean it up? Wahming 07:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Movies about mind control

One other suggested movie concerning mind control would be "The Time Machine" where the sperate evolved branch of underworld people who feed on the surface people are controlled by their leader.

Sources for MKULTRA- The superscripts at the following place link back to the wikipedia page: "Project MKULTRA (also known as MK-ULTRA) was the code name for a CIA mind-control research program that began in the 1950s[1], and continued until the late 1960s[2]. There is much published evidence that the project involved not only the use of drugs to manipulate persons, but also the use of electronic signals to alter brain functioning.[3]" At best, they are unnecessary. They don't provide information to back up the timeline provided.

History of Mind Control

Much of the subject of mind control concentrates on technology and events of recent history. But a group of people are capable of mind control without the use of a single technology but by creating a coordinated illusion around an individual. By feeding the emotional needs of an individual his or her activities can be directed or he or she can be brought to believe they are "someone great" or set apart to perform a special task.

A good example is the culture that surrounds movie stars. They are assigned a group of people who isolate them in their most productive years and "worship" them. They constantly push accolades upon them and virulently protect them from critisism. They feed their ego to increase their drive to perform and compete and force them to believe they can be "the greatest". Sometimes it works but in most cases stars fall hard.

Everybody practices some sort of mind control. Manipulating the ego of someone is by definition mind control. We manipulate the needs and desires of our children to do better and to aspire. This is not a value judgement since we do this often in what we truely believe is the best interest of the target. But these points bring out the fact that mind control starts very simply with everyone and is then perfected over time and as it progresses up the chain of power.

This being the case mind control has a very long history. It has been the practice of the powerful since at least the Egyptian Civilization. "Driving people crazy" and the creation of "beggars" is well documented in early European history. The creation of despots like Hitler and Stalin by surrounding them with success and emotional justification are more recent examples of the use of mind control to effect actual history.

Although this is a great article and in keeping with the NPOV standards it would be advantageous in my view to show the historical context of mind control since it would suggest that it is not conspiracy but an aged culture of power which spawns conspiracy. It is a defense against attacks that mind control is purely conspiracy and that in all cases it does not work. It reenforces the idea that it is far more prevalent then the average person is willing to believe.

External Links

I've removed the following links below from the article as they are not evidently related to the lemma itself:

However, given the subject matter, I propose we keep a record of what external links contributors think is relevant for this topic. -- Mabuse 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

thought control directed from compartmentalisation

i was directed to mind control from a link on the artical about compartmentalisation(psychology) i thought it would be about consciously controling ones thoughts, is this correct, did the author of compartmentalisation have this artical in mind when he included the link?

Removed * Mind Control 101 -- Mabuse 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

very interested in the references

I am very interested in the references for some statements in the article. Particularly under Legal issues at the last paragraph is the statement:

"In addition, both the United States Secret Service (for its use of hypnosis on unwilling victims via the Microwave Auditory Effect) and the Central Intelligence Agency (for its use of brainwashing on an unwilling American victim temporarily residing in a Canadian mental health hospital) have been caught and sued successfully for acts which can be considered 'mind control.' "

Further stated under Mind control in conspiracy theory is:

"These often involve proposed mind-control technologies such as the use of hypnosis, microwave radiation, or lasers to influence or control thoughts and actions, often by intelligence agencies and by secret societies, which has, so far, only been confirmed about the U.S. Secret Service's use of hypnosis and Central Intelligence Agency's use of brainwashing in past court cases where testimony was conclusive and the agencies lost."

I did see in browsing the history of this article that a legal case was cited, but not pertinenr to the above. Can anybody give me a line on such a reference or where it might be in the history of the article? Josephus2000 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No merge, please

Please do not merge Recovery from Cults (book) into this article. This article is about a phenomenon & the other is about a specific book in which the phenomenon features. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I second the motion on PLEASE do NOT merge Recovery from Cults (book), this is the book with experts that are not on a promotional agenda. Please see the areas covered and note that it has over 22 experts that participated on the book and the areas covered. There is not other book that is this detailed.Mind control is a big topic where the book is very specific. PEACE TalkAbout 20:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should not be merged. An article on the book could be of interest e.g., to someone who wants to know about the authors point of view.

Add my vote for no merge BanditmanEXE October 9th 2006

ELF technology?

Tests with ELF technology are better 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.

Anyone have sources for this? I'm going to tag it as not verified. -- CronoDAS 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Techniques that actually work

Which techniques of mind control have been shown to work, and which have not? I recall reading that the late Margaret Singer's theory of mind control failed to gain recognition as a scientific theory, because there was so little evidence for it. --Uncle Ed 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I am attempting to make changes in this article to move it from the realm of spectulative fiction and conspiracy theories into the real world. The fact that $175 Billion USD is spent on advertising every year (source: Sut Jhally, Advertising and the End of the World, [1]), and about $10B USD spent on PR (source: Toxic Sludge is Good for You by Rampton/Stauber) is a testament to the fact that these techniques WORK. I would like to revert your change to remove doubt that these exist --Bhuston 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that advertising exists. Nor that it is effective. Please be careful about reverting. We need to distinguish between advertising campaigns (and other forms of PR or propaganda) on one hand, and the "mind control" per se.

If there are scholars who say it's all the same - or there's a continuum, we can quote them. --Uncle Ed 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a Manchurian Candidate to show that mind control is real and effective. The goals of Advertising and Public Relations (both are offspring military propaganda and psyops) perfectly fit the definition of mind control. They are intended to influence thoughts and behavior, and they are effective. I'll dig up some references. This is straight out of Chomsky/Hermann, Bernays, Alex Carey, Rampton/Stauber, Sut Jhally, Gobbels, BF Skinner, etc. --Bhuston 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On my talk page, Uncle Ed wrote:

Try not to get carried away. Most academics regard techniques of persuasion (such as what I am "doing to you" with this message :-) as distinct from "mind control" techniques such as brainwashing, thought reform and deprogramming. Readers turn to an encyclopedia both to explore similarites and to learn about distinctions. --Uncle Ed 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To which my response is: Can we not describe a continuum between "persusaion" and "mind control" with the determinant being efficacy? IOW, if it is only mildly effective, it's persusaion. If it is highly effective, it's mind control? The academics I mention above make no such distinctions, and I'll get you your requested references :) -- Bhuston 18:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest difference between "mind control" and persuasion in general is use of coercion and the victim's inability to resist.

I don't have to watch the TV commercial or read the magazine ad. And even if I do, I have plenty of opportunity to reflect upon it afterwards in the comfort and privacy of my own home.

It may be premature to change the intro at this point, until we add the promised descriptions to the article. --Uncle Ed 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

...targets of deprogramming?

Hi folks. Regarding "Opponents of exit counseling generally regard it as an even worse violation of personal autonomy than any loss of free will attributable to the recruiting tactics of new religious movements. These people complain that targets of deprogramming are being deceived...". The passage starts out referencing "exit counseling" and ends referencing "deprogramming". Shouldn't the second sentence read "These people complain that targets of exit counseling are being deceived..."? lTanaats 05:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hassan's critics argue...

I have a problem with this paragraph:

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.

This is paragraph written in the present tense. Who exactly is saying that Hassan is just trying to justify the forcible extraction of believers? Who exactly is saying that Hassan still believes that "an involuntary procedure" must operate?

The paragraph as written is inaccurate and unsupportable and should come out. I've put a "fact" tag on it for now. Tanaats 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No response, so I took out the patently false and unsupported statements that Hassan currently is involved in "forcible extraction" and that he currently believes that an "involuntary procedure must operate". Although if anyone can cite an acceptable source that anyone is a bit uninformed and is actually making these charges then let's discuss it. Tanaats 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Distances himself" and "criminal" in re Hassan

I changed the section describing Hassan's history as a deprogrammer. He doesn't "distance himself" from the practice, that statement is spin. The unspinned truth is that he no longer practices deprogramming.

As for "criminal" that term has a lot of spin on it too. And deprogramming wasn't always even illegal. It was legal in the case of minors, or when parents had obtained a legal "conservatorship" over their adult children and were therefore legally allowed to treat them as minors. Forcibly deprogramming an adult in the absence of a conservator ship was patently illegal. Eventually courts stopped granting conservatorships, and deprogramming became completely illegal except in the case of minors. But around that time (and pioneered in large part by Hassan) techniques of non-forcible intervention were being developed anyway, such as Hassan's SIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

This is an archive of past discussions about Brainwashing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.