FYI: Cult Apologist Jeffrey Hadden Gets A Quote In
Anton Hein
BBC, Tuesday, January 5, 1999 Published at 15:14 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_248000/248354.stm
(...)
But most cults are not as extreme as the Concerned Christians, whose
members were arrested in Jerusalem for plotting acts of violence
including a mass suicide.
So far so good. But then this:
"The notion that somehow new religions are seductively slurping people
into their orbit on the streets or through the Internet is absolutely
bizarre," says Professor Jeffrey Hadden, an expert in New Religious
Movements at the University of Virginia.
Hadden then rides this old horse:
Professor Hadden says that the word cult is no longer valid: "The cult
hype has so permeated culture with negative ideas, it is not useful for
popular discourse."
Fortunately, though the article appears to have been written by someone
with what I call a 'tolerate vs. investigate' mindset, someone who makes a
lot more sense was also quoted:
Anti-cult campaigner Rick Ross says whatever the semantic argument,
many cults are dangerous.
He says people from both healthy and dysfunctional families, with and
without psychological histories, the wealthy, poor and middle class are
all susceptible to cults.
"Potentially unsafe and destructive groups are very good at persuasion
and indoctrination; it's their stock and trade. Most people simply are
not prepared to withstand this process or are not aware such things
exist," he writes on his Website.
Four external links are provided with the story. Two on Freemasonry (pro,
in line with an illustration used in the story), one for AFF, and one for
Rick Ross.
About Cults
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/c09.html
About Cult Apologists
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/c11.html
Anton
--
CMR's Apologetics Index: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/apologetics.html
Apologetics and Counter-Cult Resources for Research and Ministry
zen...@hotmail.com
ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
> Fortunately, though the article appears to have been written by someone
> with what I call a 'tolerate vs. investigate' mindset, someone who makes a
> lot more sense was also quoted:
>
> Anti-cult campaigner Rick Ross says whatever the semantic argument,
> many cults are dangerous.
I can't disagree with that. How many is "many" though?
> He says people from both healthy and dysfunctional families, with and
> without psychological histories, the wealthy, poor and middle class are
> all susceptible to cults.
Okay.....
> "Potentially unsafe and destructive groups are very good at persuasion
> and indoctrination; it's their stock and trade. Most people simply are
> not prepared to withstand this process or are not aware such things
> exist," he writes on his Website.
This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
indoctrination why is it that the majority of people who come into contact
with them never join? Further, if they're so good at persuasion and
indoctrination, why is it that of those few who DO join a cult the majority
quit within a few months?
I think it's obvious that these groups are NOT very good at persuasion and
indoctrination--certainly they're no better than the average telephone
psychic!--and that, contrary to what Rick Ross claims, most people are in fact
very well prepared to withstand and to reject such coercive tactics.
--
Zeno zen...@hotmail.com
***********************************
There are many weak and stupid people-- but that's why we have wolves
and other large predators.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark
>In article <3697bcd6...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, though the article appears to have been written by someone
>> with what I call a 'tolerate vs. investigate' mindset, someone who makes a
>> lot more sense was also quoted:
>>
>> Anti-cult campaigner Rick Ross says whatever the semantic argument,
>> many cults are dangerous.
>
>I can't disagree with that. How many is "many" though?
>
>> He says people from both healthy and dysfunctional families, with and
>> without psychological histories, the wealthy, poor and middle class are
>> all susceptible to cults.
>
>Okay.....
>
>> "Potentially unsafe and destructive groups are very good at persuasion
>> and indoctrination; it's their stock and trade. Most people simply are
>> not prepared to withstand this process or are not aware such things
>> exist," he writes on his Website.
>
>This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
>indoctrination why is it that the majority of people who come into contact
>with them never join?
Perhaps because cults only pick the ones they want and leave the rest.
> Further, if they're so good at persuasion and
>indoctrination, why is it that of those few who DO join a cult the majority
>quit within a few months?
>
Perhaps because those few hadn't actually joined the cult, the cult had
just had them in for review for a few months, and then decided the
majority weren't really suitable for full membership.
>I think it's obvious
>that these groups are NOT very good at persuasion and
>indoctrination--
Doesn't necessarily follow from what you say.
>certainly they're no better than the average telephone
>psychic!--and that, contrary to what Rick Ross claims, most people are in fact
>very well prepared to withstand and to reject such coercive tactics.
>--
>Zeno zen...@hotmail.com
>***********************************
>There are many weak and stupid people-- but that's why we have wolves
>and other large predators.
>
So why haven't they eaten you yet?
--
Mark Dunlop
Anton Hein
06 Jan 1999 13:06:12 GMT - wrote:
>> "Potentially unsafe and destructive groups are very good at persuasion
>> and indoctrination; it's their stock and trade. Most people simply are
>> not prepared to withstand this process or are not aware such things
>> exist," he writes on his Website.
>
>This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
>indoctrination why is it that the majority of people who come into contact
>with them never join?
Good question. Persuasion and indoctrination works best on people who are
most susceptible to such influences. Let's look at the context of Rick's
statement:
What types of people get involved in potentially unsafe or destructive
groups and relationships?
All types. People from both healthy and dysfunctional families, with
and without psychological histories, who have and have not had drug
problems, from both strong and weak religious backgrounds, the educated
and uneducated, the wealthy, poor, middle class, intelligent and not so
intelligent.
Potentially unsafe and destructive groups are very good at persuasion
and indoctrination; it's their stock and trade. Most people simply are
not prepared to withstand this process or are not aware such things
exist. The truth is--almost anyone could become involved with an unsafe
or destructive group. We are all potentially vulnerable to deception
and coercive persuasion.
He then explains what he means by "coercive persuasion," and later answers
the question:
But aren't these people just weak and stupid?
No. They simply were caught at a vulnerable time and probably didn't
have enough information to make a more informed decision. This occurs
to all of us to some extent when we are influenced by such things as
television, advertising and commercial gimmicks
This is from http://rickross.com/faq.html
> Further, if they're so good at persuasion and
>indoctrination, why is it that of those few who DO join a cult the majority
>quit within a few months?
Those who eventually see through the charade - on their own, or with the
help of others - leave. Troublemakers (e.g. those who ask too many
questions or otherwise rock the boat) are booted out. Those who remain
are folks who fell for the persuasion and indoctrination hook, line and
sinker.
>I think it's obvious that these groups are NOT very good at persuasion and
>indoctrination--certainly they're no better than the average telephone
>psychic!--and that, contrary to what Rick Ross claims, most people are in fact
>very well prepared to withstand and to reject such coercive tactics.
*You* may not fall for the lunacy of psychic phone lines. However,
psychic phone consultation is a multi-billion dollar industry - in large
part because of the high rate of repeat business. Even "average"
telephone psychics tend to be quite good at employing the James van
Praagh-type cold reading technique: a combination of good listening, good
guesswork, and lots of B.S.
And if you think people are not easily persuaded, buy yourself a copy of
AdWeek or Advertising Age...
Anton
--
Proudly internetting from XS4ALL - a Scientology-censored ISP
Here's What Scientology Doesn't Want You To Know:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/s04.html
Rob Clark
> "The notion that somehow new religions are seductively slurping people
> into their orbit on the streets or through the Internet is absolutely
> bizarre," says Professor Jeffrey Hadden, an expert in New Religious
> Movements at the University of Virginia.
where the hell does he think cult recruiters *do* recruit? in the skies?
the scientologists even have a NAME for it--they call it "body routing."
there are reams of case law involving proselytizing in airports. the AUM cult
specifically used the internet as a recruiting tool.
rob
zen...@hotmail.com
Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Zeno wrote:
> >This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
> >indoctrination why is it that the majority of people who come into contact
> >with them never join?
>
> Perhaps because cults only pick the ones they want and leave the rest.
So all these other people really wanted to be in the cult but were rejected?
I don't think so!
> > Further, if they're so good at persuasion and
> >indoctrination, why is it that of those few who DO join a cult the majority
> >quit within a few months?
> >
> Perhaps because those few hadn't actually joined the cult, the cult had
> just had them in for review for a few months, and then decided the
> majority weren't really suitable for full membership.
Nonsense. As most of the people who quit their association with a cult will
tell you, they chose to leave because they realized the group wasn't providing
whatever it was they'd hoped it would provide.
> >I think it's obvious
> >that these groups are NOT very good at persuasion and
> >indoctrination--
>
> Doesn't necessarily follow from what you say.
It follows quite nicely, I think. The evidence speaks for itself. Most
people who come into contact with a cult immediately recognize it for the
silliness it is. Among those who don't reject the cult immediately, most of
those who join end up quitting with a few months. If cults really were
unusually skilled at persuasion and indoctrination, this simply would not be
the case. Hell... Microsoft is better at persuasion and indoctrination than
any cult!
> >certainly they're no better than the average telephone
> >psychic!--and that, contrary to what Rick Ross claims, most people are in
fact
> >very well prepared to withstand and to reject such coercive tactics.
> >--
> >Zeno zen...@hotmail.com
> >***********************************
> >There are many weak and stupid people-- but that's why we have wolves
> >and other large predators.
> >
> So why haven't they eaten you yet?
Well, you know, Mark... I really REALLY wanted to be eaten by wolves, but they
rejected me as unsuitable! (They said I tasted too skeptical.)
--
Zeno zen...@hotmail.com
***********************************
There are many weak and stupid people-- but that's why we have wolves
and other large predators.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Rob Clark
>In article <3697bcd6...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
>indoctrination why is it that the majority of people who come into contact
>with them never join? Further, if they're so good at persuasion and
>indoctrination, why is it that of those few who DO join a cult the majority
>quit within a few months?
if fraud is unprofitable, then why do most of those approached by a con artist
not fall for the scam? further, if con artists are so good at manipulation, why
do most people who have fallen for a con eventually wise up?
alternately, if smoking is so bad for you, then why do the majority of smokers
not die of cancer? also, if nicotine is so addictive, then why do the majority
of smokers eventually quit? if tobacco advertising to children is so effective,
then why do most children not become smokers?
as another drug example, if cocaine is so addictive, then why do 90% of
first-time cocaine users NOT go on to become cocaine addicts? and why do the
majority of them eventually quit?
this argument falls on a number of grounds and is essentially the bogus argument
of an apologist.
>I think it's obvious that these groups are NOT very good at persuasion and
>indoctrination--certainly they're no better than the average telephone
>psychic!--and that, contrary to what Rick Ross claims, most people are in fact
>very well prepared to withstand and to reject such coercive tactics.
if a cult approaches ten thousand people on the streets in a month, and only 1%
of those join, and only 10% of those stay any length of time, that is still 100
new people a month, and ten of them may remain in the cult.
the fact that not everybody falls for a scam or joins a cult does not make scams
or cults any less of a social concern.
rob
Barb
barb the anti-slurp
zen...@hotmail.com
xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 13:06:12 GMT, zen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3697bcd6...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> > ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>
> >This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
> >indoctrination why is it that the majority of people who come into contact
> >with them never join? Further, if they're so good at persuasion and
> >indoctrination, why is it that of those few who DO join a cult the majority
> >quit within a few months?
>
> if fraud is unprofitable, then why do most of those approached by a con artist
> not fall for the scam?
Who was talking about profitability? Clearly, fraud--like Scientology--can be
very profitable if the few who fall for the scam are taken for enough money.
> further, if con artists are so good at manipulation, why
> do most people who have fallen for a con eventually wise up?
Con artists, like cults, are only good at manipulating a very few people
under very select circumstances and while they're somewhat skilled at
persuasion under those select circumstances, the fact that most people wise
up is evidence that they aren't very skilled at indoctrination.
> alternately, if smoking is so bad for you, then why do the majority of smokers
> not die of cancer? also, if nicotine is so addictive, then why do the
majority
> of smokers eventually quit? if tobacco advertising to children is so
effective,
> then why do most children not become smokers?
Apparently it's not as effective as some people think.
> as another drug example, if cocaine is so addictive, then why do 90% of
> first-time cocaine users NOT go on to become cocaine addicts? and why do the
> majority of them eventually quit?
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Smoking and cocaine are physically
addictive substances. No indoctrination is required for addiction.
Actually, I'm not at all clear on what point you're trying to make with these
examples. About the only thing I can think of that drug use and cult
membership might have in common (in the context of this particular discussion,
that is) is a certain element of persuasion involved in the first uses of the
drug. As you point out, though, despite the lure of tobacco advertising most
children do not become smokers.
> this argument falls on a number of grounds and is essentially the bogus
argument
> of an apologist.
I see a falling argument here, but it's not mine! Perhaps you'd like to try
again with some examples that are relevant to the discussion. Keep in mind,
the subject is whether cults possess unusual abilities in persuasion and
indoctrination. Simply dismissing my argument as that of "an apologist" isn't
much of a rebuttal.
> >I think it's obvious that these groups are NOT very good at persuasion and
> >indoctrination--certainly they're no better than the average telephone
> >psychic!--and that, contrary to what Rick Ross claims, most people are in
fact
> >very well prepared to withstand and to reject such coercive tactics.
>
> if a cult approaches ten thousand people on the streets in a month, and only
1%
> of those join, and only 10% of those stay any length of time, that is still
100
> new people a month, and ten of them may remain in the cult.
That's only a 1% success factor over time. Not very impressive. (And I think
we may be erring on the side of the cults with this example, too.)
> the fact that not everybody falls for a scam or joins a cult does not make
scams
> or cults any less of a social concern.
I didn't imply that it did. Certainly, some cults more than others are
particularly deserving of our concern. My argument here is not that some
cults aren't dangerous-- it is, rather, that cults do not possess unusual
abilities of persuasion and indoctrination.
zen...@hotmail.com
ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
Zeno wrote:
> >This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
> >indoctrination why is it that the majority of people who come into contact
> >with them never join?
>
> Good question. Persuasion and indoctrination works best on people who are
> most susceptible to such influences. Let's look at the context of Rick's
> statement:
>
> What types of people get involved in potentially unsafe or destructive
> groups and relationships?
>
> All types. People from both healthy and dysfunctional families, with
> and without psychological histories, who have and have not had drug
> problems, from both strong and weak religious backgrounds, the educated
> and uneducated, the wealthy, poor, middle class, intelligent and not so
> intelligent.
>
> Potentially unsafe and destructive groups are very good at persuasion
> and indoctrination; it's their stock and trade. Most people simply are
> not prepared to withstand this process or are not aware such things
> exist. The truth is--almost anyone could become involved with an unsafe
> or destructive group. We are all potentially vulnerable to deception
> and coercive persuasion.
This is where Ross goes awry. He tells us that these groups are very good at
persuasion and indoctrination and that most people could become involved with
these groups, but the facts of cult membership do not support this claim.
Most people who come into contact with cults do NOT join (they are not
persuaded) and, among those who do join, most do NOT remain members for more
than a few months (they are not indoctrinated.) Given the evidence of actual
cult membership, it certainly appears that the determining factor in who
joins a cult is not how persuasive the cult itself is but, rather, how
vulnerable the recruit is.
> He then explains what he means by "coercive persuasion," and later answers
> the question:
>
> But aren't these people just weak and stupid?
>
> No. They simply were caught at a vulnerable time and probably didn't
> have enough information to make a more informed decision.
I can agree with this. Ross is contradicting himself, though. Earlier he
wrote: "Most people simply are not prepared to withstand this process..." Now
he correctly places the emphasis on the vulnerability of the individuals who
join and not on the irresistable powers of the cult. The facts of cult
membership show us that most people ARE prepared to withstand cult persuasion
and indoctrination.
> This occurs
> to all of us to some extent when we are influenced by such things as
> television, advertising and commercial gimmicks
Yes, we are all influenced to some extent by advertising. Certainly, though,
the consequences of an unwise laundry detergent purchase don't come anywhere
near the consequences of joining a cult. I think its obvious that the
determining factor in cult membership is the psychological state of the
recruit--only a very few people are willing to make the kind of major life
changes entailed in cult membership.
> > Further, if they're so good at persuasion and
> >indoctrination, why is it that of those few who DO join a cult the majority
> >quit within a few months?
>
> Those who eventually see through the charade - on their own, or with the
> help of others - leave. Troublemakers (e.g. those who ask too many
> questions or otherwise rock the boat) are booted out. Those who remain
> are folks who fell for the persuasion and indoctrination hook, line and
> sinker.
I suspect that those who remain usually do so because they feel they're
getting something of benefit out of their membership in the group.
> >I think it's obvious that these groups are NOT very good at persuasion and
> >indoctrination--certainly they're no better than the average telephone
> >psychic!--and that, contrary to what Rick Ross claims, most people are in
fact
> >very well prepared to withstand and to reject such coercive tactics.
>
> *You* may not fall for the lunacy of psychic phone lines. However,
> psychic phone consultation is a multi-billion dollar industry - in large
> part because of the high rate of repeat business.
Precisely. Repeat business and very high rates (sometimes around $4/minute!)
As with any other scam artist, telephone psychics don't have to count on
unusual powers of persuasion and a huge customer base to make their money.
They just have to be sure they charge enough to the few people who are
vulnerable to their scam.
> Even "average"
> telephone psychics tend to be quite good at employing the James van
> Praagh-type cold reading technique: a combination of good listening, good
> guesswork, and lots of B.S.
Yep. It's all very compelling to people who are vulnerable and who don't
understand how it works.
> And if you think people are not easily persuaded, buy yourself a copy of
> AdWeek or Advertising Age...
Oh, I know people are easily persuaded. What I dispute is that cults possess
*unusual* powers of persuasion and indoctrination.
Anton Hein
who - on Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:24:09 GMT - wrote:
>>In article <3697bcd6...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>
>>This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
Er... Zeno wrote that...
Anton
--
What Pro-Cult Apologists Don't Want You To Know:
http://www.xs4all.n./~ahein/c11.html
Anton Hein
>On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 01:42:42 GMT, ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>
>> "The notion that somehow new religions are seductively slurping people
>> into their orbit on the streets or through the Internet is absolutely
>> bizarre," says Professor Jeffrey Hadden, an expert in New Religious
>> Movements at the University of Virginia.
>
>where the hell does he think cult recruiters *do* recruit? in the skies?
Some of the best recruiting is done among people lulled to sleep by
clueless academics...
>the scientologists even have a NAME for it--they call it "body routing."
>there are reams of case law involving proselytizing in airports. the AUM cult
>specifically used the internet as a recruiting tool.
They still do. Heaven's Gate also used the Internet. So does Scientology
(whose web-template set makes their online members look like
automatons...).
Anton
--
Proudly internetting from XS4ALL - a Scientology-censored ISP
Here's What Scientology Doesn't Want You To Know:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/s04.html
Rob Clark
>Anton Hein's (ah...@xs2all.nl) reply to xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark),
>who - on Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:24:09 GMT - wrote:
>>>In article <3697bcd6...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>>> ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>>>This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
>Er... Zeno wrote that...
sorry--i left your name in there, having initially left in part of your
post--then i snipped it, keeping the attribution. the number of ">" marks is
still accurate though.
>Anton
rob
Rob Clark
>In article <7702s9$hsj$2...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>> further, if con artists are so good at manipulation, why
>> do most people who have fallen for a con eventually wise up?
>Con artists, like cults, are only good at manipulating a very few people
>under very select circumstances and while they're somewhat skilled at
>persuasion under those select circumstances, the fact that most people wise
>up is evidence that they aren't very skilled at indoctrination.
at least in the so-called "short con" it is not necessary to trick anyone for
very long, or to indoctrinate them. longer cons, such as those involving people
who even go so far as to marry the person they are conning, generally involve at
least some of the kind of "indoctrination" that a cult would use.
>> alternately, if smoking is so bad for you, then why do the majority of smokers
>> not die of cancer? also, if nicotine is so addictive, then why do the
>>majority of smokers eventually quit? if tobacco advertising to children is so
>effective, then why do most children not become smokers?
>Apparently it's not as effective as some people think.
it doesn't, however, have to be a sure-fire smoking-induction device to be
effective--it merely has to cause the company to make more money than it cost
them to buy the ads.
>> as another drug example, if cocaine is so addictive, then why do 90% of
>> first-time cocaine users NOT go on to become cocaine addicts? and why do the
>> majority of them eventually quit?
>You are comparing apples and oranges here. Smoking and cocaine are physically
>addictive substances. No indoctrination is required for addiction.
i think, however, while "indoctrination" might not be a precise term,
"enculturation" into a drug-related subculture does occur, with addicts often
believing themselves to be a sort of martyred elite, and the "straights" to be
boring, or cowardly, or fascist, or evil in some other way.
>Actually, I'm not at all clear on what point you're trying to make with these
>examples. About the only thing I can think of that drug use and cult
>membership might have in common (in the context of this particular discussion,
>that is) is a certain element of persuasion involved in the first uses of the
>drug. As you point out, though, despite the lure of tobacco advertising most
>children do not become smokers.
>> this argument falls on a number of grounds and is essentially the bogus
>argument of an apologist.
>I see a falling argument here, but it's not mine! Perhaps you'd like to try
>again with some examples that are relevant to the discussion. Keep in mind,
>the subject is whether cults possess unusual abilities in persuasion and
>indoctrination. Simply dismissing my argument as that of "an apologist" isn't
>much of a rebuttal.
i realize now i misinterpreted the tack you were taking. i apologize for
calling you an apologist. i do think, though, that these other phenomena (drug
use, advertising) share enough aspects in common with cult membership that it is
useful--to an extent--to compare them, and the methods by which such behaviors
can be deliberately induced in a significant portion of the population.
>> if a cult approaches ten thousand people on the streets in a month, and only
>>1% of those join, and only 10% of those stay any length of time, that is still
>>100 new people a month, and ten of them may remain in the cult.
>That's only a 1% success factor over time. Not very impressive. (And I think
>we may be erring on the side of the cults with this example, too.)
in the case of the heaven's gaters, they would probably have an even lower
"success rate," perhaps even lower than .1%. their internet preachings gained
them only one convert.
i think the heaven's gaters are an unusual example, though, as cults go. from
the comments of surviving ex-cultists, there was virtually no coercive
persuasion in the group, and certainly no threat of physical force. those who
left were not even shamed or anathematized, and many remained friendly with the
group even after leaving. unlike many other cults, the group, while considered
a bit odd, caused no problems for its neighbors and did not exist in direct
conflict with society except in ideology and belief.
to an extent, even the leader, marshall herff applewhite, was as much in the
thrall of his creation as the rest of his followers. while the group had strict
rules of behavior, and procedures for everything, the door to leave was always
open.
(this is an unusual case for a cult. while i was deeply saddened by the mass
suicide, i don't see any legal way that it could have been prevented, even had
it been thought the group had a potential for a mass suicide.)
>> the fact that not everybody falls for a scam or joins a cult does not make
>>scams or cults any less of a social concern.
>I didn't imply that it did. Certainly, some cults more than others are
>particularly deserving of our concern. My argument here is not that some
>cults aren't dangerous-- it is, rather, that cults do not possess unusual
>abilities of persuasion and indoctrination.
to get away from heaven's gate (which i feel is quite atypical of cultic
groups), many of these groups, such as scientology, while lacking in any magical
or eerie powers of persuasion, are indeed unusual. they are not unusual in the
level of power they have, but they are indeed unusual in that they use
underhanded and covert methods of persuasion that can be quite convincing,
especially to someone not familiar with such methods.
unlike many groups, which accrete through the charisma of an unschooled but
persuasive leader, who may not even be aware of the techniques he is using,
scientology drills in specific methods of persuasion.
so while their powers may not be unusual, the means (and deliberation) they use
is unusual. i don't think a "body router" delivering "free personality tests"
has any more power than anyone else to get someone in off the street, but i do
believe the techniques of scientology make it more likely that they will succeed
in their persuasion once they get someone in the door into an environment
controlled according to strict procedure.
many of these procedures were appropriate and effective in a different cultural
climate, and have lost a great deal of their effectiveness in the ensuing
decades. however, i do believe that some methods of persuasion are more
effective and, if you will, "unusual," than "mainstream" methods of persuasion
such as broadcast advertising.
while these may indeed be on the same spectrum of activities as normal social
processes of enculturation, i think that they are extreme, premeditated and
deliberate enough to warrant categorizing them as special, at least in degree.
rob
Keith Henson
: In article <3697bcd6...@news.xs4all.nl>,
: ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
snip
: > He says people from both healthy and dysfunctional families, with and
: > without psychological histories, the wealthy, poor and middle class are
: > all susceptible to cults.
: Okay.....
True, and the same thing can be said about dope.
: > "Potentially unsafe and destructive groups are very good at persuasion
: > and indoctrination; it's their stock and trade. Most people simply are
: > not prepared to withstand this process or are not aware such things
: > exist," he writes on his Website.
: This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
: indoctrination why is it that the majority of people who come into contact
: with them never join? Further, if they're so good at persuasion and
: indoctrination, why is it that of those few who DO join a cult the majority
: quit within a few months?
I think they *are* good at it, but only with a small fraction of the
population. Again, think of the highly addictive drugs. Most people can
walk away from them after trying (under ten percent like the effect of
opiates) but those who cannot are in for a very rough ride.
: I think it's obvious that these groups are NOT very good at persuasion and
: indoctrination--certainly they're no better than the average telephone
: psychic!--and that, contrary to what Rick Ross claims, most people are in fact
: very well prepared to withstand and to reject such coercive tactics.
I agree with zeno. However, the people who are susceptable really get
chewed up.
Keith Henson
Mark
>> And if you think people are not easily persuaded, buy yourself a copy of
>> AdWeek or Advertising Age...
>
zeno replied:
>Oh, I know people are easily persuaded. What I dispute is that cults possess
>*unusual* powers of persuasion and indoctrination.
>
You can go to college to study advertising and marketing. The techniques
of marketing are fairly well understood within the profession, and also
to a large extent by the public at large (well, among the over say 25's
anyway). Matters such as product placement, brand development, audience
targeting, and so forth are discussed in the media, and are part of the
general vocabulary. Plus the industry is regulated to some extent - in
the UK we have the ASA, the Advertising Standards Authority.
There are no equivalent public courses for brainwashing and mind
control, and so these techniques are not very widely known about or
dicussed by the public at large. So cults often have an unfair advantage
over their target audience, in that they are dealing with a relatively
unsophisticated market.
--
Mark Dunlop
Mark
>> >This, though, is completely absurd. If cults are so good at persuasion and
>> >indoctrination why is it that the majority of people who come into contact
>> >with them never join?
>>
>> Perhaps because cults only pick the ones they want and leave the rest.
>
Zeno replied:
>So all these other people really wanted to be in the cult but were rejected?
You're being silly now. No, the majority probably didn't realise they
were in contact with a cult. They probably thought they were attending a
meditation course, or a talk on world peace or the green revolution, or
a management team building weekend, etc.
There can be a fine dividing line between skepticism and cynicism. One
doesn't want to be so excessively cynical and suspicious that one shuns
any change or new thinking.
>
>I don't think so!
>
>> > Further, if they're so good at persuasion and
>> >indoctrination, why is it that of those few who DO join a cult the majority
>> >quit within a few months?
>> >
>> Perhaps because those few hadn't actually joined the cult, the cult had
>> just had them in for review for a few months, and then decided the
>> majority weren't really suitable for full membership.
>
>Nonsense. As most of the people who quit their association with a cult will
>tell you, they chose to leave because they realized the group wasn't providing
>whatever it was they'd hoped it would provide.
This probably does apply to the probationary group, those that have some
association with the group, but who have not become actual members. But
there is still the possibilty that their realisation that the group
wasn't providing what they'd hoped, stemmed primarily from the fact that
the group simply hadn't bothered to sell itself very hard to those
particular individuals.
Mind control is quite a complex and subtle process, and rather time
consuming to implement. In the cult I was involved in, it took two years
plus to effectively brainwash a newcomer and to induct them into full
membership. Additionally, any single member would only attract on
average one or two new members per year, so the pyramid didn't grow very
fast. Brainwashing IMO does depend on first establishing a bond of
personal friendship and trust, and this all does take time. Its a
gradual networking process, and can't really be rushed, people will just
be frightened off. You can't simply click your fingers and hypnotise
people into obedience. Brainwashing someone is pretty much a full time
job, and so cult members will pick their targets very carefully, because
they don't want to waste their time and effort on a marginal prospect.
And they also tend to pick people who have talents and abilities which
could benefit the group (professional types are favourite); they are not
particularly interested in weak and malleable people, who are more
likely to be a liability than an asset to the group, or who might
reflect badly on their recruiter in the eyes of the recruiter's peer
group.
Cults are complex, chameleon-like creatures; don't be deceived by
appearances.
--
Mark Dunlop
Before you criticize someone,
you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them...
you'll be a mile away...
and you'll have their shoes.
Mark
business. The prupose of television shows is to sell advertising time. The
price of the time, or the rate, is determined by the ratings - how many persons
are watching a particular show, at a particular time.
McDonalds sells hamburgers, television sells advertising. Its a business, run
for a profit. The companies are owned by corporations, who in turn are owned by
shareholders. The shareholdrs are millions and millions pf Americans and
international as well.
The purpose of the corporation is to return wealth to the shareholder.
I know you prefer to "blame the Jew" - I expect no less from you - as you are a
scumbag.
The truth is the corporation will show whatever they feel will sell. The
overhwelming majority of buyers are WHITE CHRISTIANS. THEY MAKE UP THE BULK OF
THE BUYING PUBLIC. Therefor the shows are designed to sell to white christians.
Get it fuckhead? Is to complicated for your rat infested nazi brain? Or would
you prefer the simple answer - its the Jews' fault!
Fucking cockroaches. Its all about politics - your failed socialist bullshit or
the successful model of democratic capitalism.
Mark
attached my header to their message
In article <06019923...@spewer.net>, Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
did not write
>You MORON! YOU FUCKING MORON! Okay numbnuts, listen up. Television is a
>business. The prupose of television shows is to sell advertising time.
etc....
--
Mark Dunlop
zen...@hotmail.com
> I WISH YOU
[Joseph Hertzlinger, with a few home truths]
> WERE STANDING IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW I WOULD KILL YOU ON
> THE <deletia.> SPOT
Before or after you finished wetting your pants & running for cover?
(Anyone else note how many times he used a curse word of sexual degredation?
My first thought is "Oh, impotence." My next thought is "Oh, *real*
*lonely*...")
> I CURSE YOU ALL.
Thank you.
Susan
(Hey, do the death wishes count as death *threats*?
Those *are* federal offenses....)
Anton Hein
Tuesday, January 5, 1999 Published at 15:12 GMT
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_248000/248845.stm
World
Wanted: middle-class professionals
Mass wedding ceremony of the Unification Church in Korea
Are you a well-educated professional with a healthy bank balance? Are you
intelligent with an idealist streak? Then watch out, you're just the sort
of person cult recruiters are looking for.
That's according to former cult member Ian Howarth, who now runs a UK
charity to help cult victims.
As general secretary of London-based Cult Information Centre, Mr Howarth
gives out information on cults and warns about deceptive methods used by
cults to recruit new members.
"People are recruited rather than actively joining," Mr Howarth said.
"People are usually approached by a friend, possibly to go on a weekend
course with other professional people.
"There are lots of myths about cults. Everyone's vulnerable."
According to Mr Howarth the average cult takes less than four days to
fully recruit a new member, but the effects can be far-reaching. He
himself was in a cult in Toronto, Canada for just two and a half weeks
when he was 31. He says it took him 11 months to recover from the
experience.
"I managed to get out because of a journalist," he said. "Cult members are
programmed to believe the media is the work of the devil. I had not yet
been programmed - I was still open to media input."
Armageddon?
There are growing fears that doomsday cults are stepping up activities
because of the millennium, but too much emphasis is placed on this
according to Mr Howarth.
He said: "It may be relevant to certain groups but there are so many
variations on when the end of the millennium actually is. Some say it's
the end of 1999 whereas mathematically it's the end of the year 2000.
"If you have gained control of a person's mind who cares what year it is?"
Stephen, another man, who asked only to be called by his first name, said
his son Patrick was drawn into a cult aged 18. He had three grade A
A-levels and was due to go to university.
"My son was seen as a leader of his school, a good public school. By all
standards he should have been cult-proof," he said.
"But on the other side of the coin he was highly susceptible. Cults offer
utopia. They have all the solutions to life. "
Seeds of doubt
Patrick spent about eight years as a member of the Unification Church,
commonly known as the Moonies, and started training to be a group leader.
It was only then that he started to have doubts and two years ago he
walked out.
Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon
"He gave up his career to serve God - that's what he said. The harder you
work, the more committed you become. That's what he really believed,"
Stephen said.
"Until he started becoming a leader himself and began to realise that
everything he'd been told wasn't right. He had more time to think about
it.
People do break away from cults, often through the help of their family,
explained Ian Howarth, but there are no guarantees. Patrick took about
four months to get the Unification Church out of his system and is now
doing an accountancy course in London.
Patrick's wife - matched in a Moonie wedding - was kidnapped by her
family, but after three weeks she walked out and went back to the group.
"If you remove someone from one belief system and replace it with
something else and that is taken away, that person is left with nothing
and that can drive them mad," Stephen said.
The Cult Information Centre offers advice to people who suspect a friend
or family member is in a cult:
DO try to keep in regular contact even if there is little response
DO express sincere love for the cult member at every available opportunity
DO always welcome the cult member back into the family home no matter what
is said
DO NOT rush into adopting a solution without researching the cult problem
DO NOT say:"You are in a cult; you are brainwashed"
DO NOT be judgemental or confrontational towards the cult member
DO NOT give money to the member of the group
****
Link provide:
Cult Information Center
http://www.infoman.demon.co.uk/cicmain.html
:===End Quote===
Anton
--
Sects, Lies, and Doctrines: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/apologetics.html
Information about Cults, Sects and New Religious Movements
Anton Hein
06 Jan 1999 22:06:48 GMT - wrote:
>This is where Ross goes awry. He tells us that these groups are very good at
>persuasion and indoctrination and that most people could become involved with
>these groups, but the facts of cult membership do not support this claim.
>Most people who come into contact with cults do NOT join (they are not
>persuaded) and, among those who do join, most do NOT remain members for more
>than a few months (they are not indoctrinated.) Given the evidence of actual
>cult membership, it certainly appears that the determining factor in who
>joins a cult is not how persuasive the cult itself is but, rather, how
>vulnerable the recruit is.
Hi Zeno,
I wrote Rick regarding your comments, and he replied as follows (with his
permission to post his message to Usenet):
:===Begin Quote===
Some have claimed that many, perhaps most cult members, will likely
leave their group within five years. But, at what cost to their
personal lives?
Cult members may have surrendered their assets, lost educational and job
opportunities and generally seem to find it difficult to mainstream
again socially. Depending on the group--some former members may have
experienced physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse in
varying degrees. Many may find it hard to rebuild relationships with
family former friends-- who they may have harshly judged and stopped
communicating with as a direct result of cult involvement.
Moreover, many cult members appear to have a lifetime commitment. It is
not uncommon to find individuals with 10, 15 and 20-year commitments.
It is true that most people who come into contact with cults on a
campus, through the Internet or in some area of daily life will not
join. But it is not helpful to engage in subtle forms of blaming the
victims for their own abuse. That is--that they are somehow responsible
for their own recruitment by being predisposed and especially
vulnerable. It is important to have some sense of balance and recognize
they are often the victims of deceptive and coercive recruitment
techniques see http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html
Certainly, people who have studied "thought reform"
http://www.rickross.com/reference/Art95.html and coercive persuasion
http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst4.html are less
vulnerable and better prepared to withstand cult influence. Others who
are less informed and perhaps also at a vulnerable time in their
life--may be far less able to withstand cult influence.
But it is not an "either-or" proposition. It is possible to be both
poorly informed/prepared and also vulnerable. Or, exploited by the cult
recruitment process through one or both factors.
I have met former cult members who said they "knew about cults and
brainwashing", but were still recruited seemingly due to a certain issue
or personal vulnerability. And others who had no significant
vulnerability, but were drawn in by well-developed and often deceptive
recruitment techniques.
One young woman I recently worked with who joined a well-known cult said
she--"just wanted to play volleyball and they [the cult group] had a
good game going". They were friendly, seemed nice and invited her to
join in that activity. Initially, she had no idea her teammates were
cult members. It was a gradual subtle process of recruitment.
Robert Cialdini and other researchers regarding influence have
recognized that the same principles often employed by advertisers to
sell products can be amplified and utilized by cult groups to sell their
agenda see http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst4.html
Believing that cult victims are somehow seemingly almost predestined to
be recruited through personal weakness and vulnerability is comforting
to many people. It provides a sense of safety and can be seen as a type
of denial. But the facts have proven repeatedly that this premise is
false.
Rick Ross
http://www.rickross.com
:===End Quote===
Greetings,
Anton
--
Proudly internetting from XS4ALL - a Scientology-censored ISP
Here's What Scientology Doesn't Want You To Know:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/s04.html
>
zen...@hotmail.com
ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
[quoting BBC news item]
> Are you a well-educated professional with a healthy bank balance? Are you
> intelligent with an idealist streak? Then watch out, you're just the sort
> of person cult recruiters are looking for.
> That's according to former cult member Ian Howarth, who now runs a UK
> charity to help cult victims.
Ha! Do you think, as an ex-cultist himself, he might have just a bit of
self- interest in describing those who join cults as "well-educated" and
"intelligent with an idealist streak"! Maybe? Just a tiny bit? After all,
it takes considerable humility to describe oneself as having been a gullible
dupe who was lacking in critical thinking skills.
> "There are lots of myths about cults. Everyone's vulnerable."
Again, I have to ask: If everyone's vulnerable, why do so few join?
> "I managed to get out because of a journalist," he said. "Cult members are
> programmed to believe the media is the work of the devil. I had not yet
> been programmed - I was still open to media input."
Ha! It wasn't very a successful programming method, then, was it! This sort
of thing always makes me laugh. I've heard it before from ex-cultists.
'They brainwash people, but I was able to resist their brainwashing and
that's why I was able to quit.' The more obvious and more rational
explanation--that he was able to quit because he realized the cult wasn't
meeting his needs and that those who stay do so because they feel the cult
*is* meeting their needs--never seems to occur to guys like this. For some
reason, maybe because they crave the attention it brings, guys like this
prefer to believe that they escaped some horrendous mind-control situation.
After all, that's considerably more dramatic and exciting than seeing ones
experience as simply a mistake that one made--not very different from the
mistakes most everyone makes at one time or another--from which one has
learned and moved on. I mean, after all, there's no profit in *that*! :-)
> Stephen, another man, who asked only to be called by his first name, said
> his son Patrick was drawn into a cult aged 18. He had three grade A
> A-levels and was due to go to university.
>
> "My son was seen as a leader of his school, a good public school. By all
> standards he should have been cult-proof," he said.
>
> "But on the other side of the coin he was highly susceptible. Cults offer
> utopia. They have all the solutions to life. "
I wonder if "Stephen" has ever asked himself why his son might have been drawn
to a utopian group?
> Seeds of doubt
>
> Patrick spent about eight years as a member of the Unification Church,
> commonly known as the Moonies, and started training to be a group leader.
> It was only then that he started to have doubts and two years ago he
> walked out.
Gee-- doubts after 8 years in the church! You'd have thought he'd have been
completely brainwashed by then, wouldn't you! Ha!
> The Cult Information Centre offers advice to people who suspect a friend
> or family member is in a cult:
>
> DO try to keep in regular contact even if there is little response
> DO express sincere love for the cult member at every available opportunity
> DO always welcome the cult member back into the family home no matter what
> is said
> DO NOT rush into adopting a solution without researching the cult problem
> DO NOT say:"You are in a cult; you are brainwashed"
> DO NOT be judgemental or confrontational towards the cult member
> DO NOT give money to the member of the group
These are good suggestions.
zen...@hotmail.com
ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
> I wrote Rick regarding your comments, and he replied as follows (with his
> permission to post his message to Usenet):
>
> :===Begin Quote===
> Some have claimed that many, perhaps most cult members, will likely
> leave their group within five years. But, at what cost to their
> personal lives?
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that *most* have claimed
that *most* cult members will leave their group within 5 years. I believe
that, in fact, most have claimed that most will leave within 1 or 2 years.
Some will, no doubt, come away from their cult membership worse for the
experience. This is also true of people who get into intense personal
relationships. That some people are damaged by their cult experience is not
evidence that cultists possess unusual powers of persuasion and
indoctrination. (If they did, more people would join and more people would
remain members.) It is, rather, evidence that some people are more vulnerable
to being hurt by these experiences than are others.
> Cult members may have surrendered their assets, lost educational and job
> opportunities and generally seem to find it difficult to mainstream
> again socially. Depending on the group--some former members may have
> experienced physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse in
> varying degrees. Many may find it hard to rebuild relationships with
> family former friends-- who they may have harshly judged and stopped
> communicating with as a direct result of cult involvement.
Yes. That's all bad stuff. I've heard of people who have come out of bad
marriages in much the same condition: they lost most of their assets, they
were psychologically and/or physically abused, they lost contact with all
their old friends and their family. It's a sad thing when it happens. But,
just as these abusive ex-spouses did not possess unusual powers of persuasion
and indoctrination, neither do cults. Some people--often those with
self-esteem problems--are simply more vulnerable than others.
> Moreover, many cult members appear to have a lifetime commitment. It is
> not uncommon to find individuals with 10, 15 and 20-year commitments.
Guess what? Many members of conventional main-stream religions also have
lifetime commitments! Imagine it! People finding some philosophy that seems
to work for them and actually sticking with it!
> It is true that most people who come into contact with cults on a
> campus, through the Internet or in some area of daily life will not
> join.
Yes, it is true. That fact doesn't support the idea that cults have unusual
powers of persuasion or indoctrination very well or that *everyone* is
vulnerable to them, does it?
> But it is not helpful to engage in subtle forms of blaming the
> victims for their own abuse. That is--that they are somehow responsible
> for their own recruitment by being predisposed and especially
> vulnerable.
Since, as you say, most people do not join, what other rational explanation is
there for those who *do* join except to say that they are more vulnerable? In
the sense that they are--quite obviously--more vulnerable than those who don't
join, they are clearly "to blame". (Though I wouldn't usually use the word
"blame" because it sounds too punative.) I don't think there's anything to be
gained by ex-cultists beating themselves up over having joined, but it's
certainly not healthy for them to ignore the elements of their personalities
that led them to join the cult in the first place.
> It is important to have some sense of balance and recognize
> they are often the victims of deceptive and coercive recruitment
> techniques see http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html
Yes, sometimes there is deception. Yes, there is sometimes coercion. Those
are certainly bad things. Rather than focusing on these elements of the cult
experience (elements that are common throughout the modern world), though,
it's more productive for the ex-cultist to ask himself 'Why was I more
vulnerable to this stuff than most other people are? Why was I gullible when
most people saw this as a scam right away? What can I do to educate myself
and protect myself from similar scams in the future?'
> Certainly, people who have studied "thought reform"
> http://www.rickross.com/reference/Art95.html and coercive persuasion
> http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst4.html are less
> vulnerable and better prepared to withstand cult influence. Others who
> are less informed and perhaps also at a vulnerable time in their
> life--may be far less able to withstand cult influence.
"Thought reform" is, I believe, a misleading term. It can lead those who are
unfamiliar with the common tactics used by marketers and scam-artists to
believe that cults do something unusual. They don't. The "thought reform"
used by cults is no more powerful or mysterious than that used by car salesmen
and telephone psychics. Some few people are just unprepared for these tactics
from what they think is a religious organization. Surprise! It's sneaky.
It's not very nice. But it's not "thought reform" in any unusual sense.
> But it is not an "either-or" proposition. It is possible to be both
> poorly informed/prepared and also vulnerable. Or, exploited by the cult
> recruitment process through one or both factors.
It's not only possible--it's *likely* that one who is poorly informed/prepared
will also be vulnerable. Luckily, it certainly appears from the small number
of people who join and/or remain in cults that MOST people are either well
enough informed and/or are not emotionally vulnerable to cults.
You are correct here in placing emphasis upon the vulnerability of the cult
recruit. That is, in fact, the determining factor. Cults do not possess
unusual powers of persuasion or indoctrination, but the mundane powers they do
possess are sufficient to snag the occasional vulnerable individual.
> I have met former cult members who said they "knew about cults and
> brainwashing", but were still recruited seemingly due to a certain issue
> or personal vulnerability.
Precisely. Not because the cult had unusual powers. Not because they were
brainwashed. Rather, because they had certain issues of personal
vulnerability.
> And others who had no significant
> vulnerability, but were drawn in by well-developed and often deceptive
> recruitment techniques.
I'm guessing that the determination that these others had no significant
vulnerability is something they came to on their own. I don't believe them.
I don't think they're necessarily lying, but I think they may not understand
themselves well enough to see how they were vulnerable. Or, possibly, they
may recognize that they were vulnerable but they may have self-esteem issues
which make it difficult for them to admit to themselves or to others that
they were duped. (It's likely, in such cases, that those very same
self-esteem issues are what made it easier for the cult to dupe them in the
first place. It's a sad, vicious circle.)
> One young woman I recently worked with who joined a well-known cult said
> she--"just wanted to play volleyball and they [the cult group] had a
> good game going". They were friendly, seemed nice and invited her to
> join in that activity. Initially, she had no idea her teammates were
> cult members. It was a gradual subtle process of recruitment.
The same is true of most religious conversions. A person goes to the local
Methodist church picnic for the wholesome social experience offered. They
make friends there. They go to more Methodist functions. They start
attending services at the church. Their friendships deepen. Next thing you
know, they're serving on the parish fund-raising committee! Gasp! Methodist
Brainwashing! There's nothing unusual or sinister about this process. It's
quite common.
> Robert Cialdini and other researchers regarding influence have
> recognized that the same principles often employed by advertisers to
> sell products can be amplified and utilized by cult groups to sell their
> agenda see http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst4.html
I am familiar with Cialdini's work and I don't recall him writing that cults
use these tactics in a manner that's any different from how marketers and
other "compliance professionals" use them.
> Believing that cult victims are somehow seemingly almost predestined to
> be recruited through personal weakness and vulnerability is comforting
> to many people. It provides a sense of safety and can be seen as a type
> of denial. But the facts have proven repeatedly that this premise is
> false.
While cults may use deceptive and manipulative tactics to recruit and retain
members, these tactics are no different in quality or intensity than the
tactics used by many other individuals and organizations we encounter in our
daily lives. That most people successfully resist the tactics used by cults
is clear evidence that the distinguishing characteristic of those who join
is, in fact, a personal vulnerability to these tactics. It may be comforting
for ex- cultists to tell themselves that were victims of unusually powerful
and sinister mind-control tactics, but the evidence does not support this
view.
--
Zeno zen...@hotmail.com
***********************************
There are many weak and stupid people-- but that's why we have wolves
and other large predators.
(Btw, don't let my .sig throw you off... I've had it for a long time and it
has nothing to do with this particular discussion.)
Pamela Fitzpatrick
zen...@hotmail.com wrote in article <77502c$uoj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <36982a69...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>
> > I wrote Rick regarding your comments, and he replied as follows (with
his
> > permission to post his message to Usenet):
> >
> > :===Begin Quote===
<snip>
> > Cult members may have surrendered their assets, lost educational and
job
> > opportunities and generally seem to find it difficult to mainstream
> > again socially. Depending on the group--some former members may have
> > experienced physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse in
> > varying degrees. Many may find it hard to rebuild relationships with
> > family former friends-- who they may have harshly judged and stopped
> > communicating with as a direct result of cult involvement.
>
> Yes. That's all bad stuff. I've heard of people who have come out of
bad
> marriages in much the same condition: they lost most of their assets,
they
> were psychologically and/or physically abused, they lost contact with all
> their old friends and their family. It's a sad thing when it happens.
But,
> just as these abusive ex-spouses did not possess unusual powers of
persuasion
> and indoctrination, neither do cults. Some people--often those with
> self-esteem problems--are simply more vulnerable than others.
I would suggest that you read up on psychopathic personalities before you
start making such broad analogies. I did not "lose" contact with old
friends and family, I was forced to cut those ties. I did not willingly
lose my assets, I was persuaded that we were getting married now so my
"inferior" items were no longer needed (by the way, this was done *before*
the marriage so I didn't have the community property laws to protect me).
Once you read up on psychopathic personalities I think that you will find
that your argument regarding these people not possessing "unusual" powers
of persuasion will fall apart. Unless you are going to come back with some
slick response that I had self-esteem problems or was "simply" more
vulnerable.
Ironically though, you are using a lot of the same "lines" used in the
"group" that I briefly was part of ... that my life wasn't working is why
everything was happening to me like it was. Not once was *his* behavior
questioned as being destructive to my wellbeing. Ironically, he had the
money too for all the classes and time for the volunteering. Um,
interesting.
<snip>
> While cults may use deceptive and manipulative tactics to recruit and
retain
> members, these tactics are no different in quality or intensity than the
> tactics used by many other individuals and organizations we encounter in
our
> daily lives. That most people successfully resist the tactics used by
cults
> is clear evidence that the distinguishing characteristic of those who
join
> is, in fact, a personal vulnerability to these tactics. It may be
comforting
> for ex- cultists to tell themselves that were victims of unusually
powerful
> and sinister mind-control tactics, but the evidence does not support this
> view.
Once you read up on psychopathic personalities ... I would garner a guess
that maybe you will look at the leadership of these groups a bit
differently. And that I would hope you would stop using your "relationship"
analogy along with your arguments about destructive groups only hurting
those that have self-esteem problems and such.
I also sincerely hope that you never encounter this type of personality,
but usually that is what it takes for someone of your convictions to
realize that you have been very wrong about your judgements of people. I
hope that you continue to enjoy your blissful unawareness at others
expense. The pain these type of people inflict on their victims is nothing
I would wish on a person.
Bernie
>Zeno zen...@hotmail.com
>***********************************
>There are many weak and stupid people-- but that's why we have wolves
>and other large predators.
Interesting quote. There are also all kinds of insects whose duty it
is to clean up corpses and anything rotten and who probably delight in
these things :-)
Rob Clark
>In article <36982a69...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>> One young woman I recently worked with who joined a well-known cult said
>> she--"just wanted to play volleyball and they [the cult group] had a
>> good game going". They were friendly, seemed nice and invited her to
>> join in that activity. Initially, she had no idea her teammates were
>> cult members. It was a gradual subtle process of recruitment.
>The same is true of most religious conversions. A person goes to the local
>Methodist church picnic for the wholesome social experience offered. They
>make friends there. They go to more Methodist functions. They start
>attending services at the church. Their friendships deepen. Next thing you
>know, they're serving on the parish fund-raising committee! Gasp! Methodist
>Brainwashing! There's nothing unusual or sinister about this process. It's
>quite common.
one of these is normal. one is not. while this often happens with normal
socialization, it is fairly unusual for groups to have regimented, strict
procedures by which to use front groups in order to get over the initial
problems a person would have with, say, the moonies. the moonies have a front
group named CARP (collegiate association for the research of principles) which
is not up-front about its affiliations, gets people in based on a presumed or
pretended affinity with their own principles, and only later pulls a
bait-and-switch, revealing that they are moonies only when the person is already
entrenched in the group.
so while other groups may indeed gain converts through normal processes of
socialization, or even open proselytizing, there is nothing inherently dishonest
about this process.
in the cases of cults, it is almost universal for them to operate under a
variety of names, and to engage in deceptive practices relating to their real
affliiations.
if a methodist group sponsors a volleyball game, you can bet that they wil be
PROUD of that affiliation and will probably even include the word "methodist" in
any advertisement for social events sponsored by the group.
cults, however, will use some name like "citizens commission for encouragement
of volleyball" and will deny being associated with the cult if asked
point-blank. (for example, "applied scholastics"--not to be confused with other
legitimate groups with similar names--is a scientology front group. if asked,
they deny being scientology, though they use the same training routines and
techniques of "word-clearing" recommended by hubbard. they claim, however, that
what is "religious" for the purpose of their tax-exemption is, despite being the
exact same procedure, "secular" when applied in an environment--such as a public
school--where religious affiliation would preclude their participation.)
the dishonesty, and the regimentation of the approach, separates these methods
of cult recruitment from those used by legitimate groups.
this does not mean, of course, that a cult can not use legitimate as well as
illegitimate means of recruitment, nor does it imply that groups like, say, the
methodists, that share some similarities in methods of recruitment are "cults"
by sharing some characteristics.
nor does it imply that groups such as the baha'is, classified as "cults" due to
novelty by religious scholars such as jeffery hadden, must automatically use
deceptive methods of recruitment. some groups classified as "cults" by one or
another method of classification may, in fact, use no dishonest recruitment at
all. conflicts over definition in this realm make it very important to define
your terms--for example, i and many other "anti-cult" people often reserve the
word "cult" specifically for groups felt to be destructive. "counter-cult"
people, especially those motivated by christian beliefs, will often define
"cult" based on their own doctrinal preconceptions. there is, of course, slop
between these two campaigns, and some will oppose a group they define as a
"cult" based on doctrinal and social grounds, rather than limiting themselves to
one or the other. others will use a qualified phrase, such as "destructive
cult," to avoid the inclusion of groups that might be "cults" but are considered
harmless or even socially beneficial.
rob
Rob Clark
>There are many weak and stupid people-- but that's why we have wolves
>and other large predators.
and due to wolves and large predators, we have big friggin' guns to shoot them
with. and we have con artists as well--which is why we have police.
rob
zombiep...@hotmail.com
Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> There are no equivalent public courses for brainwashing and mind
> control, and so these techniques are not very widely known about or
> dicussed by the public at large.
How do you figure that just because there isn't a "public course in
brainwashing and mind control" the basic techniques are not well known?
> So cults often have an unfair advantage
> over their target audience, in that they are dealing with a relatively
> unsophisticated market.
If the market plce was so unsophisticated, then why is recruiting and
membership in cults so low? Especially in light of your assertions about the
extraordinary talents for brain washing, coercion, and control cults posess!
ZPL
Better living through modern chemistry!
zombiep...@hotmail.com
"Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> I would suggest that you read up on psychopathic personalities before you
> start making such broad analogies.
"Psychopath: a mentally unstable or ill person, esp one who has a poorly
balanced personality and does not feel guilty about living up to normal moral
and social responsibilities"
I don't see where a psychopath has any control over YOUR moral or social
standards.
> I did not "lose" contact with old friends and family, I was forced to cut
those ties.
Forced???? Unless you were a POW physically restrained YOU decided to accept
whatever line of reasoning that your "psychopath" presented you. YOU decided
that contact with old family or friends was unacceptable. He may have
influenced you- but when it was all said and done YOU made the decision.
> I did not willingly
> lose my assets, I was persuaded that we were getting married now so my
> "inferior" items were no longer needed (by the way, this was done *before*
> the marriage so I didn't have the community property laws to protect me).
What were you- some sort kind of door mat? I certainly don't think you were
incapacitated and certainly appear to be capable of making your own decsions.
I am sure you MUST have hear of the word "No!".
> Once you read up on psychopathic personalities I think that you will find
> that your argument regarding these people not possessing "unusual" powers
> of persuasion will fall apart. Unless you are going to come back with some
> slick response that I had self-esteem problems or was "simply" more
> vulnerable.
Your simply shifting the blame becaue of your apparent unwillingnes to accept
YOUR part in the fiasco. Sure he may have been "slick", "glib", or
"charismatic"- but did you have to go along and accept his rationale? Of
course not! Again unless you were mentally incompetent or under physial
duress, you had the option of rejecting his line of reasoning at any time.
The fact is that you didn't! Seems to me that YOU had better own up to the
fact that YOU made some decisions that didn't turn out so good.
>
> Ironically though, you are using a lot of the same "lines" used in the
> "group" that I briefly was part of ... that my life wasn't working is why
> everything was happening to me like it was. Not once was *his* behavior
> questioned as being destructive to my wellbeing. Ironically, he had the
> money too for all the classes and time for the volunteering. Um,
> interesting.
One thing is for sure- it wasn't your life that was not working- it was your
mind! It appears that you expect OTHERS to be ultimately responsible for your
"well being". That type of thinking is certainly indicative of some sort of
self esteem or other problem that increased your suspectability to the abuse
that you apparenly underwent.
> Once you read up on psychopathic personalities ... I would garner a guess
> that maybe you will look at the leadership of these groups a bit
> differently. And that I would hope you would stop using your "relationship"
> analogy along with your arguments about destructive groups only hurting
> those that have self-esteem problems and such.
I'll invoke Godwins Law now ( Nazi's are coming into the discussion :-) ).
Groups led by psychopaths such as Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot in positions of
political or military power where physical coercion can be applied certainly
have hurt people without self esteem problems and the such. In these
situations the Borg expression "Resistance is Futile" certainly applies.
However I have yet to see a suffciently large number of psychopaths rise to
positions where they have this type of power to make your assertions
meaningful.
You have also not demonstrated that zeno_99's argument is incorrect. All
zeno_99 appears to assert is that under most conditions that it is people with
psychological vulnerabilities that are most adversely affected. Unless you
care to provide sufficent proof, Occam's razor applies. Between the two
explainations, yours and zeno_99's, zeno_99's is simplest- and therefore
proabaly the more likly.
>
> I also sincerely hope that you never encounter this type of personality,
I certainly have, and a lot more than you--that is for sure- you meet a lot of
different people in psych wards.
> but usually that is what it takes for someone of your convictions to
> realize that you have been very wrong about your judgements of people. I
> hope that you continue to enjoy your blissful unawareness at others
> expense.
I certainly hope YOU will get the moral fiber, self esteem and self confidence
to do what is correct by YOUR standards- and not accept someone elses. I also
hope that you will quit whining about your past decisions. Study them for
where and why they resulted in undesirable consequences- BUT GET ON WITH YOUR
LIFE!
ZPL
Better living through modern chemistry!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Mark
>In article <dDGH3DAs...@pallas3.demon.co.uk>,
> Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There are no equivalent public courses for brainwashing and mind
>> control, and so these techniques are not very widely known about or
>> dicussed by the public at large.
>
>
>How do you figure that just because there isn't a "public course in
>brainwashing and mind control" the basic techniques are not well known?
The situation with a lack of equivalent public college courses in
brainwashing and mind control was put forward as a illustrative
comparison, not as a complete explanation of the whole phenomenon.
Do you hold that the basic techniques are well known? Are you willing to
outline your knowlege and understanding of the basic techniques, or
suggest a URL which provides an outline which meets with your approval?
At least if there were college courses, the discussion might improve
beyond the present playground level of 'cults brainwash people' - 'no
they don't' - 'yes they do' - 'no they don't, you're just stupid' - 'not
as stupid as you' boo hiss...
>
>> So cults often have an unfair advantage
>> over their target audience, in that they are dealing with a relatively
>> unsophisticated market.
>
>If the market plce was so unsophisticated, then why is recruiting and
>membership in cults so low?
So low compared to what?
>Especially in light of your assertions about the
>extraordinary talents for brain washing, coercion, and control cults posess!
>
Where do I assert that cults have 'extraordinary talents'? You are
considerably misrepresenting what I have said.
>ZPL
>Better living through modern chemistry!
>
Are you being ironic? Its so hard to tell on usenet.
Mark Dunlop
Chris Owen
>In article <36982a69...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>
>> I wrote Rick regarding your comments, and he replied as follows (with his
>> permission to post his message to Usenet):
>>
>> :===Begin Quote===
>> Some have claimed that many, perhaps most cult members, will likely
>> leave their group within five years. But, at what cost to their
>> personal lives?
>
>Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that *most* have claimed
>that *most* cult members will leave their group within 5 years. I believe
>that, in fact, most have claimed that most will leave within 1 or 2 years.
Scientology's own statistics (given in the 1992 edition of "What is
Scientology?") suggest that around 50% of Scientologists quit within
three years.
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| WORLD'S BIGGEST SINCLAIR WEB ARCHIVE: |
| http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair |
| OFFLINE VERSION: http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/plansinc.zip |
Pamela Fitzpatrick
zombiep...@hotmail.com wrote in article
<77617k$ue9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01be3ad7$ed059be0$307a490c@default>,
> "Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I would suggest that you read up on psychopathic personalities before
you
> > start making such broad analogies.
>
> "Psychopath: a mentally unstable or ill person, esp one who has a poorly
> balanced personality and does not feel guilty about living up to normal
moral
> and social responsibilities"
>
> I don't see where a psychopath has any control over YOUR moral or social
> standards.
One, was I talking to *you*? No. Okay, that is settled right off we can
move right on to the next issue at hand. What text are you quoting from,
please in the future credit your source of information.
Your statement is interesting, that you are indicating that a psychopath
could not have control over me. Please provide further quotes to back up
that assertion please. I have literature here that does support my
experience that one of the key elements for a psychopathic personality to
be such is control over their *chosen* victim(s).
> > I did not "lose" contact with old friends and family, I was forced to
cut
> those ties.
>
> Forced???? Unless you were a POW physically restrained YOU decided to
accept
> whatever line of reasoning that your "psychopath" presented you. YOU
decided
> that contact with old family or friends was unacceptable. He may have
> influenced you- but when it was all said and done YOU made the decision.
Is that so? Love the POW argument by the way.
There was no "line of reasoning". I was not in receipt of mail nor of phone
messages. These people were told by this person that I was no longer
interested in continuing a relationship with them. And since I did not have
any disposable income, well, I was not in a position to make phone calls
nor even mail a letter. Oh, ya, forgot I made the choice of doing that all.
You are correct I made the decision to stop talking to these people, I have
a certain value on my life. Ironically, this appears to be the same value
that cult members take too.
> > I did not willingly
> > lose my assets, I was persuaded that we were getting married now so my
> > "inferior" items were no longer needed (by the way, this was done
*before*
> > the marriage so I didn't have the community property laws to protect
me).
>
> What were you- some sort kind of door mat? I certainly don't think you
were
> incapacitated and certainly appear to be capable of making your own
decsions.
> I am sure you MUST have hear of the word "No!".
I'm not a door mat, but thanks for introducing such a lovely analogy to
discredit me with. A person can not make a sound decision on faulty
information. Withholding of information (i.e. that the person never
intended to stay married to me) is rather critical in a psychopathic
personality to control their victims. The word had nothing to do with what
happened. Being lied to and deceived did. Again, another interesting
connection to those that are involved in cults.
> > Once you read up on psychopathic personalities I think that you will
find
> > that your argument regarding these people not possessing "unusual"
powers
> > of persuasion will fall apart. Unless you are going to come back with
some
> > slick response that I had self-esteem problems or was "simply" more
> > vulnerable.
>
> Your simply shifting the blame becaue of your apparent unwillingnes to
accept
> YOUR part in the fiasco. Sure he may have been "slick", "glib", or
> "charismatic"- but did you have to go along and accept his rationale? Of
> course not! Again unless you were mentally incompetent or under physial
> duress, you had the option of rejecting his line of reasoning at any
time.
My, where did you learn to be such a jerk? Don't forget the words,
plausible, and believable. On top of that "don't you trust me?", "don't you
love me?" and "I would never do anything to harm you, how could you think
that of me?" ... Again, this had nothing to do regarding *rationale* ... it
was lies and deceit. The same exact tactics used in cults ... but with a
much more personal one on one bent.
> The fact is that you didn't! Seems to me that YOU had better own up to
the
> fact that YOU made some decisions that didn't turn out so good.
And where do you get off even suggesting that I did not even ever blame
myself? That I didn't find fault entirely with myself?
Oh, I forget, that would not fit with what you wish others to believe of me
... you don't know me but you sure are doing your damnedest to paint a
picture of me to fit your profile of what you believe me to be about.
> > Ironically though, you are using a lot of the same "lines" used in the
> > "group" that I briefly was part of ... that my life wasn't working is
why
> > everything was happening to me like it was. Not once was *his* behavior
> > questioned as being destructive to my wellbeing. Ironically, he had the
> > money too for all the classes and time for the volunteering. Um,
> > interesting.
>
> One thing is for sure- it wasn't your life that was not working- it was
your
> mind! It appears that you expect OTHERS to be ultimately responsible for
your
> "well being". That type of thinking is certainly indicative of some sort
of
> self esteem or other problem that increased your suspectability to the
abuse
> that you apparenly underwent.
Ah, so my mind wasn't working. That would be a nice easy explanation
wouldn't it? I do believe that I have already stated that I accepted
complete responsibility for what happened to me for a number of years.
Meanwhile the person that has a tad bit of a psychopathic personality
continued on with his destructive behaviors. I love the medical diagnosis
that you have come up for me. Guess that keeps you from having to really
accept that there may be people out there that are normal in appearance
(i.e. not the loony bin types that stare out from those newspaper stories
having been labeled as psychopathic) that could destroy your life using
control tactics and the like. Makes me wonder just what *you* are scared
of.
> > Once you read up on psychopathic personalities ... I would garner a
guess
> > that maybe you will look at the leadership of these groups a bit
> > differently. And that I would hope you would stop using your
"relationship"
> > analogy along with your arguments about destructive groups only hurting
> > those that have self-esteem problems and such.
>
> I'll invoke Godwins Law now ( Nazi's are coming into the discussion :-)
).
> Groups led by psychopaths such as Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot in positions
of
> political or military power where physical coercion can be applied
certainly
> have hurt people without self esteem problems and the such. In these
> situations the Borg expression "Resistance is Futile" certainly applies.
> However I have yet to see a suffciently large number of psychopaths rise
to
> positions where they have this type of power to make your assertions
> meaningful.
Of course you have managed to find facts to fit your world view.
Ironically, it is okay with you that there are a few that have risen to
"positions of power" but that you can not accept that these very same types
of people are walking around you every day. Maybe they don't find you smart
enough to be a challenge? Last I heard, psychopaths tend to only be
interested in challenges ... guess you aren't a challenge?
> You have also not demonstrated that zeno_99's argument is incorrect. All
> zeno_99 appears to assert is that under most conditions that it is people
with
> psychological vulnerabilities that are most adversely affected. Unless
you
> care to provide sufficent proof, Occam's razor applies. Between the two
> explainations, yours and zeno_99's, zeno_99's is simplest- and therefore
> proabaly the more likly.
Heard this tactic used before. Sometimes life isn't simple. Go ahead, move
on with your life and the simple explanations that you have. Given what you
have provided me, you will never have the opportunity to meet a psychopath,
oh wait, you apparently feel that you have. In a nice controlled
environment though were *you* hold the key. Unfortunately you are not much
of a challenge that way.
> >
> > I also sincerely hope that you never encounter this type of
personality,
>
> I certainly have, and a lot more than you--that is for sure- you meet a
lot of
> different people in psych wards.
Oh really? I also wasn't directing this comment to *you*. Odd that you
would feel so compelled to "jump in" and attempt to discredit me. I was
simply pointing out that there were some other positions/viewpoints that a
person should consider. You come in defending something that you believe
in, meanwhile attempting to discredit *me*. Doesn't say much about you IMO.
> > but usually that is what it takes for someone of your convictions to
> > realize that you have been very wrong about your judgements of people.
I
> > hope that you continue to enjoy your blissful unawareness at others
> > expense.
>
> I certainly hope YOU will get the moral fiber, self esteem and self
confidence
> to do what is correct by YOUR standards- and not accept someone elses. I
also
> hope that you will quit whining about your past decisions. Study them
for
> where and why they resulted in undesirable consequences- BUT GET ON WITH
YOUR
> LIFE!
I have gone on with my life ... You on the other hand will most likely
insist that I haven't. I was pointing out that life is not a nice neat
package. You have taken personal offense to that. Fine, get over it and
move on. Meanwhile, quit trying to make me out to be something I'm not.
Thanks for the distraction <not>
Mark
>
>[quoting BBC news item]
>> Are you a well-educated professional with a healthy bank balance? Are you
>> intelligent with an idealist streak? Then watch out, you're just the sort
>> of person cult recruiters are looking for.
>> That's according to former cult member Ian Howarth, who now runs a UK
>> charity to help cult victims.
>
>Ha! Do you think, as an ex-cultist himself, he might have just a bit of
>self- interest in describing those who join cults as "well-educated" and
>"intelligent with an idealist streak"! Maybe? Just a tiny bit? After all,
>it takes considerable humility to describe oneself as having been a gullible
>dupe who was lacking in critical thinking skills.
>
following paradox, please?
Different destructive cults each tend to have their own characteristic
set of key words and assertions which they will use to criticise and
undermine an aspirant's reliance on their own reasoning ability and
judgement. In a Christian based cult such as the Moonies, for example,
doubts or reservations which a student may have about aspects of the
group's teaching, may be blamed on Satan or a spirit putting evil
thoughts into the student's mind in order to try and prevent them from
reaching towards God. In Scientology, to take another example, such
doubts or reservations may be ascribed to the influence of 'engrams',
unconscious conditionings from past lives which block the student's
energy and prevent them from reaching their full potential.
The key point is that, logically, these kinds of paradoxical assertions
(and potential double binds) can neither be proved nor disproved, and
therefore they are insoluble and impenetrable. By their nature, and
because their proof or disproof rests on a (hypothetical) level of
'spiritual insight' (or some equivalent concept) which is only
accessible to spiritually advanced people, these assertions cannot be
subject to independent or empirical verification. They are in a sense
irrefutable. They are non-falsifiable, in Popper's terms. They can only
be taken on trust.
Karl Popper was Professor of Logic and Scientific Method at the London
School of Economics from 1949 -1969, and is perhaps best known for his
criterion of 'falsifiability'.
A statement of the form 'All crows are black' is a falsifiable
statement, because one properly authenticated observation of a white
crow is sufficient to show that the statement is false, despite any
number of observations of black crows. In other words, the statement is
capable of being disproved through empirical evidence, and can be
modified to a more appropriate form which includes the proviso 'except
for albino crows', or which changes 'all' to 'most'.
Popper criticised, for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution as being
non-falsifiable. It is incapable of being disproved. If a person or
organisation wished to test the theory, how could evidence be gathered?
The enquiring individual or organisation would have to have been around
for tens of millions of years, and to have invented language, proper
scientific trials, etc. Its not possible. Popper didn't say that
Darwin's theory was necessarily wrong, only that it was non-falsifiable.
An assertion of the form: 'Spiritual life begins when one realises that
one is not as aware as one could be' is a non-falsifiable assertion.
It is a one-way street. While any number of people within a group may
observe (or say that they believe) that they have become more aware
following the group's spiritual guidance, a person who questions this or
who observes (or believes) that they themselves have not become more
aware following the group's spiritual guidance, cannot establish this as
a valid observation, because it can easily be argued that this
'negative' observation results from that person's own deficiencies of
spiritual awareness or aptitude, and not from any deficiencies in the
group's spiritual guidance. A person can never actually disprove an
assertion that they are deficient in 'spiritual' awareness. How can they
refute or disprove such an assertion?
Many of these kinds of irrefutable (and ultimately insoluble)
paradoxical assertions (IPA's) used by various cults seem to pose a
question or challenge of the following general form:
If you are not free [or failing to live up to your true potential, etc.
etc.], because of your 'conditioning' [or insert equivalent IPA from
your favourite cult], what do you do about it? Do you:
(a). Give in and accept the situation?
or
(b). Try and break free?
You can of course refuse to answer the question. However, if your answer
is (b), then this implies some agreement with the assertion that you are
'conditioned' [or equivalent IPA]. To some degree, you have entered an
insoluble self-referential paradox and also a potential double bind.
The paradox is: how can you attempt to break free when any or all of
your thoughts and actions may be at least partly the result of
'conditioning' (or ego, or the influence of a malignant spirit, or
unconcious engrams, or some other IPA.)? If you decide on a course of
action on your own account, how do you know whether or not your decision
is partly or wholly the result of your unconscious 'conditioning', or in
other words whether you haven't simply been programmed to act in this
way and are not actually making a free decision at all. By its
paradoxical nature, this kind of question can never be satisfactorily
answered.
Except perhaps by zeno...?
>> "There are lots of myths about cults. Everyone's vulnerable."
>
>Again, I have to ask: If everyone's vulnerable, why do so few join?
Well, I posted a possible answer to your question earlier in this
thread, but you declined to respond. Over to you, zeno.
--
Mark Dunlop
zombiep...@hotmail.com
"Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> One, was I talking to *you*? No.
A duh... in case it escaped the notice of the capacity of that feeble mush
that you apparently have for a brain, you had a public post on USENET.
> Okay, that is settled right off we can
> move right on to the next issue at hand. What text are you quoting from,
> please in the future credit your source of information.
Try Websters dictionary. Though you really ought to review DSM IV. The term
"psychopathic personality" has been out of vogue for a signifcant period of
time. The correct medical term is "anti-social personality". Since you
started with incorrect terminology, it was apparent that you are a layperson.
A technical definition seemed inapproriate given the primary audience (YOU).
> There was no "line of reasoning". I was not in receipt of mail nor of phone
> messages. These people were told by this person that I was no longer
> interested in continuing a relationship with them. And since I did not have
> any disposable income, well, I was not in a position to make phone calls
> nor even mail a letter.
Ever hear of collect calling and public pay phones? You were unable to raise
the outrageous sum of 33 cents for a letter? Ever hear of running and hiding?
It's called "escaping". You were under armed guard 24 x 7?
> Oh, ya, forgot I made the choice of doing that all.
When you first got mixed up with this person, you certainly did. Unless of
course he captured you from your bed in the dark of night after drugging you
involuntarily into insensibility. Which I strongly suspect didn't happen- or
did it?
> You are correct I made the decision to stop talking to these people, I have
> a certain value on my life. Ironically, this appears to be the same value
> that cult members take too.
Fear for life? hmmm Last time I looked 911 was nationwide. Gets ALL kinds
of emergency services- and for free too!
> I'm not a door mat, but thanks for introducing such a lovely analogy to
> discredit me with.
Don't thank me- I am begining to believe you earned it.
> A person can not make a sound decision on faulty
> information.
No, but they can change their decisions as additional information becomes
availaible. It apparently took you a long time to accept this information
> Withholding of information (i.e. that the person never
> intended to stay married to me) is rather critical in a psychopathic
> personality to control their victims.
Ever here of critical evaluation of words and correlating it with actions?
> The word had nothing to do with what happened. Being lied to and deceived
> did. Again, another interesting connection to those that are involved in
> cults.
Cults usally don't consider their actions to being lying or deceit- rather
expressions of their perception of reality. YOU accepted that perception of
reality- just as YOU later rejected it.
> My, where did you learn to be such a jerk?
On what basis do you make that assertion? Because I don't accept your "story"
automatically and without question?
> plausible, and believable. On top of that "don't you trust me?", "don't you
> love me?" and "I would never do anything to harm you, how could you think
> that of me?" ... Again, this had nothing to do regarding *rationale* ... it
> was lies and deceit. The same exact tactics used in cults ... but with a
> much more personal one on one bent.
Not lies and deceit... words only to appeal to your emotions in attempt to
sway your thoughts. You obviously had doubts about the validity of the
person's actions and motives and expressed them- else why would he have used
such words? Yet you ignored your own internal assesment of the situation and
continued on! Your actions are illustrative of some psychological
vulnerabilities! Which is zeno_99's point exactly.
> And where do you get off even suggesting that I did not even ever blame
> myself? That I didn't find fault entirely with myself?
Easily... I see no indication of any responsibility acceptance in your
previous statements.
> Oh, I forget, that would not fit with what you wish others to believe of me
You're overestimating your importance Pamela...
> ... you don't know me but you sure are doing your damnedest to paint a
> picture of me to fit your profile of what you believe me to be about.
You as an individual... no, you're correct. You as a representative of a
class of individuals... yes.
Paint a picture of you? By simply pointing out your histrionics for what they
are? I'll let you do the work.
> Ah, so my mind wasn't working. That would be a nice easy explanation
> wouldn't it? I do believe that I have already stated that I accepted
> complete responsibility for what happened to me for a number of years.
Yes, it would. However what is apparent is that you mind was working! The
only problem was your total emotional rejection of what zeno_99 suggested-
you had psychological vulnerabilities which made you suspect to conversion.
> Meanwhile the person that has a tad bit of a psychopathic personality
> continued on with his destructive behaviors.
So?
> I love the medical diagnosis that you have come up for me.
Gee, thank's for the complement thinking I diagnosed your condition. I don't
recall making a medical diagnosis of your specific condition- just an
observation of your general condition. Its like seeing some one throw up.
You don't need to be a doctor to draw the conclusion that they are ill and
something is wrong with them.
> Guess that keeps you from having to really
> accept that there may be people out there that are normal in appearance
> (i.e. not the loony bin types that stare out from those newspaper stories
> having been labeled as psychopathic) that could destroy your life using
> control tactics and the like.
> Makes me wonder just what *you* are scared of.
>
People who seem unable to accept the fact their own psychological
vulnerabilities play an extremely significant role in their actions and
influence their lives. People who throw the entire blame onto an outside
agent for all the bad things that happen. People who seem unwilling to
accept any responsibility.
> Of course you have managed to find facts to fit your world view.
> Ironically, it is okay with you that there are a few that have risen to
> "positions of power" but that you can not accept that these very same types
> of people are walking around you every day.
I said it was "okay" that "psychopaths" like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot have
risen to positions of power? I said that these types of people didn't exist
in the general population? Pamela ,you REALLY should learn to read.
> Maybe they don't find you smart enough to be a challenge?
> Last I heard, psychopaths tend to only be
> interested in challenges ... guess you aren't a challenge?
Could be... but then I may be wrong. Others have said I can be self-
deprecating as to my own level of intellectual capability
> Heard this tactic used before. Sometimes life isn't simple. Go ahead, move
> on with your life and the simple explanations that you have. Given what you
> have provided me, you will never have the opportunity to meet a psychopath,
> oh wait, you apparently feel that you have. In a nice controlled
> environment though were *you* hold the key. Unfortunately you are not much
> of a challenge that way.
It is apparent that you have never been associated with "psychopaths" in a
clinical setting. In a clinical setting, it is the staff that is the
ultimate challenge to the "psychopath", and precisely for the reason that you
unknowingly have indicated. In the controlled environment the "psychopath"
has everything on the line- their continued freedom. The staff holds the
"key" to the "psychopaths" release from the ward. If the "psychopath" can't
influence the staff, they don't get additional privileges- much less get out
of the hospital.
> Oh really? I also wasn't directing this comment to *you*. Odd that you
> would feel so compelled to "jump in" and attempt to discredit me.
Really... Your histrionics to zeno_99's post were so compelling that I just
had too. My gosh- it was mind control!
> I was simply pointing out that there were some other positions/viewpoints
> that a person should consider.
Yes... And I was simply pointing out your position/viewpoint has some
significant problems associated with it.
> You come in defending something that you believe in, meanwhile attempting to
> discredit *me*. Doesn't say much about you IMO.
I submit it DOES say much about you. Your automtic presumption that you were
somehow being "discredited" by a challennge to your position suggest that you
still have some significant issues with self confidence.
> I have gone on with my life ... You on the other hand will most likely
> insist that I haven't.
Yes, as long as your actions are incongruent with your words.
> I was pointing out that life is not a nice neat
> package.
No... you were using an emotional appeal to find fault with zeno_99's
argument. Not pointing out life is a neat little package.
> You have taken personal offense to that. Fine, get over it and
> move on.
No.. it was your histrionics that were, and continue to be, offensive.
> Meanwhile, quit trying to make me out to be something I'm not.
And what is that?
> Thanks for the distraction <not>
Truer words were never spoken by one with a closed mind.
William Barwell
Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> (Anton Hein) wrote:
>>
*********************** DELETED *********************
>
>Popper criticised, for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution as being
>non-falsifiable. It is incapable of being disproved. If a person or
>organisation wished to test the theory, how could evidence be gathered?
>The enquiring individual or organisation would have to have been around
>for tens of millions of years, and to have invented language, proper
>scientific trials, etc. Its not possible. Popper didn't say that
>Darwin's theory was necessarily wrong, only that it was non-falsifiable.
the fact that indeed Evolution was in fact rather falsifiable.
It simply passed all tests. Popper later withdrew this rather
controversial claim after he was set right on the subject.
Creationists were for some time rather fond of quoting Popper,
without mentioning Popper later admitted he was wrong about evolution.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Mark
>Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Popper criticised, for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution as being
>>non-falsifiable. It is incapable of being disproved. If a person or
>>organisation wished to test the theory, how could evidence be gathered?
>>The enquiring individual or organisation would have to have been around
>>for tens of millions of years, and to have invented language, proper
>>scientific trials, etc. Its not possible. Popper didn't say that
>>Darwin's theory was necessarily wrong, only that it was non-falsifiable.
>
>the fact that indeed Evolution was in fact rather falsifiable.
>It simply passed all tests. Popper later withdrew this rather
>controversial claim after he was set right on the subject.
>
never heard of it before.
>Creationists were for some time rather fond of quoting Popper,
>without mentioning Popper later admitted he was wrong about evolution.
>
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
--
Mark Dunlop
Bernie
>In article <36982a69...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>
>> I wrote Rick regarding your comments, and he replied as follows (with his
>> permission to post his message to Usenet):
[snip]
>> But it is not helpful to engage in subtle forms of blaming the
>> victims for their own abuse. That is--that they are somehow responsible
>> for their own recruitment by being predisposed and especially
>> vulnerable.
>
>Since, as you say, most people do not join, what other rational explanation is
>there for those who *do* join except to say that they are more vulnerable? In
>the sense that they are--quite obviously--more vulnerable than those who don't
>join, they are clearly "to blame". (Though I wouldn't usually use the word
>"blame" because it sounds too punative.) I don't think there's anything to be
>gained by ex-cultists beating themselves up over having joined, but it's
>certainly not healthy for them to ignore the elements of their personalities
>that led them to join the cult in the first place.
Through newsgroup discussions over the years, this is a point that
came up often. When you say that cult members are responsible for
their involvement, ex-members interpreting their experience through
the anti-cult precepts (brainwashing by the evil cult) seem unable to
distinguish between responsibility and blame. This came up again
recently in the "shattered mind" thread where Rebecca Hartong had to
go at great length to develop what she meant by "responsibility".
The notion of responsibility came up initially in arguments on the
"mind-control" issue. The initial justification for Ted Patrick
forcible deprogramming was that there was no way cult members could
get out of the cult on their own free will, since this free will has
been annihilated by the cult. Although, for historical reasons, the
anti-cult movement has moved now to "exit counseling", the rational
has not fundamentally changed since the beginning, and discussions
with exit-counselor in the newsgroup have shown that they cannot
reconcile the contradiction of a *voluntary* exist counseling and the
fact that the member is not supposed to have the ability to make his
own decision in the matter any more.
The fact that all it takes to leave a cult is to stand up and walk out
makes the whole anti-cult framework crumble. In other words, in the
absence of physical coercion, it is the cult member who is ultimately
responsible for his involvement, simply because there is nothing
preventing him to say no and leave. Of course, there can be strong
influences and the circumstances may make it difficult for him to do
so, but the ultimate decision remains his - and it is in this sense
that he is "responsible" - not in any kind of blame or culpability.
Blame and culpability really doesn't enter at all in this perspective,
and the fact that certain ex-members seem unable to understand this
responsibility angle without immediately equating it with blame is a
good indication, IMO, that they adhere to the anti-cult interpretation
as a kind of justification rather than a realistic apprehension of
what truly happens.
Bernie
http://www.bernie.us-inc.com/mc.htm
(previous discussions on mind-control)
William Barwell
Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> writes
>>Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>non-falsifiable. It is incapable of being disproved. If a person or
>>>organisation wished to test the theory, how could evidence be gathered?
>>>The enquiring individual or organisation would have to have been around
>>>for tens of millions of years, and to have invented language, proper
>>>scientific trials, etc. Its not possible. Popper didn't say that
>>>Darwin's theory was necessarily wrong, only that it was non-falsifiable.
>>
>>the fact that indeed Evolution was in fact rather falsifiable.
>>It simply passed all tests. Popper later withdrew this rather
>>controversial claim after he was set right on the subject.
>>
>Do you have further details about Popper's withdrawal please? I have
>never heard of it before.
>
>>Creationists were for some time rather fond of quoting Popper,
>>without mentioning Popper later admitted he was wrong about evolution.
>>
Popper's works are scattered and hard to get ahold of without extensive
library work. I do not know if any websites anyweher might be dedicated
to Karl Popper's philosophy.
As time went on, Popper's whole slant on falsifiability shifted
as he learned more of how science really worked. It has been years since
I have read much of this and no longer have many of the materials I once
had.
It is all really a complex subject.
Rob Clark
[snip various inane babble]
>The fact that all it takes to leave a cult is to stand up and walk out
tell it to the jonestown dead.
also explain why the facility at "happy valley" has razor wire on the INSIDE!
or for that matter tell it to lisa mcpherson--oh, wait. she's DEAD. why not
try telling her family you fucker?
"3:15 P.M.
She is still talking, non stop. She TRIED to go out of the door."
[caps mine]
rob
Anton Hein
08 Jan 1999 13:09:33 GMT - wrote:
>While cults may use deceptive and manipulative tactics to recruit and retain
>members, these tactics are no different in quality or intensity than the
>tactics used by many other individuals and organizations we encounter in our
>daily lives. That most people successfully resist the tactics used by cults
>is clear evidence that the distinguishing characteristic of those who join
>is, in fact, a personal vulnerability to these tactics. It may be comforting
>for ex- cultists to tell themselves that were victims of unusually powerful
>and sinister mind-control tactics, but the evidence does not support this
>view.
Zeno,
I wonder whether you would divulge what your personal experience or
involvement with cults, ex-cult members, and/or the anti/counter-cult
movement is.
The reason I ask is that most of what you write strikes me as theory,
rather than experience.
Me, I have been involved in Christian apologetics and counter-cult
ministry for the past 25 years.
Anton
--
What Pro-Cult Apologists Don't Want You To Know:
http://www.xs4all.n./~ahein/c11.html
Anton Hein
who - on Sat, 09 Jan 1999 15:26:01 GMT - wrote:
>The fact that all it takes to leave a cult is to stand up and walk out
>makes the whole anti-cult framework crumble. In other words, in the
>absence of physical coercion, it is the cult member who is ultimately
>responsible for his involvement, simply because there is nothing
>preventing him to say no and leave. Of course, there can be strong
Experience shows that to be the kind of assessment cult apologists -
generally without any practical experience with cults and ex-cult members
at all - come up with.
Anton
--
What Pro-Cult Apologists Don't Want You To Know:
http://www.xs4all.n./~ahein/c11.html
zombiep...@hotmail.com
who - on Sat, 09 Jan 1999 15:26:01 GMT - wrote:
>>The fact that all it takes to leave a cult is to stand up and walk out
>>makes the whole anti-cult framework crumble. In other words, in the
>>absence of physical coercion, it is the cult member who is ultimately
>>responsible for his involvement, simply because there is nothing
>>preventing him to say no and leave. Of course, there can be strong
>Experience shows that to be the kind of assessment cult apologists -
>generally without any practical experience with cults and ex-cult members
>at all - come up with.
Gee Anton... where did you learn to think ( or do you think at all?)
You state Bernie's assessment is that of a cult apologist and suggest that he
is not in a position to make his observations due to a lack of first hand
experience with cults.
Bernie was a member of Scientology for a number of years. I think we all
agree Scientology is a cult. Therefore I hope we can all agree, that Bernie
has first hand experience with cults and ex cult members. Or are you going
to assert that Bernie has no experience with cults? Then, using your logic,
Scientology can not be a cult.
So who is the cult apologist then?
Why don't you just face the fact that Bernie's argument and assertion's
conflict with what ever passes for reality in that thing you call a mind and
call it quits before you paint yourself anyfurther into the corner as a idiot?
zombiep...@hotmail.com
Anton Hein's (ah...@xs2all.nl) reply to zen...@hotmail.com, who - on Fri,
08 Jan 1999 13:09:33 GMT - wrote:
>Zeno,
>I wonder whether you would divulge what your personal experience or
>involvement with cults, ex-cult members, and/or the anti/counter-cult
>movement is. The reason I ask is that most of what you write strikes me as
>theory,rather than experience.
Oh God.. here it comes. The never ending battle betwen theorists and
practitioners is about to rise it's ugly head. You, it appears, are of the
position that unless one is either a member of a cult, an ex-memeber of a
cult, or engaged in the daily anti/counter cult movement then one one can not
have any basis on which to speak, or the capability to present any sort of
logical, reasoned evaluation of the issues.
If your criteria had to met, that "practical experience" was necessary to
study, evaluate, comment and contribute on a subject, then people like Stephen
Hawking and Einstein in Physics, Bandura and Piaget in Psychology, Galileo and
daVinci in Engineering, or Von Neuman and Wills in Mathematics should never
have been listened to. I don't think so!
Are you one really one of those Luddites or iconoclasts we've all read so much
about?
>Me, I have been involved in Christian apologetics and counter-cult
>ministry for the past 25 years.
That's nice. I have friends who have been technicians for 25 years too, but
it doesn't mean that they are qualified to be engineers.
For that matter, how does being part of a ministry- which is an activity based
on faith, rather reason, make you any more qualifed observer than this zeno_99
person or this bernie person? How does it make you more capable of observing
and drawing unbiased conclusions on those observations? If any thing, it
doesn't- your emotional involvement- which is evident from your 25 years of
"ministry", could actual hinder your ability since you automatically come in
to the situation with a greater likelihood of preconceived notions of what is
correct.
I recommend you stick to answering the issues that Bernie and zeno_99 are
raisng ( that is if you have the intellectual capability and honesty to do so)
rather than wandering off onto red herrings as you are now.
zombiep...@hotmail.com
xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
> tell it to the jonestown dead.
> also explain why the facility at "happy valley" has razor wire on the INSIDE!
> or for that matter tell it to lisa mcpherson--oh, wait. she's DEAD. why not
> try telling her family you fucker?
> "3:15 P.M.
>
> She is still talking, non stop. She TRIED to go out of the door."
>
> [caps mine]
>
> rob
>
You're point being? Try explaining it- if you can- rather than leaving us all
in suspense. Or is carrying out an actual argumnent, rather than mindless
ravings and profanity beyond your limited capabilities? At least Pamela and
Anton, Bernie, Zeno_99 and Mark are making make honest attempts at civil
debate.
You, on the otherhand....
Go crawl back into whatever primordial sludge you came from until you and your
thought processes have evolved to the point at which they can exhibit higher
intellect than a planaria.
ZPL
Better living through modern chemistry!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Zeno Nine
is no longer accepting posts using my Zeno_99 name for some reason, so I have
had to resort to posting from AOL. Although I am now called Zeno Nine, rest
assured that I am the same person as Zeno_99.
That said, let me reply to Pamela Fitzpatrick's recent post. (The odd quoting
style I've employed on this reply is, again, due to my problem with Dejanews.
I apologize if it translates poorly.)
[Zeno wrote regarding cult members who must rebuild their lives after leaving
the cult]
>> Yes. That's all bad stuff. I've heard of people who have come out ofbad
>> marriages in much the same condition: they lost most of their assets,they
>> were psychologically and/or physically abused, they lost contact with all
>> their old friends and their family. It's a sad thing when it happens.But,
>> just as these abusive ex-spouses did not possess unusual powers ofpersuasion
>> and indoctrination, neither do cults. Some people--often those with
>> self-esteem problems--are simply more vulnerable than others.
Pamela wrote:
>I would suggest that you read up on psychopathic personalities before you
start making such broad analogies.<
As it happens I'm quite familiar with the characteristics of "psychopathic"
personalities. Familiar enough, even, to tell you that psychologists no longer
use the term "psychopath" in diagnosis. The preferred term these days is
"anti-social personality disorder."
Your bad marriage is certainly unfortunate and you have my sympathies. I'm
curious, though, how you've come to the determination that your ex-husband was
"psychopathic." Has he been diagnosed as such by a qualified mental health
professional? Or is this just your own characterization of his behavior? If
so, what are your qualifications for making that diagnosis?
>I did not "lose" contact with old
friends and family, I was forced to cut those ties.<
How so? I'm presuming you were locked in a room and physically prevented from
having any contact with the outside world. If so, that certainly would be
characteristic of an anti-social personality disorder. Nevertheless, the
majority of bad marriages--marriages where one or both partners engage in
manipulative or even abusive behavior--do not involve "psychopathic" behavior.
>I did not willingly
lose my assets, I was persuaded that we were getting married now so my
"inferior" items were no longer needed (by the way, this was done *before*
the marriage so I didn't have the community property laws to protect me).<
While persuasion to commit unwise acts is certainly not very nice, it's not
characteristic of anti-social personality disorder. A "psychopath" would be
more likely to hold a gun to your head. And, contrary to your claim, if you
were persuaded to lose your assets then you did--in fact--do so willingly.
Certainly, in retrospect, you may wish you had not been so easily persuaded.
>Once you read up on psychopathic personalities I think that you will find
that your argument regarding these people not possessing "unusual" powers
of persuasion will fall apart.<
As I've already indicated, I'm quite familiar with what constitutes a
"psychopathic" personality. You haven't provided any evidence in your post
that the person you were married to was, indeed, "psychopathic." It appears,
rather, that you are using the term as a mere insult-- much as one might use
the term "imbecile" to describe someone whom one finds foolish.
>Unless you are going to come back with some
slick response that I had self-esteem problems or was "simply" more
vulnerable.<
I can only assume that was the case. Unless you were physically prevented from
contacting the outside world or were physically coerced to sell all your
possessions (which, from your description, doesn't appear to have been the
case) it would seem that you were simply persuaded to engage in activities
which--while they seemed like the right thing to do at the time--turned out to
have been a mistake.
>Ironically though, you are using a lot of the same "lines" used in the
"group" that I briefly was part of ... that my life wasn't working is why
everything was happening to me like it was.<
I'm a bit confused... what group? I thought you were talking about an
ex-spouse!
Regardless. There's certainly some merit to the idea that if bad things keep
happening to you, your life isn't working very well. (This is, of course, not
meant to imply that people should blame themselves for being the victim of
crime or of disease.)
> Not once was *his* behavior
questioned as being destructive to my wellbeing. Ironically, he had the
money too for all the classes and time for the volunteering. Um,interesting.<
Okay, I think I'm understanding you now. You were married to a person who
happened to be a member of a "group" of some sort. Is that right? I'm
curious: were you married before you became a member of the group? Or did you
both join after the marriage? Did one of you recruit the other into the group?
Zeno wrote:
>> While cults may use deceptive and manipulative tactics to recruit and retain
>> members, these tactics are no different in quality or intensity than the
>> tactics used by many other individuals and organizations we encounter inour
>> daily lives. That most people successfully resist the tactics used bycults
>> is clear evidence that the distinguishing characteristic of those whojoin
>> is, in fact, a personal vulnerability to these tactics. It may becomforting
>> for ex- cultists to tell themselves that were victims of unusuallypowerful
>> and sinister mind-control tactics, but the evidence does not support this
>> view.
>Once you read up on psychopathic personalities ...<
You might wish to do the same. What characteristics of anti-social personality
disorder did your ex-husband display?
>I would garner a guess
that maybe you will look at the leadership of these groups a bit
differently.<
There are some cult leaders who would certainly qualify as "psychopaths."
Charles Manson is the obvious example. Most cult leaders, though, are
considerably less sinister--and, consequently, considerably more successful
They're simply skilled at persuasion and at manipulation of others. These
skills are not symptoms of mental illness. In their more benign use, they are
the skills that make for great salesmen and politicians.
>And that I would hope you would stop using your "relationship"
analogy along with your arguments about destructive groups only hurting
those that have self-esteem problems and such.<
I believe the "bad relationship" analogy is a very good one. Your own example
of a bad marriage seems, to me, to confirm that. As for destructive groups
only hurting those that have self-esteem problems... this is an argument I
haven't made. I have suggested that people with self-esteem problems are
probably more likely to join cults. I have also suggested that the same
self-esteem problems that might make a person more vulnerable to cult
recruitment may continue to create problems for a person after they leave a
cult. I don't think that's a terribly controversial position to take!
>I also sincerely hope that you never encounter this type of personality,
but usually that is what it takes for someone of your convictions to
realize that you have been very wrong about your judgements of people.<
I'm not at all certain what type of personality it is you're talking about,
Pamela. You've referred to your ex-husband as "psychopathic" but you haven't
provided evidence that he displayed any of the usual symptoms of anti-social
personality disorder. (For example, did he torture and kill neighborhood
animals when he was young? Does he have a criminal record of any kind?)
Thankfully, I haven't met any "psychopaths" as far as I know. I have met and
spent quite a bit of time with several people diagnosed with schizophrenia.
(Most of them aren't nearly as scary as the stuff on TV makes them seem, by the
way.) I've also known quite a few people with other mental illnesses. I've
found that the trick to understanding these folks is to see through the illness
to the vulnerable human being inside. But I suspect this isn't really the kind
of thing you're talking about. It seems to me that what you're describing is
just your run-of-the-mill manipulative asshole type of person. I've met my
share of this sort, too, as it happens. Sometimes they're people who want to
get into a personal relationship with you. Sometimes they're people who want
to sell you something. Most of us are at least somewhat prepared for this
manipulative type of behavior when we are dealing with, say, a car salesman.
When it appears in a personal relationship, though, or in a religious or
"therapeutic" kind of relationship it can be quite disconcerting. It's not
that these people possess unusual powers-- it's that some people are very
unprepared to confront this kind of behavior in such an unusual context.
>I hope that you continue to enjoy your blissful unawareness at others
expense.<
I am quite aware of the problem. That I don't agree with you about its nature
is not evidence of ignorance. Either way, though, I fail to see how it could
be "at others expense." I didn't cause your difficulties, Pamela. I am not
collaborating with your ex-husband to make your life miserable.
>The pain these type of people inflict on their victims is nothing
I would wish on a person.<
I certainly don't wish it on anyone, either. Just because I disagree with you
about the nature of the problem doesn't mean I'm denying that there IS a
problem. I have no doubt that some ex-cultists have terrible problems
readjusting to the "real world."
****************
Zeno Nine zeno ni...@aol.com
"There are many weak and stupid people... but that's why we have wolves and
other large predators."
Zeno Nine
>involvement with cults, ex-cult members, and/or the anti/counter-cult
>movement is.
I have been actively involved in the study of cults, the psychology of
conversion, and anti/counter-cult organizations and individuals for
approximately 6 years.
>The reason I ask is that most of what you write strikes me as theory,
>rather than experience.
It is theory based upon sound evidence. Personal experience is seldom
necessary for understanding much of what we encounter in the world. Indeed,
most of the psychological and social sciences are based not upon personal
experience but upon observation and experimentation. These are methods that
have proved their value many, many times.
>Me, I have been involved in Christian apologetics and counter-cult
>ministry for the past 25 years.
So you may have something of a psychological and, perhaps, professional stake
in maintaining your current mindset, no?
It's a danger we all need to be wary of. It's very easy to lose ones
objectivity.
Zeno Nine
>following paradox, please?
I don't believe that this is a paradox, but I will endeavor to apply my
critical thinking skills to it nonetheless.
>Different destructive cults each tend to have their own characteristic
>set of key words and assertions which they will use to criticise and
>undermine an aspirant's reliance on their own reasoning ability and
>judgement.
This is true not only of "destructive cults" but also of mainstream groups. In
Roman Catholicism, for example, there are techniques for combatting doubt and
loss of religious faith (the Dark Night Of The Soul.) Mary Kay Cosmetics and
Avon salespeople receive training on how to keep their enthusiasm high even
when sales are low. It's fair to say that just about *any* group endeavor
involves subtle (and not so subtle) influences on behavior and thought.
>In a Christian based cult such as the Moonies, for example,
>doubts or reservations which a student may have about aspects of the
>group's teaching, may be blamed on Satan or a spirit putting evil
>thoughts into the student's mind in order to try and prevent them from
>reaching towards God.
The Moonies aren't the only Christians who take this approach. It's common
among conservative religious groups. Doubt is the work of the devil!
>In Scientology, to take another example, such
>doubts or reservations may be ascribed to the influence of 'engrams',
>unconscious conditionings from past lives which block the student's
>energy and prevent them from reaching their full potential.
Yes.
>The key point is that, logically, these kinds of paradoxical assertions
>(and potential double binds) can neither be proved nor disproved,
They don't need to be logically proved or disproved. They are accepted (if
they're accepted) as matters of faith. This is not a paradox.
>and
>therefore they are insoluble and impenetrable. By their nature, and
>because their proof or disproof rests on a (hypothetical) level of
>'spiritual insight' (or some equivalent concept) which is only
>accessible to spiritually advanced people, these assertions cannot be
>subject to independent or empirical verification. They are in a sense
>irrefutable. They are non-falsifiable, in Popper's terms. They can only
>be taken on trust.
Right. Such is the nature of all religion, wouldn't you agree?
(snipped discussion of Popper and the theory of evolution as it doesn't appear
to be relevant to this discussion--religious claims, based as they are on faith
and not on reason, are not subject to the same demands made of scientific
theories)
>It is a one-way street. While any number of people within a group may
>observe (or say that they believe) that they have become more aware
>following the group's spiritual guidance, a person who questions this or
>who observes (or believes) that they themselves have not become more
>aware following the group's spiritual guidance, cannot establish this as
>a valid observation,
Of course they can. "Spiritual awareness" is entirely subjective. Anyone who
tells you different is lying to you.
>because it can easily be argued that this
>'negative' observation results from that person's own deficiencies of
>spiritual awareness or aptitude, and not from any deficiencies in the
>group's spiritual guidance.
Sure. That argument can be made. But it is entirely up to the individual to
decide for himself whether this might be true. The "proof" of spirituality
(such as it is) is in the individual's own subjective experience.
> A person can never actually disprove an
>assertion that they are deficient in 'spiritual' awareness.
The only proof required is the individual's assertion that such claims are
false. Your error is in believing that anything additional is required. Since
spirituality is entirely subjective, the only "proof" required is the subjects
experience.
> How can they
>refute or disprove such an assertion?
See above. A person in this kind of situation needs, above all, to realize
that spirituality is entirely subjective and is based on individual faith. As
such, no "proof" or refutation is required. Anyone who tells you different is
simply trying to manipulate you. (I suspect this is a bit of advice you could
have used at some point in your life. Am I right?)
>Many of these kinds of irrefutable (and ultimately insoluble)
>paradoxical assertions (IPA's)
Since religious/spiritual matters are not subject to the same kinds of proofs
and refutations to which scientific theories are subject, there is no paradox
here.
> used by various cults seem to pose a
>question or challenge of the following general form:
>
>If you are not free [or failing to live up to your true potential, etc.
>etc.], because of your 'conditioning' [or insert equivalent IPA from
>your favourite cult], what do you do about it? Do you:
>
>(a). Give in and accept the situation?
> or
>(b). Try and break free?
How about...
(c). You realize that people sometimes try to manipulate you into behaving as
though spirituality were something that could be subjectively measured. You
realize the absurdity of this position and choose to either,
(1) continue your personal spiritual journey within the organization, rejecting
these absurd notions as you encounter them, or (2) continue your personal
spiritual journey outside the organization.
>The paradox is: how can you attempt to break free when any or all of
>your thoughts and actions may be at least partly the result of
>'conditioning' (or ego, or the influence of a malignant spirit, or
>unconcious engrams, or some other IPA.)?
This is not a paradox. Everyone is being influenced by their social
interactions (in all their various forms) all the time. We're *all* being
"conditioned" in one way or another. In fact, at any time--regardless of what
groups we have or haven't been members of--a huge part of our identities is
based upon this "conditioning."
> If you decide on a course of
>action on your own account, how do you know whether or not your decision
>is partly or wholly the result of your unconscious 'conditioning', or in
>other words whether you haven't simply been programmed to act in this
>way and are not actually making a free decision at all.
There's considerable debate as to whether any of us EVER make completely "free"
decisions. We're ALL influenced by the people with whom we interact. It's
likely that none of us can ever know exactly how much of what we do (and are)
is influenced by others. At various points in our lives all of us are faced
with difficult decisions about what we ought to do. Sometimes we choose
poorly. In most cases, though, those poor choices are eventually opportunites
for us to learn about ourselves and about the world in which we live. As we
mature, we find ourselves making fewer and fewer of the really poor choices.
This is the way all of us live, Mark. It's not peculiar to cult members.
> By its
>paradoxical nature, this kind of question can never be satisfactorily
>answered.
>
>Except perhaps by zeno...?
I hope I've been able to persuade you that your "paradox" is, in fact, not a
paradox at all. Since spirituality is entirely subjective and based on faith,
it is not subject to the same stringent requirements of proof and
falsifiability to which scientific theories must be held. All of us, at
various points in our lives, are called upon to make difficult decisions. All
of us are influenced by those with whom we spend time and we can never be sure
how much of what we think or do is a result of those influences. The only sure
test that any of us have as to whether our decisions are sound is-- time.
>>> "There are lots of myths about cults. Everyone's vulnerable."
>>
>>Again, I have to ask: If everyone's vulnerable, why do so few join?
>
>Well, I posted a possible answer to your question earlier in this
>thread, but you declined to respond. Over to you, zeno.
I saw that your response included several references to "mind control" and, I
have to admit, my "kook alarm" went off. As you've probably deduced by now, I
don't have much confidence in the "cult mind control" theory and, consequently,
I don't find it to be a very satisfying explanation foranything having to do
with cult membership. Rather than rip into you over "mind control" I thought
it best to simply ignore your post.
After all, everyone's entitled to an opinion. ;-)
Mark
> In article <Axlc2.2917$c4.1...@news6.ispnews.com>, "Dan Parker"
> <dpa...@intrstar.net> wrote:
>
> >A civil war is upon us, and I most certainly do look forward to it, now that
> >it's unavoidable.
>
> Funny. I don't see a civil war going on. The closest thing to it that I
> see are a few deluded souls who think that they're going to be able to
> infect the rest of the country with their hatred of Jews and non-whites.
>
> >And, believe me, I do look with forward with great joy to
> >destroying the enemies of my people.
>
> And who, exactly, pray tell are these "enemies" of "your people"? I have
> gathered from your anti-Semitic ravings that Jews would be one of your
> enemies, but who else?
>
> Another thing: just who, exactly, are "your people"?
>
> >That is not murder. That is war. In
> >war, people kill and are killed. That is not murder. Yes, we most certainly
> >are prepared to kill you for our beliefs, our values, our people, our
> >nation.
>
> Pardon me while I quake in my boots with fear. :-)
>
> OK, I'm done quaking.
>
> Your justification of killing in the name of an ideology is noted. This
> justification destroys any claim you might try to make for the moral high
> ground.
>
> >You insidious SunTzuists haven't had to pay for the great damage
> >you've already inflicted upon us. But you will. As I've said before, quoting
> >someone else, White Nationalists will pray only for victory and not an end
> >to the slaughter.
>
> In the unlikely event that such a civil war ever does come, you'd better
> pray for an end to the slaughter, because if you idiots take up arms
> against the United States, it'll be you getting slaughtered.
>
> BTW, just what the hell is a "SunTzuist"?
========================================
Phillips
Sun Tzu was a Chinese sage who wrote a masterful treatise on the art of war. I am
told it is required reading in certain military academies.
=================================
>
>
> --
> ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
> TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
> Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC
Rob Clark
>In article <778914$cmf$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>> tell it to the jonestown dead.
>> also explain why the facility at "happy valley" has razor wire on the INSIDE!
>> or for that matter tell it to lisa mcpherson--oh, wait. she's DEAD. why not
>> try telling her family you fucker?
>> "3:15 P.M.
>> She is still talking, non stop. She TRIED to go out of the door."
>> [caps mine]
>You're point being? Try explaining it- if you can- rather than leaving us all
if yer too friggin stupid to get it, i won't bother.
nobody else has seemed to have your regrettable reading comprehension problem.
rob
John Dorsay [KoX]
Bernie, I wasted bandwidth quoting your gibberish above so you don't fling
accusations of being quoted out of context.
>
> The fact that all it takes to leave a cult is to stand up and walk out
> makes the whole anti-cult framework crumble. In other words, in the
> absence of physical coercion, it is the cult member who is ultimately
> responsible for his involvement, simply because there is nothing
> preventing him to say no and leave.
Is there no spouse abuse in Belgium? How many abused wives are physically
prevented from leaving the abusive relationship? (That was a rhetorical
question, Bernie. The answer is "few if any"). Yet many of those spouses who
are *not* restrained, still stay. Why would that be, do you suppose?
> Of course, there can be strong
> influences and the circumstances may make it difficult for him to do
> so,
Good for you Bernie. That's absolutely correct. Now word clear "coercion".
> but the ultimate decision remains his - and it is in this sense
> that he is "responsible"
NO!!!! You have defined a coercive relationship. The person/cult/whatever
responsible for creating and perpetuating those strong influences and
circumstances is coercive, and therefore responsible to the extent that the
coercion influences the "choice" of the coerced. Do you really not understand
that the stronger the influences and circumstances, the stronger the coercion?
The stronger the coercion, the more responsibility lies with the coercer, and
the *less* responsibility lies with the coerced (also known, in the case of an
abusive relationship with a spouse/cult/whatever, as the "victim")?
> - not in any kind of blame or culpability.
Bernie, how do you figure one can be responsible but not culpable for his
actions? (That was also a rhetorical question Bernie. He can't be.)
> Blame and culpability really doesn't enter at all in this perspective,
> and the fact that certain ex-members seem unable to understand this
> responsibility angle without immediately equating it with blame is a
> good indication, IMO, that they adhere to the anti-cult interpretation
> as a kind of justification rather than a realistic apprehension of
> what truly happens.
Back to the antianticultcultcult, I see. Have fun.
>
> Bernie
> http://www.bernie.us-inc.com/mc.htm
> (previous discussions on mind-control)
>
>
Regards, John
--
Censored by $cientology since 1998/03/13 and pulled back into ars by Bernie.
Again.
James J. Lippard
Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> writes
>>Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>non-falsifiable. It is incapable of being disproved. If a person or
>>>organisation wished to test the theory, how could evidence be gathered?
>>>The enquiring individual or organisation would have to have been around
>>>for tens of millions of years, and to have invented language, proper
>>>scientific trials, etc. Its not possible. Popper didn't say that
>>>Darwin's theory was necessarily wrong, only that it was non-falsifiable.
>>
>>the fact that indeed Evolution was in fact rather falsifiable.
>>It simply passed all tests. Popper later withdrew this rather
>>controversial claim after he was set right on the subject.
>>
>Do you have further details about Popper's withdrawal please? I have
>never heard of it before.
Check out:
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/popper.html
which is a talk.origins article I posted on the subject in 1994.
The key quotations from Popper in this article are:
The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult
to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some
great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. ... I
mention this because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced
by what these authorities say, I have in the past described
the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to
explain how the theory of natural selection could be
untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific
interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural
selection is a most successful metaphysical research
programme. ...
I have changed my mind about the testability and logical
status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to
have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...
The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that
it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only
testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally
true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological
theories; and considering the random character of the variations
on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of
exceptions is not surprising. (Popper, "Natural Selection and
the Emergence of Mind," _Dialectica_ 32(1978):339-355; quotations
are from pp. 344-346)
And Popper also wrote:
It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific
character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or
the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake,
and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences
have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in
many cases be tested. (Popper, Letter to _New Scientist_,
87(1981):611)
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com discord.org ediacara.org)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
Anton Hein
Nine), who - on 9 Jan 1999 21:26:04 GMT - wrote:
>I have been actively involved in the study of cults, the psychology of
>conversion, and anti/counter-cult organizations and individuals for
>approximately 6 years.
Do you have any actual experiences in these areas, or do you only actively
study them?
>>The reason I ask is that most of what you write strikes me as theory,
>>rather than experience.
>
>It is theory based upon sound evidence. Personal experience is seldom
>necessary for understanding much of what we encounter in the world. Indeed,
>most of the psychological and social sciences are based not upon personal
>experience but upon observation and experimentation. These are methods that
>have proved their value many, many times.
One can learn to speak Dutch by studying a stack of books like "Dutch in
40 Days," or "Speak Dutch Now." Try it on a Dutchman, though, and you'll
likely be answered in your own language.
There's no substitute for hands-on experience (I liked driving a Nissan
Maxima better than reading all about it in the brochures).
I am not discounting the value of the kind of study you describe. Theory
based upon sound evidence is helpful. But I'd rather judge a meal by
tasting it instead of by merely studying the menu.
Theory and experience go hand-in-hand. They ought to balance out.
>>Me, I have been involved in Christian apologetics and counter-cult
>>ministry for the past 25 years.
>
>So you may have something of a psychological and, perhaps, professional stake
>in maintaining your current mindset, no?
No.
I think a professional approach to these issues includes taking into
account real-life, hands-on experiences. I can reject the theories of
academics who do seem stuck in their mindsets precisely because their
theories don't match reality.
The alternative would be to reject the hundreds upon hundreds of
testimonies I have heard from people with a wide variety of backgrounds,
and who were involved in a wide variety of movements.
Incidentaly, I'm on disability pay and am not employed by any
organization, church or movement. Thus I have no financial stake in these
matters eithers.
>It's a danger we all need to be wary of. It's very easy to lose ones
>objectivity.
True. In fact, I think many academics involved in the study of religion
and/or the defense of cults have lost their objectivity.
Anton
--
CMR's Apologetics Index: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/apologetics.html
Apologetics and Counter-Cult Resources for Research and Ministry
Anton Hein
on Sat, 09 Jan 1999 21:27:46 GMT - wrote:
>Gee Anton... where did you learn to think ( or do you think at all?)
If you have to ask where people learned to think, or whether they think at
all, perhaps participating in a conversation is a little too overwhelming
for you...
>You state Bernie's assessment is that of a cult apologist and suggest that he
>is not in a position to make his observations due to a lack of first hand
>experience with cults.
>
>Bernie was a member of Scientology for a number of years. I think we all
>agree Scientology is a cult. Therefore I hope we can all agree, that Bernie
>has first hand experience with cults and ex cult members. Or are you going
>to assert that Bernie has no experience with cults? Then, using your logic,
>Scientology can not be a cult.
I said:
Experience shows that to be the kind of assessment cult apologists -
generally without any practical experience with cults and ex-cult
members at all - come up with.
"kind of assessment" and "generally" qualify the statement.
I am aware of who Bernie is, and have downloaded and read a large portion
of his site. He is certainly not the only ex-cult member who has
expressed such a dichotomy of feelings and viewpoints. (I know of several
people who have left one or more cults only to join others, and who have
expressed similar sentiments). I think I understand where he is coming
from, and do agree with him on some points.
However, my one-sentence statement was in response to the few lines of his
message that I quoted. Here's why: I have worked with many people who -
for a variety of reasons - were unable to leave the cults they were
involved with. These included a few people who were physically
restrained. Others, who were seeming free to go, remained with their
groups because a) they had no money to flee or a place to go, or b) they
felt they owed the group and/or leaders, or c) they were kept in financial
bondage (work off your ever-increasing debt and you're free to go), or d)
they believed certain threats ("you'll go to hell", "God will kill you"),
etcetera.
There are mental and spiritual bonds that are far more effective than
physical coercion when it comes to keeping a person with an organization.
That said, this is not true for everyone, or for every cult. Person A may
be able to walk in and out of Cult 1 without any problems, while person B
will feel compelled to stay. It may be the other way around with Cult 2.
In other words, cults differ in how they operate (e.g. how they influence
people to join and/or stay), and people differ in how they respond to
coercion if and when confronted with it.
Keep in mind, too, that there is a marked difference in having been a
member of a cult, and having many years of hands-on experience working
with members and ex-members of cults, fringe movements and abusive
churches. I speak from the latter perspective.
>So who is the cult apologist then?
>
>
>Why don't you just face the fact that Bernie's argument and assertion's
>conflict with what ever passes for reality in that thing you call a mind and
>call it quits before you paint yourself anyfurther into the corner as a idiot?
There you go again... When I see that kind of stuff on my screen I look
up at the framed New Yorker cartoon above my desk - the famous one, where
a dog, sitting at the keyboard, turns to another dog and says "On the
Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Let's keep it that way.
zombiep...@hotmail.com
xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
> if yer too friggin stupid to get it, i won't bother.
>
> nobody else has seemed to have your regrettable reading comprehension problem.
>
> rob
>
Ah Rob...
Nice to see that you DO have all the charm and intellectual capability of a
toe fungus!
If you will make the effort to try and explain the gibbersh you orginally
posted to Bernie, I will make every effort to see if I can decrypt your rather
inane bablings for indications of intellgent thought.
Don't worry about ME being to stupid to understand!
While it is true I don't have much experience in dealing with lower
invertebrate lifeforms such as yourself, I do have access to numerous research
associates who have spent years studying what passes for communications in
lifeforms like you. They assure me that with a bit of work and some luck, that
there actually may be some way to be able make sense and understanding of
whatever you decide to spew forth.
Do the scientific community a favor, and try. We're willing to make the
effort, are you?
ZPL
Better living through modern chemistry!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Bernie
>Anton Hein's (ah...@xs2all.nl) reply to ma...@bernie.us-inc.com (Bernie),
>who - on Sat, 09 Jan 1999 15:26:01 GMT - wrote:
>
>>The fact that all it takes to leave a cult is to stand up and walk out
>>makes the whole anti-cult framework crumble. In other words, in the
>>absence of physical coercion, it is the cult member who is ultimately
>>responsible for his involvement, simply because there is nothing
>>preventing him to say no and leave. Of course, there can be strong
>
>Experience shows that to be the kind of assessment cult apologists -
>generally without any practical experience with cults and ex-cult members
>at all - come up with.
Many "cult apologists" happens to be scholars with quite an extensive
experience with "cults", "cult members", and "ex-cult members" - Hell,
they even conducted studies about it and wrote quite a few books on
the subject.
As for me, I speak from my own experience of five years on Scientology
staff. The day I decided to leave, I did just that, and there wasn't
any kind of physical restrain exerted at all. Even better, I didn't
just took my things and go away, I *told* them that I wanted to leave
and asked to follow the "proper lines" for it - which was what
happened, without any kind of physical restrain whatsoever apart from
the "normal" attempt to try to persuade me otherwise. I don't call
this "coercion", because the term is misleading and hints at physical
coercion. None of my friends who left the movement reported any
physical coercion either, nor have I ever seen it during my time in
the group.
The truth is simply that, in Scientology at least, all it takes for
one to leave the movement is basically to wrap his things and step out
- and that makes it an individual decision and makes the member
responsible for his involvement.
This doesn't mean of course that he is responsible for *everything*
that happens to him during his stay in the group, but the basic
decision certainly is his, which is the key point when discussing
cults and mind-control.
Zeno Nine
> Anton Hein's (ah...@xs2all.nl) reply to zeno...@aol.comNOSPAM (Zeno
> Nine), who - on 9 Jan 1999 21:26:04 GMT - wrote:
>
> >I have been actively involved in the study of cults, the psychology of
> >conversion, and anti/counter-cult organizations and individuals for
> >approximately 6 years.
>
> Do you have any actual experiences in these areas, or do you only actively
> study them?
Are you asking whether I've ever been a cult member or if I am in the business
of counseling ex-cultists? The answer to that is no.
> One can learn to speak Dutch by studying a stack of books like "Dutch in
> 40 Days," or "Speak Dutch Now." Try it on a Dutchman, though, and you'll
> likely be answered in your own language.
Of course, understanding the psychology of cult membership has little in common
with learning to speak Dutch.
> There's no substitute for hands-on experience (I liked driving a Nissan
> Maxima better than reading all about it in the brochures).
I shudder to think, then, how you might go about understanding things like
heroin use, spree killing, or necrophilia. The idea that one needs to
experience that which one would study is often mistaken. Certainly, I'd be
better off actually getting out on the slopes if I wanted to learn about
skiing. It's not, however, necessary to become a child pornographer myself in
order to understand the dynamics of child pornography.
> I am not discounting the value of the kind of study you describe. Theory
> based upon sound evidence is helpful. But I'd rather judge a meal by
> tasting it instead of by merely studying the menu.
The psychology of cult membership has little in common with tasting a meal.
> Theory and experience go hand-in-hand. They ought to balance out.
As explained above, personal experience is unnecessary for a good understanding
of many psychological phenomena.
> >>Me, I have been involved in Christian apologetics and counter-cult
> >>ministry for the past 25 years.
> >
> >So you may have something of a psychological and, perhaps, professional
stake
> >in maintaining your current mindset, no?
>
> No.
That's good news!
> I think a professional approach to these issues includes taking into
> account real-life, hands-on experiences. I can reject the theories of
> academics who do seem stuck in their mindsets precisely because their
> theories don't match reality.
It sounds as though you're drawing your conclusions about reality from
anecdotal evidence. As a professional, you ought to know how unreliable
anecdotes are for a complete understanding of anything.
> The alternative would be to reject the hundreds upon hundreds of
> testimonies I have heard from people with a wide variety of backgrounds,
> and who were involved in a wide variety of movements.
I think there are other alternatives beyond rejection. For example, one can
take into account the purely subjective nature of anecdotes gleaned from
ex-cult members. Ex-cult members who are, most likely, a self-selected group
of people who are discussing their cult membership with you specifically
because they had unpleasant experiences.
> Incidentaly, I'm on disability pay and am not employed by any
> organization, church or movement. Thus I have no financial stake in these
> matters eithers.
I'm confused, then, by your comment "as a professional." Are you not a
professional in this field? You wrote that you're involved in the
"counter-cult ministry." What exactly does that consist of? Do you have
formal training in psychology? Or are you a representative of a religious
group?
> >It's a danger we all need to be wary of. It's very easy to lose ones
> >objectivity.
>
> True. In fact, I think many academics involved in the study of religion
> and/or the defense of cults have lost their objectivity.
We must disagree.
Anton Hein
>Many "cult apologists" happens to be scholars with quite an extensive
>experience with "cults", "cult members", and "ex-cult members" - Hell,
>they even conducted studies about it and wrote quite a few books on
>the subject.
I know. I've read them. Owned many of those books as well - before the
USPO lost my library when I shipped it to Holland. Thing is, many
scholars write from within the confines of ivory towers and end up
discussing theory rather than reality. While they make a point here and
there, they have no real message or answers for people at the front lines.
When confronted with facts, many of these scholars then resort to such
tactics as accusing apostates of lying. Many ivory towers lean more more
than the tower of Pisa.
>As for me, I speak from my own experience of five years on Scientology
>staff. The day I decided to leave, I did just that, and there wasn't
>any kind of physical restrain exerted at all. Even better, I didn't
>just took my things and go away, I *told* them that I wanted to leave
>and asked to follow the "proper lines" for it - which was what
>happened, without any kind of physical restrain whatsoever apart from
>the "normal" attempt to try to persuade me otherwise. I don't call
>this "coercion", because the term is misleading and hints at physical
>coercion. None of my friends who left the movement reported any
>physical coercion either, nor have I ever seen it during my time in
>the group.
Your experience is not at all uncommon where Scientology is concerned.
But experiences with one cult can not be held as normative for other
people's experiences with other cults.
Your message gave me the impression that your comments covered more than
just Scientology (I am following this particular discussion in a.s.e-c).
>The truth is simply that, in Scientology at least, all it takes for
>one to leave the movement is basically to wrap his things and step out
>- and that makes it an individual decision and makes the member
>responsible for his involvement.
Seen from the perspective of your experience, yes. (Incidentally, many
ex-cult members talk about the "lost years." Wouldn't it have been nice
if you'd had enough information about Scientology to never get in, or once
in to get out a lot earlier than after five years?)
That said, I have talked with Scientologists and ex-Scientologists who,
while not physically restrained, reported they felt compelled to stay
within the movement. The reasons were varied. I remember one person who
felt he had invested too much to get out. Like an addicted gambler who
thinks the next will finally make him rich this guy fell for the carrot
that was held out to him. For many people getting up and walking out of a
cult is as hard as given up cigarettes.
>This doesn't mean of course that he is responsible for *everything*
>that happens to him during his stay in the group, but the basic
>decision certainly is his, which is the key point when discussing
>cults and mind-control.
Again, this is more easily done in some cults than in others. This is why
I find exit counseling so important. Like you, I disagree with
deprogramming. In your earlier message you say:
The notion of responsibility came up initially in arguments on the
"mind-control" issue. The initial justification for Ted Patrick
forcible deprogramming was that there was no way cult members could
get out of the cult on their own free will, since this free will has
been annihilated by the cult. Although, for historical reasons, the
anti-cult movement has moved now to "exit counseling", the rational
has not fundamentally changed since the beginning, and discussions
with exit-counselor in the newsgroup have shown that they cannot
reconcile the contradiction of a *voluntary* exist counseling and the
fact that the member is not supposed to have the ability to make his
own decision in the matter any more.
What gets me is that the anti- and counter-cult movements are collectively
blamed for deprogramming despite the fact that most involved in these
movements have never supported, condoned or engaged in it. The argument
is as silly as trying to blame German teenagers for World War II.
Even those who have been involved with deprogramming have learned - and
others have learned from their mistakes. See, for example:
From Deprogramming to Thought Reform Consultation
http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studyintervention/study_deprog_threfrmconsult.htm
and subscribe to Ethical Standards for Thought Reform Consultants:
http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studyintervention/study_ethicalstn.htm
I understand your argument that the very use of voluntary Exit Counseling
contradicts the contention that some members do not have the ability to
make their own decisions about leaving. However, that's a non sequitur.
The very purpose of all counseling is to help someone make his own
decisions. This is done by showing the person alternatives, helping her
see her situation from different perspectives, providing information she
may not have been aware of, making sure she discovers (or rediscovers) the
tools necessary to make wise, informed decisions.
I know of people like yourself, who have simply walked out of the movement
they were involved in. Some just woke up one day and decided they weren't
happy. Others read a book. Yet others met with people like me and
learned to examine their own world views and/or were given information
about their movement that provided them with a different perspective from
which to evaluate their involvement.
As others have pointed out, many abused women stay in relationships not
because they cannot leave, but because they fear the unknown more than the
known. The right thing to do is to help them - not blame them.
BTW: Why did you leave Scientology? What led up to your decision?
Anton
--
Proudly internetting from XS4ALL - a Scientology-censored ISP
Here's What Scientology Doesn't Want You To Know:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/s04.html
zombiep...@hotmail.com
ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
> Anton Hein's (ah...@xs2all.nl) reply to zombiep...@hotmail.com, who -
> on Sat, 09 Jan 1999 21:27:46 GMT - wrote:
>
>
> If you have to ask where people learned to think, or whether they think at
> all, perhaps participating in a conversation is a little too overwhelming
> for you...
>
>
Nope... I like to try and figure out the motivations behind some rather
apparently biased posts. I have found that an deliberately adversarial stance
is often more effective in bringing out a position and forcing issues quickly
to the surface than other means. Is there a risk associated with this?- Of
course yes. Sarcasm and skeptical questioning can either force the recipeint
to consider and reexam and restate their positions ( and in the process
clarifying it or force the reciepient into an entirely defensive mode where
nothing happens. In situations where body language clues are unavailable or
extremely limited, an over reaction is preferable to no reaction at all.
>
> However, my one-sentence statement was in response to the few lines of his
> message that I quoted. Here's why: I have worked with many people who -
> for a variety of reasons - were unable to leave the cults they were
> involved with. These included a few people who were physically
> restrained.
>
> Others, who were seeming free to go, remained with their
> groups because a) they had no money to flee or a place to go, or b) they
> felt they owed the group and/or leaders, or c) they were kept in financial
> bondage (work off your ever-increasing debt and you're free to go), or d)
> they believed certain threats ("you'll go to hell", "God will kill you"),
> etcetera.
>
> There are mental and spiritual bonds that are far more effective than
> physical coercion when it comes to keeping a person with an organization.
Items (a) and (c) are not mental or spiritual- they're physical. Items (b)
and (c) are mental or spiritual. They are effective if the person is
psychologically vulnerable to them. A point which both Bernie and zeno_99
have made and others totally reject.
>
> That said, this is not true for everyone, or for every cult. Person A may
> be able to walk in and out of Cult 1 without any problems, while person B
> will feel compelled to stay. It may be the other way around with Cult 2.
> In other words, cults differ in how they operate (e.g. how they influence
> people to join and/or stay), and people differ in how they respond to
> coercion if and when confronted with it.
Serious question...What is the dividing line used for defining "coercion"?
Lets use the wonderfully classic example of the militsary. People who join
the military, for example, are physically restrained from leaving after
joining if they change their mind about membership. People who have strong
beliefs against violence would even go as far as saying that people in the
military are prevented psychologically from leaving at the least. Is the
fundamental criteria "social acceptability" of the organization and it's
goals? And if it is, who decides what is "socially acceptable"?
>
> Keep in mind, too, that there is a marked difference in having been a
> member of a cult, and having many years of hands-on experience working
> with members and ex-members of cults, fringe movements and abusive
> churches. I speak from the latter perspective.
A valid point. However it does not mean that you are necessarily any more
qualifed to speak on the subject than someone else.
An LPN, for example, has significant hands on experience helping ill people
in clinical environments. Often they have significantly greater practical
experience than MD's and RN's whose instructions they carry out. However they
have not recieved the same level of training that the latter recieve in
applying the fundamental sciences and critical thinking. Despite the
"inexperience" of the later, they are better qualified to contribute to the
long term health of the patient.
>
> There you go again... When I see that kind of stuff on my screen I look
> up at the framed New Yorker cartoon above my desk - the famous one, where
> a dog, sitting at the keyboard, turns to another dog and says "On the
> Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Let's keep it that way.
>
No.. I am a cat actually :-)
zombiep...@hotmail.com
No.. Beleive it or not I'm actually of genus homo sapiens ( Either that or a
few anthropologists friends are going to be mighty suprised) :=)
zombiep...@hotmail.com
ah...@xs2all.nl (Anton Hein) wrote:
>
> Do you have any actual experiences in these areas, or do you only actively
> study them?
>
What is active study but actual experience? It may not be identical to your
experience- or are asserting thatthe experience gained through active study
does not qualify as experience? If it doesn't, then we better quit now
>
> There's no substitute for hands-on experience (I liked driving a Nissan
> Maxima better than reading all about it in the brochures).
You're "test drive" doesn't tell you much about the underlying nature of the
car. The physics behind what makes it work, the technology used in its
manufacture. Can you reproduce that Nissan Maxima based on your test drive?
Can you develop a new, better car? I would like to see you try!
>
> I am not discounting the value of the kind of study you describe. Theory
> based upon sound evidence is helpful. But I'd rather judge a meal by
> tasting it instead of by merely studying the menu.
>
> Theory and experience go hand-in-hand. They ought to balance out.
You are going to be eating an awfully limited set of meals over and over and
over again.
> I think a professional approach to these issues includes taking into
> account real-life, hands-on experiences. I can reject the theories of
> academics who do seem stuck in their mindsets precisely because their
> theories don't match reality.
> The alternative would be to reject the hundreds upon hundreds of
> testimonies I have heard from people with a wide variety of backgrounds,
> and who were involved in a wide variety of movements.
Based on that argument, you would be still be beleiving that Copernicus was a
kook and that the stars and planets revolve around the earth. After all, his
"theory" didn't seem to match the reality. "Everyone" saw that the sun, moon
and stars rise and fall and move in the sky and they were on crystal orbs
suronding the earth. The earth didn't move, no sir. It was steady as a rock!
By God, to think otherwise you would have to "ignore" all those testimonials
from all those people that the earth didn't move.
You're being a luddite again!
> Incidentaly, I'm on disability pay and am not employed by any
> organization, church or movement. Thus I have no financial stake in these
> matters eithers.
What about your psychological investment? That is an even bigger motivator
than any simple finances. Surely you must have noticed that during your years
of work?
> True. In fact, I think many academics involved in the study of religion
> and/or the defense of cults have lost their objectivity.
And even more laypeople or amateurs never had any objectivity.
Zeno Nine
>from all those people that the earth didn't move.
>
>You're being a luddite again!
Now, now... There's no need for name-calling. Though I suppose "luddite" is
considerably tamer than many of the names I've seen tossed around on Usenet!
Anton is correct in believing that anecdotal evidence ("all those
testimonials") does have some value. The biggest danger with anecdotal
evidence, though, is mistaking it for a full representation of the subject
under study. It's crucial, for example, to consider how those testimonials
were accumulated. Were ex-cult members selected at random and interviewed? Or
were these stories told by a self-selected group? I'm guessing--and I hope
Anton will correct me if I'm wrong--that the anecdotes upon which he has based
his opinions about cults were obtained from a self-selected group of
ex-cultists who sought him out primarily because they felt damaged by their
cult experience.
Zeno Nine
>I know. I've read them. Owned many of those books as well - before the
>USPO lost my library when I shipped it to Holland. Thing is, many
>scholars write from within the confines of ivory towers and end up
>discussing theory rather than reality. While they make a point here and
>there, they have no real message or answers for people at the front lines.
There are many people "at the front lines"--primarily people with professional
training in clinical psychotherapy--who have found such books to be very
helpful in understanding how and why people become involved with cults.
>When confronted with facts, many of these scholars then resort to such
>tactics as accusing apostates of lying. Many ivory towers lean more more
>than the tower of Pisa.
Facts? What are the facts? Is it a fact that some people have been physically
abused while in a cult? Yes, I believe it is. Is it a fact that some people
feel that they were psychologically abused whil in a cult. Yes, that's a fact,
too. Is it a fact that cults possess unusual powers of persuasion and
indoctrination? No, that's not a fact.
>Seen from the perspective of your experience, yes. (Incidentally, many
>ex-cult members talk about the "lost years." Wouldn't it have been nice
>if you'd had enough information about Scientology to never get in, or once
>in to get out a lot earlier than after five years?)
This kind of thing is certainly not unique to Scientologists--or even to cult
members in general. Many people, particularly as they reach middle age,
reevaluate their lives and may come to the conclusion that they did some things
that turned out to have been a waste of time. I can't tell you how many times
I've heard people make comments like...'I wish I had never married so-and-so, I
could have been so much further ahead in my life...' or 'I wish I hadn't gone
to X univerisity and studied thus-and-such, if I'd studied Y instead I could
have been a PhD by now...' This sort of thing is common. I have no reason to
believe that the regrets an ex-cultist might feel over having made poor life
decisions is substantively different from the regrets most anyone else might
feel.
>That said, I have talked with Scientologists and ex-Scientologists who,
>while not physically restrained, reported they felt compelled to stay
>within the movement. The reasons were varied. I remember one person who
>felt he had invested too much to get out.
Yes, this is common. People who become involved in marketing schemes like
Amway often report the same thing.
> Like an addicted gambler who
>thinks the next will finally make him rich this guy fell for the carrot
>that was held out to him.
It's a common psychological foible. Another common reason for why people stay
in unhealthy organizational relationships is because they have formed powerful
social ties to other members of the group.
>Again, this is more easily done in some cults than in others. This is why
>I find exit counseling so important.
I think counseling, in general, is a good idea for people who find themselves
in a psychologically upset state. I think the danger of exit counseling,
though, is that the patient/client may be led to believe that he was a victim
of unusual forces which were and remain beyond his control. Instead of seeing
the cult experience as just another species of unfortunate choice that people
make in their lives--a choice from which the ex-cultist can learn and
grow--exit counselors reinforce the some of the same emotional and
psychological vulnerabilities that led the person to enter the cult in the
first place.
>What gets me is that the anti- and counter-cult movements are collectively
>blamed for deprogramming despite the fact that most involved in these
>movements have never supported, condoned or engaged in it. The argument
>is as silly as trying to blame German teenagers for World War II.
I agree with you.
>I know of people like yourself, who have simply walked out of the movement
>they were involved in. Some just woke up one day and decided they weren't
>happy. Others read a book. Yet others met with people like me and
>learned to examine their own world views and/or were given information
>about their movement that provided them with a different perspective from
>which to evaluate their involvement.
>
>As others have pointed out, many abused women stay in relationships not
>because they cannot leave, but because they fear the unknown more than the
>known. The right thing to do is to help them - not blame them.
And I agree with this, too.
Keith Henson
snip
: As for me, I speak from my own experience of five years on Scientology
: staff. The day I decided to leave, I did just that, and there wasn't
: any kind of physical restrain exerted at all. Even better, I didn't
: just took my things and go away, I *told* them that I wanted to leave
: and asked to follow the "proper lines" for it - which was what
: happened, without any kind of physical restrain whatsoever apart from
: the "normal" attempt to try to persuade me otherwise. I don't call
: this "coercion", because the term is misleading and hints at physical
: coercion. None of my friends who left the movement reported any
: physical coercion either, nor have I ever seen it during my time in
: the group.
: The truth is simply that, in Scientology at least, all it takes for
: one to leave the movement is basically to wrap his things and step out
: - and that makes it an individual decision and makes the member
: responsible for his involvement.
Bernie, I believe you, that you are correctly describing your own
experience. But I don't think your experience is universal because I
believe a number of others who report having a much harder time. From
the outside it looks like the higher in management you go, the harder
time you have getting free of it.
: This doesn't mean of course that he is responsible for *everything*
: that happens to him during his stay in the group, but the basic
: decision certainly is his, which is the key point when discussing
: cults and mind-control.
I think the situation is hard to reduce to this simple a statement. The
effects of high control and implanted control varies from person to person
and from situation to situation. I only have to look at Patty Herst to
get a really stark picture of the effects of high control/brainwashing.
On the other hand, I now understand the evolutionary origin for the
ability (and utility) of people to be brainwashed. Keith Henson
PS Knowing you slightly from this forum, I can't help but wonder if
your decision to get out of scn was not greeted with a certain amount of
relief by those over you.
Mark
>
>Anton is correct in believing that anecdotal evidence ("all those
>testimonials") does have some value. The biggest danger with anecdotal
>evidence, though, is mistaking it for a full representation of the subject
>under study.
Agreed, but equally you rarely have access to a full and unblemished
representation of any subject that you might wish to study. There are
few subjects about which everything is known and about which the
authorative last word has been spoken.
Both anecdotal evidence and evidence derived from methodological
research have their respective flaws and limitations. To take a
hypothetical example, if the Inuit (Eskimos) were allowed to do
sociological surveys on the sociologists, instead of just the other way
round, I bet you would see the fur fly then. Two distinct investigative
paradigms would be exhibited. Which would be the most objective?
Depends who you ask.
To take a more realistic example, the Kinsey Report is widely considered
to be flawed in certain repects, because of the not entirely random way
in which subjects where sometimes selected for interview, and because
the interview subjects in any case came from a somewhat self-selecting
group of people, those who liked (or were at least willing) to talk in
detail about their sexual habits to complete strangers. Can one safely
assume that this group was truly representative of the population as a
whole?
By all means point out that anecdotal evidence has its limitations, but
please don't forget that scientific evidence can rarely provide a full
representation of a given subject either.
> It's crucial, for example, to consider how those testimonials
>were accumulated. Were ex-cult members selected at random and interviewed?
I think it must be difficult to select ex-cult members completely at
random. Would asking the cult for addresses of ex-members be a good
idea? I think it would be very difficult to entirely prevent any element
of selectivity from entering into the investigative process.
> Or
>were these stories told by a self-selected group? I'm guessing--and I hope
>Anton will correct me if I'm wrong--that the anecdotes upon which he has based
>his opinions about cults were obtained from a self-selected group of
>ex-cultists who sought him out primarily because they felt damaged by their
>cult experience.
Yes, but you're part of a self selecting group too, the group that posts
their opinions about cults etc. in this ng. Does that mean your opinions
are invalid? I wouldn't say so.
>
>****************
>Zeno Nine zeno ni...@aol.com
>
>"There are many weak and stupid people... but that's why we have wolves and
>other large predators."
They're probably saving you for later.
--
Mark Dunlop
Mark
>[regarding scholarly books regarding the psychology of cult membership]
>>USPO lost my library when I shipped it to Holland. Thing is, many
>>scholars write from within the confines of ivory towers and end up
>>discussing theory rather than reality. While they make a point here and
>>there, they have no real message or answers for people at the front lines.
Zeno Nine replied
>
>There are many people "at the front lines"--primarily people with professional
>training in clinical psychotherapy--who have found such books to be very
>helpful in understanding how and why people become involved with cults.
Could you give a couple of book titles as examples please? I'm not sure
which books you two are talking about.
>
>
>>When confronted with facts, many of these scholars then resort to such
>>tactics as accusing apostates of lying. Many ivory towers lean more more
>>than the tower of Pisa.
>
>Facts? What are the facts? Is it a fact that some people have been physically
>abused while in a cult? Yes, I believe it is. Is it a fact that some people
>feel that they were psychologically abused whil in a cult. Yes, that's a fact,
>too.
Agree so far.
> Is it a fact that cults possess unusual powers of persuasion and
>indoctrination? No, that's not a fact.
This is bare assertion on your part. The matter is not proven either
way.
>
[snipped]
--
Mark Dunlop
Zeno Nine
>the cult experience as just another species of unfortunate choice that people
>make in their lives--a choice from which the ex-cultist can learn and
>grow--exit counselors reinforce the some of the same emotional and
>psychological vulnerabilities that led the person to enter the cult in the
>first place.
I phrased this poorly.
I should have written "...*some* exit counselors *appear* to reinforce some of
the same emotional and psychological vulnerabilities..." I apologize for
painting with an overly broad brush!
Zeno Nine
>Agreed, but equally you rarely have access to a full and unblemished
>representation of any subject that you might wish to study.
That's not necessarily true. Good researchers take considerable care to be
certain they study random, representative samples. It is true that in studying
something like cult membership, it can be difficult to track down ex-members
who never felt terribly affected by their cult experience and who have moved on
with their lives. It's difficult, but it's not impossible.
>Both anecdotal evidence and evidence derived from methodological
>research have their respective flaws and limitations. To take a
>hypothetical example, if the Inuit (Eskimos) were allowed to do
>sociological surveys on the sociologists, instead of just the other way
>round, I bet you would see the fur fly then. Two distinct investigative
>paradigms would be exhibited. Which would be the most objective?
>Depends who you ask.
I'm afraid I'm not seeing how this example demonstrates the relatives problems
of anecdotal vs methodological research.
The problem with anecdotal evidence, as you probably realize, is that the
anecdotes are not representative of the entire group. Anecdotes only tell us
about one person's experience. A thousand anecdotes only tell us about a
thousand peoples experience. They don't tell us anything about what proportion
of the total population is represented by that thousand-- or by that kind of
experience.
Studies involving a representative sample, on the other hand, tell us much
about what is a typical experience. This sort of study tells us just how
frequently the sort of thing related in anecdotes really happens (among other
things.)
>To take a more realistic example, the Kinsey Report is widely considered
>to be flawed in certain repects, because of the not entirely random way
>in which subjects where sometimes selected for interview, and because
>the interview subjects in any case came from a somewhat self-selecting
>group of people, those who liked (or were at least willing) to talk in
>detail about their sexual habits to complete strangers. Can one safely
>assume that this group was truly representative of the population as a
>whole?
Certainly not. The beauty of the scientific method, though, that it is
ultimately self-correcting. The only reason you and I know that the Kinsey
studies were flawed is because other social scientists--using a methodological
approach--have reviewed Kinsey's methods, attempted to replicate his findings,
and have found his approach to have been flawed.
>By all means point out that anecdotal evidence has its limitations, but
>please don't forget that scientific evidence can rarely provide a full
>representation of a given subject either.
Nothing matches reality quite as well as reality! But, even with its flaws,
the scientific method of collecting data from a representative sample still
gives us a better picture of reality than any collection of anecdotes can ever
do.
>> It's crucial, for example, to consider how those testimonials
>>were accumulated. Were ex-cult members selected at random and interviewed?
>
>I think it must be difficult to select ex-cult members completely at
>random. Would asking the cult for addresses of ex-members be a good
>idea?
It might be one approach. I suspect the best approach, though, would be a
fairly expensive advertising campaign in the popular media. The danger in
using referrals from exit counselors or in collecting information from
participants on newsgroups like this one is that the people who are using these
resources are people who already feel that they have issues of some sort
involving their cult membership.
>I think it would be very difficult to entirely prevent any element
>of selectivity from entering into the investigative process.
It is difficult, but social scientists do have methods for protecting against
selectivity.
>> Or
>>were these stories told by a self-selected group? I'm guessing--and I hope
>>Anton will correct me if I'm wrong--that the anecdotes upon which he has
>based
>>his opinions about cults were obtained from a self-selected group of
>>ex-cultists who sought him out primarily because they felt damaged by their
>>cult experience.
>
>Yes, but you're part of a self selecting group too, the group that posts
>their opinions about cults etc. in this ng. Does that mean your opinions
>are invalid? I wouldn't say so.
Ah, but nobody's holding up my opinions as being representative of a group of
individuals. My opinions are presented and are understood by all to be ONLY my
opinions.
Mark
>>zeno, could you apply your critical thinking skills to solve the
>>following paradox, please?
>
>I don't believe that this is a paradox, but I will endeavor to apply my
>critical thinking skills to it nonetheless.
>
>>Different destructive cults each tend to have their own characteristic
>>set of key words and assertions which they will use to criticise and
>>undermine an aspirant's reliance on their own reasoning ability and
>>judgement.
>
>This is true not only of "destructive cults" but also of mainstream groups. In
>Roman Catholicism, for example, there are techniques for combatting doubt and
>loss of religious faith (the Dark Night Of The Soul.) Mary Kay Cosmetics and
>Avon salespeople receive training on how to keep their enthusiasm high even
>when sales are low. It's fair to say that just about *any* group endeavor
>involves subtle (and not so subtle) influences on behavior and thought.
>
>
>>In a Christian based cult such as the Moonies, for example,
>>doubts or reservations which a student may have about aspects of the
>>group's teaching, may be blamed on Satan or a spirit putting evil
>>thoughts into the student's mind in order to try and prevent them from
>>reaching towards God.
>
>The Moonies aren't the only Christians who take this approach. It's common
>among conservative religious groups. Doubt is the work of the devil!
>
>>In Scientology, to take another example, such
>>doubts or reservations may be ascribed to the influence of 'engrams',
>>unconscious conditionings from past lives which block the student's
>>energy and prevent them from reaching their full potential.
>
>Yes.
>
>>The key point is that, logically, these kinds of paradoxical assertions
>>(and potential double binds) can neither be proved nor disproved,
>
>They don't need to be logically proved or disproved.
Why are they exempt from proof or disproof?
> They are accepted (if
>they're accepted) as matters of faith.
Yes, this is the point I'm trying to make and to 'deconstruct'.
> This is not a paradox.
>
Sorry, I hadn't made it very clear what I was describing as paradoxical.
A statement or view such as 'we are all conditioned by the world we live
in (or by engrams or by the influence of a malignant spirit or by any
other conditioning factor)' is paradoxical because in most cases, it is
almost certainly partly true and partly untrue.
The well-known Cretan paradox is the case of a man who claims
'Everything I say is a lie.' If you think about it, it is not possible
to verify whether what he claims is true or not. If this man is telling
the truth, then not everything he says is a lie, and he has contradicted
his own statement. So if he is telling the truth, he is telling a
lie...etc.
Imagine a modern-day Cretan says: 'I am unconciously conditioned by the
world I live in.' This seems to me like a softer-edged, less obvious
version of the classic Cretan paradox. I mean, what is one to make of
this guy's statement? If it is true that he is unconsciously
conditioned, as he claims, then how does he know? Has he been
unconsciously conditioned to beleive that he is unconsciously
conditioned? Or has he suddenly become consciously aware of a
conditioning process which he was previously unaware of? Has he become
aware of all aspects of this unconscious conditioning, or of only some
of them. Are there other aspects of the process still hidden in
unconsciousness, waiting to be discovered? Once you've spotted one of
the buggers, how can you be sure there aren't more lurking in the
bushes? How can anyone be sure?..etc.
I don't know if that's a whole load clearer, but it will have to do for
now. Basically, I am suggesting that cults systematically exploit the
ambiguities and half-truths inherent in certain kinds of paradoxical
statements and concepts, in order to create a degree of intellectual
doubt and uncertainty in the minds of anyone who takes the statements
seriously.
>assertions which they will use to criticise and
>>undermine an aspirant's reliance on their own reasoning ability and
>>judgement.
>>and
>>therefore they are insoluble and impenetrable. By their nature, and
>>because their proof or disproof rests on a (hypothetical) level of
>>'spiritual insight' (or some equivalent concept) which is only
>>accessible to spiritually advanced people, these assertions cannot be
>>subject to independent or empirical verification. They are in a sense
>>irrefutable. They are non-falsifiable, in Popper's terms. They can only
>>be taken on trust.
>
>Right. Such is the nature of all religion, wouldn't you agree?
No. Not in the case of, for example, Buddhism. eg. 'Believe nothing, no
matter where you hear it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.' (The
Buddha)
It's a while since I read the Bible, and no equivalent Biblical quote
immediately springs to mind, but I am sure there are equivalents.
Perhaps one could take the parable of the talents, and say that faith by
itself is not sufficient to know God, there also needs to be an active
seeking, and a desire to improve and grow one's faith.
A religion that could only be taken on trust really would deserve the
'opium of the people' opprobrium IMO.
>
>
>(snipped discussion of Popper and the theory of evolution as it doesn't appear
>to be relevant to this discussion--religious claims, based as they are on faith
>and not on reason, are not subject to the same demands made of scientific
>theories)
Why should they not be? Well, OK not to exactly the same tests and
demands as scientific theories, but to appropriate tests.
I think there are a fair few scientists (Niels Bohr springs to mind) who
would question the validity of the faith versus reason dichotomy, and
who are unconviced that a clear distinction can be made between
scientific intuition and religious inspiration.
>
>>It is a one-way street. While any number of people within a group may
>>observe (or say that they believe) that they have become more aware
>>following the group's spiritual guidance, a person who questions this or
>>who observes (or believes) that they themselves have not become more
>>aware following the group's spiritual guidance, cannot establish this as
>>a valid observation,
>
>Of course they can. "Spiritual awareness" is entirely subjective. Anyone who
>tells you different is lying to you.
>
Well, this is true in one sense, as long as people keep their own
'spiritual awareness' to themselves. Its when they try and impose it on
others that problems start. And people who develop a spiritual mission
can be a menace.
[Large chunk deleted, but points taken]
>
>>>> "There are lots of myths about cults. Everyone's vulnerable."
>>>
>>>Again, I have to ask: If everyone's vulnerable, why do so few join?
>>
>>Well, I posted a possible answer to your question earlier in this
>>thread, but you declined to respond. Over to you, zeno.
>
>I saw that your response included several references to "mind control" and, I
>have to admit, my "kook alarm" went off.
Kook? Moi? You must have me muddled up with the CIA Mind Control
Conspiracy lot. They're on a different newsgroup.
Admittedly, mind control or brainwashing are pretty unsatisfactory terms
from any point of view, but I don't know of any other terms in the
vocabulary which are capable of carrying the meaning. 'Undue influence'
might do, but its a bit too broad really.
> As you've probably deduced by now, I
>don't have much confidence in the "cult mind control" theory and, consequently,
>I don't find it to be a very satisfying explanation foranything having to do
>with cult membership. Rather than rip into you over "mind control"
Chicken.
>I thought
>it best to simply ignore your post.
Playing dead, huh?
>
>After all, everyone's entitled to an opinion. ;-)
>
But some are more entitled than others, if the academics are to be
beleived.
--
Mark Dunlop
roger gonnet
Keith Henson wrote:
>
> Bernie <ma...@bernie.us-inc.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> : As for me, I speak from my own experience of five years on Scientology
> : staff. The day I decided to leave, I did just that, and there wasn't
> : any kind of physical restrain exerted at all.
I know that both my boys, when they were 17 and 18, went from my org to
the SO (DK).
They went out real easy, but the condition was very particular, as their
parents were high level execs, and both came back to the staff of their
parent's org. Otherwise, they could have been chased up into copenhagen
streets, or manhandled to get them in.
Both my wife and me were almost physically restrained to leave (while we
were public) the EU org in DK: our passports were confiscated before
starting any service, each tyime we went there. I was physically
manhandled by a DCO in SH UK in 1976, to keep me in, while I was waiting
since 15 days to get powers levels with my wife. They wanted us
remaining there, while unable to deliver the paid services!
So, not only staffs can be restrained - physically or administratively -
to leave, but as well, publics are stopped too.
roger
William Barwell
Charlie the Tuna wrote:
>
> Looking for any good meatloaf recipes (other than the emperor's new clothes
> version posted below). Any help appreciated.
>
> Have a good one;
>
> Brian
>
> to reply via e-mail: hold the MAYO
Brian, here is one that I made by accident a couple of weeks ago.
Naturally I forgot to write down what I did, but I think I
remember everything. It started out with a war of words on
alt.food.mexican-cooking about taco seasoning packets. I
bad-mouthed them. :> Some people were so adamant that I decided
to try some to see what all the fuss was about. Still don't like
'em. I had an extra package hence:
Meatloaf #11
1-1/2 lbs. ground beef
1 lb. bulk sausage
1 cup chopped onion (not minced - I think minced onion in a meat
loaf is criminal)
4 oz. can chopped green chilis (like Ortega)
1 envelope taco seasoning (I used El Patio)
1 tsp. Mexican oregano
garlic salt and pepper
1/2 tsp. cumino
1 cup dry bread crumbs
1 to 1-1/4 cups enchilada sauce (either your own or a REAL canned
enchilada sauce - i.e. no tomatoes. I used my usual Las Palmas)
Mix all together well. Form into a loaf shape and put in a baking
dish. Pour enchilada sauce over the top. Bake for 1 hour 10
minutes at 350 deg.F (check after
1 hour). Let sit for a while before cutting.
Charlie
*****************************************************************
Charles Liam Gifford 32:44:58N
<>< 117:06:33W
USS PORTERFIELD DD682
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8893
Anton Hein
>Nope... I like to try and figure out the motivations behind some rather
>apparently biased posts. I have found that an deliberately adversarial stance
>is often more effective in bringing out a position and forcing issues quickly
>to the surface than other means. Is there a risk associated with this?- Of
>course yes. Sarcasm and skeptical questioning can either force the recipeint
>to consider and reexam and restate their positions ( and in the process
>clarifying it or force the reciepient into an entirely defensive mode where
>nothing happens. In situations where body language clues are unavailable or
>extremely limited, an over reaction is preferable to no reaction at all.
Your own posts show considerable bias as well. That's understandable, but
your reasoning for including abuse and/or sarcasm is not. What you are
doing is the online equivalent of "road rage" - the phenomenon that causes
otherwise nice and sane people to act like monstrous tyrants and lunatics
as soon as they enter the relative privacy and anonimity of their cars.
Generally, when someone behaves like that in a face to face conversation,
I excuse myself and find someone able to communicate his opinions while
observing common rules of decency.
In other words: I welcome your input, but ask that you don't force me to
ignore you.
>Serious question...What is the dividing line used for defining "coercion"?
>Lets use the wonderfully classic example of the militsary. People who join
>the military, for example, are physically restrained from leaving after
>joining if they change their mind about membership. People who have strong
>beliefs against violence would even go as far as saying that people in the
>military are prevented psychologically from leaving at the least. Is the
>fundamental criteria "social acceptability" of the organization and it's
>goals? And if it is, who decides what is "socially acceptable"?
The question of whether the military might be considered a cult is a good
one. It is addressed in "Cults 101" - an online booklet at the AFF site:
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/cult101.htm
On Using the Term "Cult"
Checklist of Cult Characteristics
Are the Marines a Cult by Your Definition?
How the United States Marine Corps Differs from Cults -- A Checklist
Evaluating Your Involvement -- A Questionnaire
Cults: Questions & Answers
>> Keep in mind, too, that there is a marked difference in having been a
>> member of a cult, and having many years of hands-on experience working
>> with members and ex-members of cults, fringe movements and abusive
>> churches. I speak from the latter perspective.
>
>A valid point. However it does not mean that you are necessarily any more
>qualifed to speak on the subject than someone else.
I was juxtaposing one person's experience with one cult, with another
person's experience (mine) working with many people who have been involved
in many such movements.
>An LPN, for example, has significant hands on experience helping ill people
>in clinical environments. Often they have significantly greater practical
>experience than MD's and RN's whose instructions they carry out. However they
>have not recieved the same level of training that the latter recieve in
>applying the fundamental sciences and critical thinking. Despite the
>"inexperience" of the later, they are better qualified to contribute to the
>long term health of the patient.
Interesting example. Reminds me of recent new stories here in Holland,
where PNs blew the whistle on MDs whose practices lead to the death of
several patients. If Robin Cook would write about cults instead of
hospitals, he's likely cast a Melton or Hadden as the villain...
>No.. I am a cat actually :-)
Better find another scratching post... :)
Anton Hein
>There are many people "at the front lines"--primarily people with professional
>training in clinical psychotherapy--who have found such books to be very
>helpful in understanding how and why people become involved with cults.
I don't doubt that some people who such books helpful. However, this may
have more to do with preferring one line of thought over another than with
real life experience. There are folks "at the front lines" who shouldn't
be there. I have met victims of those kind of counselors.
I'm dealing with a similar situation in my own life. I suffer from
CFS/ME, commonly known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (a misnomer).
Researchers and other professionals all over the world acknowledge its
existence and are trying to find out exactly what it is and how to combat
it. It is a "priority one" disease in England, the USA, and several other
countries - meaning that extra research grants and other resources are
made available. Yet this morning I saw one of the dwindling number of
physicians who think CFS/ME does not exist except for in the head. He
assures me he has read books about it. Uhuh... that's like reading travel
guides to Amsterdam without ever setting foot in this city.
>Facts? What are the facts? Is it a fact that some people have been physically
>abused while in a cult? Yes, I believe it is. Is it a fact that some people
>feel that they were psychologically abused whil in a cult. Yes, that's a fact,
>too. Is it a fact that cults possess unusual powers of persuasion and
>indoctrination? No, that's not a fact.
So what is your criteria for facts? I would have to discount the personal
experiences of hundreds of people I have personally interviewed, including
three people within my own family. If I have to believe the Klievers and
Meltons of this world, these folks made everything up changing their
stories as they went along, simply to please me. There's a good reason
why Webster's gives one definition of "academic" as "having no practical
or useful significance." On the jackets of some books, the word is like a
warning label.
>have been a PhD by now...' This sort of thing is common. I have no reason to
>believe that the regrets an ex-cultist might feel over having made poor life
>decisions is substantively different from the regrets most anyone else might
>feel.
Sigh... been there, done that :)
>I think counseling, in general, is a good idea for people who find themselves
>in a psychologically upset state. I think the danger of exit counseling,
>though, is that the patient/client may be led to believe that he was a victim
>of unusual forces which were and remain beyond his control. Instead of seeing
>the cult experience as just another species of unfortunate choice that people
>make in their lives--a choice from which the ex-cultist can learn and
>grow--exit counselors reinforce the some of the same emotional and
>psychological vulnerabilities that led the person to enter the cult in the
>first place.
This may be true for some people, and not true for others. A combination
is possible as well. Poor choices can lead to involvement with a cult
that uses persuasion tactics so powerful many people can not deal with
them on their own. That is for the exit counselor to discover, and this
is a process that takes a considerable amount of time. See, for example,
Janis Hutchinson's
After-effects of coming out of a cult
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/c05.html
Understanding and Encouraging Ex-Cultists
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/c04.html
Anton Hein
<hkhe...@netcom.com>, who - on Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:49:24 GMT - wrote:
>PS Knowing you slightly from this forum, I can't help but wonder if
>your decision to get out of scn was not greeted with a certain amount of
>relief by those over you.
LOL. Good point, actually. The last time I was part of an abusive church
I was told to leave and not come back. The next month, an assistant
pastor who addressed the spiritual and ethical problems at this church was
also booted out.
Anton
--
Internetting from Holland - A Clinton-free Zone
Sects, Lies, and Doctrines: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/apologetics.html
Anton Hein
Anton Hein
- on Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:00:13 GMT - wrote:
>The Avengers split up??? Oh, the humanity!!!
Nope. The above was not written by me, but rather by a psychopath.
Chris Owen
<wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> writes
>In article <XDrFnEAb...@pallas3.demon.co.uk>,
>Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> (Anton Hein) wrote:
>>Popper criticised, for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution as being
>>non-falsifiable. It is incapable of being disproved. If a person or
>>organisation wished to test the theory, how could evidence be gathered?
>>The enquiring individual or organisation would have to have been around
>>for tens of millions of years, and to have invented language, proper
>>scientific trials, etc. Its not possible. Popper didn't say that
>>Darwin's theory was necessarily wrong, only that it was non-falsifiable.
>
>When Popper wrote that, he was rather naive about evolution and
>the fact that indeed Evolution was in fact rather falsifiable.
>It simply passed all tests. Popper later withdrew this rather
>controversial claim after he was set right on the subject.
>
>without mentioning Popper later admitted he was wrong about evolution.
More to the point, evolution can actually be observed on the micro-scale
from year to year; teams of researchers on the Galapagos islands have
done just that over the last twenty years. Take a look at the superb
(and very readable) book based on their work, "The Beak of the Finch".
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| WORLD'S BIGGEST SINCLAIR WEB ARCHIVE: |
| http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair |
| OFFLINE VERSION: http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/plansinc.zip |
Anton Hein
Weiss <iv...@blaze.accessone.com> writes:
>
>On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, DdoubleE wrote:
>
>> I ONLY use Savoy cabbage, when it comes to making rolls. It is the same
>> color as regular cabbage, but has a rippled or wrinkled texture. I find
>that
>> the leaves are larger and you get more roll per head.
>>
>> It is easy to work with too, and doesn't require alot of preparation. Rolls
>> and tucks like a dream.
>
>Good for you! IMO Savoy cabbage is one of the great unsung crucifers, a
>wonderful vegetable indeed.
>
>Ivan Weiss
speaking of using savoy cabbage, here is a northwest recipe that uses the
savoy. think you may like. i have made it several times.
* Exported from MasterCook *
Savoy Cabbage-wrapped Salmon with Red Pepper Cream
Recipe By : John Sarich
Serving Size : 4 Preparation Time :1:00
Categories : Fish
Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
4 4oz salmon fillet
4 lg savoy cabbage leaves -- Blanched and cooled
2 tbsp olive oil
1 clove garlic -- mashed
to taste salt and pepper
1/8 c chardonnay
1 tbsp butter
2 shallots -- chopped
1/8 tsp lemon zest
1/8 c Chardonnay
1 pt heavy cream
1 red bell pepper -- roasted,peeled, seed
1 bulb garlic -- roasted
to taste salt and pepper
tarragon leaves -- garnish
Mix garlic, olive oil, salt and pepper together, and rub over salmon. Wrap each
fillet in a cabbage leaf. Refrigerate for one half hour.
On a buttered baking sheet, place salmon(not to touch). Pour Chardonay around
the fish, and bake in a 400 oven for 8 to 10 minutes.
In a saucepan, saute shallots in butter until soft. Add lemon zest, chardonay,
and heavy cream. Simmer slowly until reduced by half.
In a blender, puree red pepper and roasted garlic. Add reduced cream mixture,
and blend. Put through a fine sieve and serve with the salmon. Garnish with
tarragon leaves.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Suggested Wine: Chardonay
NOTES : For the absolute best in salmon, serve in late May when Copper River
Salmon available
Alan
The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the difference
between saying "when I look at you, time stands still", and saying "your face
would stop a clock". Anon
Remove "FinnFan" to send mail.
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>Bernie <ma...@bernie.us-inc.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>: As for me, I speak from my own experience of five years on Scientology
>: staff. The day I decided to leave, I did just that, and there wasn't
>: any kind of physical restrain exerted at all. Even better, I didn't
>: just took my things and go away, I *told* them that I wanted to leave
>: and asked to follow the "proper lines" for it - which was what
>: happened, without any kind of physical restrain whatsoever apart from
>: the "normal" attempt to try to persuade me otherwise.
This would be evidence that you know nothing of much value about
$cientology. If you had known something of much value, you can bet you
would not have been allowed to leave until you had been neutralized.
Your seniors evaluated that you didn't know enough to be any threat. I
think it would be good to show the level of knowledge you present here
on ars.
Where did your joining and leaving occur?
When?
These "proper lines," can you detail these?
When you say, "The day I decided to leave, I did just that," do you
mean that you decided and left on the same day? Or that you decided,
e.g., on May 5, that you would leave on, e.g., October 10, and when
October 10 came around you did indeed leave. Or that on the day you
decided to leave, you did just that, you decided to leave?
If you had said on announcing your departure that it was because you
had just cognited that organization leaders had been lying to you and
everyone else, that the tech didn't work as claimed, that money was
being squandered on lawyers to harass good people, that Hubbard really
was a liar, that DM was a bullshitter, and that you were leaving to
tell the world about $cientology, do you think your treatment would
have been observably different?
>: I don't call
>: this "coercion", because the term is misleading and hints at physical
>: coercion.
Let's all be the judges of whether it was coercion. Tell us what was
said and done to try to get you to not leave. The term is only
misleading if it's unclear what you think it is.
>:None of my friends who left the movement reported any
>: physical coercion either, nor have I ever seen it during my time in
>: the group.
That would support the observation that you were not in a place in the
organization where you saw much of what was going on.
>
>: The truth is simply that, in Scientology at least, all it takes for
>: one to leave the movement is basically to wrap his things and step out
>: - and that makes it an individual decision and makes the member
>: responsible for his involvement.
Untrue. Dominating someone's will does not make him responsible for
his involvement. But that's not the issue. It's, here at least, the
right of any person anywhere to leave at any time without restraint.
There are, of course, situations and institutions in which it would be
unsafe, discourteous or unwise for that basic right to be the rule.
But $cientology is, in almost all instances, not one of these
situations or institutions.
>
>Bernie, I believe you, that you are correctly describing your own
>experience. But I don't think your experience is universal because I
>believe a number of others who report having a much harder time. From
>the outside it looks like the higher in management you go, the harder
>time you have getting free of it.
>
>: This doesn't mean of course that he is responsible for *everything*
>: that happens to him during his stay in the group, but the basic
>: decision certainly is his, which is the key point when discussing
>: cults and mind-control.
But the basic decision is not his. It isn't he that says what the
conditions are by which he can leave. That decision is there before he
walks in and will be there after he walks out of $cientology. No one
knows while getting in what will get him out. That's why he must, in
joining any such organization or cult, be forever free to go. It is
$cientology which knows what the person joining must do to get out. So
it is with $cientology that the shift can occur on people getting out.
We're saying to $cientology (many of us having been locked up or
otherwise held and not permitted to leave) change your policy and
adopt a higher standard. Let our people go. This is an issue for
discussion now before the upcoming mass exodus.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>I think the situation is hard to reduce to this simple a statement. The
>effects of high control and implanted control varies from person to person
>and from situation to situation. I only have to look at Patty Herst to
>get a really stark picture of the effects of high control/brainwashing.
>On the other hand, I now understand the evolutionary origin for the
>ability (and utility) of people to be brainwashed. Keith Henson
>
Mark
criticising the theory of natural selection by a friend who has a PhD in
Natural Sciences from Cambridge, so I kind of took his word for it. I'm
so gullible;) I shall have a word with my friend.
I guess there must be some aspects of the theory of natural selection
which can be tested (tracking genetic markers in fruit-fly breeding
experiments...?), and once Popper became aware of this, he did the
gentlemanly thing, and modified his position. Interesting though that he
appears to say that exceptions to the theory of natural selection seem
to have been demonstrated.
The idea of the creationists enlisting the aid of Popper seems a little
surreal. One would have thought he was a very dangerous ally from their
pov. In the UK, we mostly missed that particular debate, thankfully.
Do you know of a URL or a book which outlines in fairly simple terms
Popper's ideas about 'The Emergence of Mind'?
thanx...
James J. Lippard <lip...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>Check out:
>
> http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/popper.html
>
>which is a talk.origins article I posted on the subject in 1994.
>The key quotations from Popper in this article are:
>
> The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult
> to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some
> great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. ... I
> mention this because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced
> by what these authorities say, I have in the past described
> the theory as "almost tautological,"
....
> I have changed my mind about the testability and logical
> status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to
> have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...
> The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that
> it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only
> testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally
> true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological
> theories; and considering the random character of the variations
> on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of
> exceptions is not surprising. (Popper, "Natural Selection and
> the Emergence of Mind," _Dialectica_ 32(1978):339-355; quotations
> are from pp. 344-346)
>
> And Popper also wrote:
> It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific
> character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or
> the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake,
> and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences
> have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in
> many cases be tested. (Popper, Letter to _New Scientist_,
> 87(1981):611)
>
>--
>Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com discord.org ediacara.org)
>Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
>PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
--
Mark Dunlop
Mark
>As time went on, Popper's whole slant on falsifiability shifted
>as he learned more of how science really worked. It has been years since
>I have read much of this and no longer have many of the materials I once
>had.
>It is all really a complex subject.
>
Certainly is. Here's a tricky one: is the validity (or otherwise) of the
criterion of falsifiability itself a matter which is non-falsifiable?
I'm afraid my wee brain chokes up on that one. I may need a processor
upgrade.
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
Give my regards to Bob!
--
Cheers
Mark Dunlop
William Barwell
Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> William Barwell wrote:
>>As time went on, Popper's whole slant on falsifiability shifted
>>as he learned more of how science really worked. It has been years since
>>I have read much of this and no longer have many of the materials I once
>>had.
>>It is all really a complex subject.
>>
>Certainly is. Here's a tricky one: is the validity (or otherwise) of the
>criterion of falsifiability itself a matter which is non-falsifiable?
>I'm afraid my wee brain chokes up on that one. I may need a processor
>upgrade.
>
of Popper's ideas. Indeed that was an often discussed idea,
and then it starts getting complex.
The arguments will continue for the next century at least.
But there are a lot more important things than that that are being argued.
James J. Lippard
Mark <ma...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Thanks for the information, Jim. I was originally told about Popper
>criticising the theory of natural selection by a friend who has a PhD in
>Natural Sciences from Cambridge, so I kind of took his word for it. I'm
>so gullible;) I shall have a word with my friend.
>
>I guess there must be some aspects of the theory of natural selection
>which can be tested (tracking genetic markers in fruit-fly breeding
>experiments...?), and once Popper became aware of this, he did the
>gentlemanly thing, and modified his position. Interesting though that he
>appears to say that exceptions to the theory of natural selection seem
>to have been demonstrated.
>
>The idea of the creationists enlisting the aid of Popper seems a little
>surreal. One would have thought he was a very dangerous ally from their
>pov. In the UK, we mostly missed that particular debate, thankfully.
>
>Do you know of a URL or a book which outlines in fairly simple terms
>Popper's ideas about 'The Emergence of Mind'?
I haven't read it, but Corvi and Camiller's _An Introduction to the
Thought of Karl Popper_ would probably cover it.
Bernie
>Anton Hein's (ah...@xs2all.nl) reply to ma...@bernie.us-inc.com (Bernie),
>who - on Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:03:54 GMT - wrote:
>
>>Many "cult apologists" happens to be scholars with quite an extensive
>>experience with "cults", "cult members", and "ex-cult members" - Hell,
>>they even conducted studies about it and wrote quite a few books on
>>the subject.
>
>I know. I've read them. Owned many of those books as well - before the
>USPO lost my library when I shipped it to Holland. Thing is, many
>scholars write from within the confines of ivory towers and end up
>discussing theory rather than reality. While they make a point here and
>there, they have no real message or answers for people at the front lines.
>When confronted with facts, many of these scholars then resort to such
>tactics as accusing apostates of lying. Many ivory towers lean more more
>than the tower of Pisa.
Religious scholars usually conduct studies that span on a wider range
than just the disgruntled ex-members. Much of their conclusions are
drawn on the basis of an effective knowledge of the group's tenets
rather than the ignorant and biased interpretation of it that is
usually made on the media. As a result, their findings are often
closer to what really happens, something which I personally could
verify through my own experience and the experiences of other
ex-members I personally know.
I doubt they ever said that apostate are lying. Scholars point out to
the bias and exaggeration that a resentful ex-member may engage into,
which is what makes these apostate's story unreliable. Apostates do
have several reasons to come up with a tainted version of their story,
and to simply dismiss the possibility of that is hardly objective.
>>As for me, I speak from my own experience of five years on Scientology
>>staff. The day I decided to leave, I did just that, and there wasn't
>>any kind of physical restrain exerted at all. Even better, I didn't
>>just took my things and go away, I *told* them that I wanted to leave
>>and asked to follow the "proper lines" for it - which was what
>>happened, without any kind of physical restrain whatsoever apart from
>>the "normal" attempt to try to persuade me otherwise. I don't call
>>this "coercion", because the term is misleading and hints at physical
>>coercion. None of my friends who left the movement reported any
>>physical coercion either, nor have I ever seen it during my time in
>>the group.
>
>Your experience is not at all uncommon where Scientology is concerned.
>But experiences with one cult can not be held as normative for other
>people's experiences with other cults.
While experiences with one cult can not be held as normative for other
people's experiences with other cults, it is nevertheless an
indication, especially when it comes from a group that has often been
decried as one of the worst.
I have also let myself once "invited" to a Moonie seminar in New
York, to experience their frightful brand of brainwashing. It was more
like a pleasant and amusing week-end rather than anything else, and I
had no problem leaving at all. Of course, I did observe various
tactics to try and convert me, more or less honestly, sometime rather
less than more, but the decision remained mine at all time.
>Your message gave me the impression that your comments covered more than
>just Scientology (I am following this particular discussion in a.s.e-c).
In some way, my comment did cover more than just Scientology. I
believe that what I describe is what happens in most cults. I can't
think of any cult that practiced physical restrain as a principle,
except of course the anti-cult cult :-)
>>The truth is simply that, in Scientology at least, all it takes for
>>one to leave the movement is basically to wrap his things and step out
>>- and that makes it an individual decision and makes the member
>>responsible for his involvement.
>
>Seen from the perspective of your experience, yes. (Incidentally, many
>ex-cult members talk about the "lost years." Wouldn't it have been nice
>if you'd had enough information about Scientology to never get in, or once
>in to get out a lot earlier than after five years?)
Personally, I am glad of *both* my experience in Scientology *and* of
having stepped out of it. I don't feel like it has been lost years.
Quite on the contrary, I feel that, taken as a whole (meaning both my
involvement and des-involvement) it has given me a unique and rather
enriching perspective as far as my spiritual search goes.
While some people may be more sour over their own experience and may
feel, for good reasons or not, that they have lost precious years of
their lives, I guess it would equally hold true for those who may feel
that they "lost" a lot of years upon making the "bad" choice of mate
or career just as well, while others may have learned something from
it, put their positive and negative experiences in perspective, and
moved on.
>That said, I have talked with Scientologists and ex-Scientologists who,
>while not physically restrained, reported they felt compelled to stay
>within the movement. The reasons were varied. I remember one person who
>felt he had invested too much to get out. Like an addicted gambler who
>thinks the next will finally make him rich this guy fell for the carrot
>that was held out to him.
I can relate with that. That's what I personally call the "cultic
mindset", where you are convinced that what you follow is the absolute
and exclusive truth. It's a form of illusion, and you do have to
"free" yourself from it, which may take some working. It's a mindset,
however, that isn't the sole prerogative of cult members.
>For many people getting up and walking out of a
>cult is as hard as given up cigarettes.
I don't think that walking out of a cult and give up cigarettes can be
compared. Once you see through the net of illusion that makes up the
cult life, it isn't difficult to get out at all - while cigarette
addiction works on the chemical balance of your body and may make it
difficult to give up smoking even if you *want* to quit, and even if
you fully see the absurdity and nuisance of this rather strange habit.
>>This doesn't mean of course that he is responsible for *everything*
>>that happens to him during his stay in the group, but the basic
>>decision certainly is his, which is the key point when discussing
>>cults and mind-control.
>
>Again, this is more easily done in some cults than in others. This is why
>I find exit counseling so important. Like you, I disagree with
>deprogramming. In your earlier message you say:
>
> The notion of responsibility came up initially in arguments on the
> "mind-control" issue. The initial justification for Ted Patrick
> forcible deprogramming was that there was no way cult members could
> get out of the cult on their own free will, since this free will has
> been annihilated by the cult. Although, for historical reasons, the
> anti-cult movement has moved now to "exit counseling", the rational
> has not fundamentally changed since the beginning, and discussions
> with exit-counselor in the newsgroup have shown that they cannot
> reconcile the contradiction of a *voluntary* exist counseling and the
> fact that the member is not supposed to have the ability to make his
> own decision in the matter any more.
>
>What gets me is that the anti- and counter-cult movements are collectively
>blamed for deprogramming despite the fact that most involved in these
>movements have never supported, condoned or engaged in it. The argument
>is as silly as trying to blame German teenagers for World War II.
I wonder what kind of historical perspective you have of the anti-cult
movement, but, to me, this statement is about as absurd as the
arguments of holocaust deniers. Deprogramming certainly was part and
parcel of the anti-cult movement from its inception (although maybe
not part of the counter-cult movement), until it has been defeated in
the legal and academic arena.
>Even those who have been involved with deprogramming have learned - and
>others have learned from their mistakes. See, for example:
>
> From Deprogramming to Thought Reform Consultation
>
>http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studyintervention/study_deprog_threfrmconsult.htm
>
>and subscribe to Ethical Standards for Thought Reform Consultants:
>
> http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studyintervention/study_ethicalstn.htm
I don't have a full internet access right now, but I will be looking
at these URL when I can.
>I understand your argument that the very use of voluntary Exit Counseling
>contradicts the contention that some members do not have the ability to
>make their own decisions about leaving. However, that's a non sequitur.
>The very purpose of all counseling is to help someone make his own
>decisions. This is done by showing the person alternatives, helping her
>see her situation from different perspectives, providing information she
>may not have been aware of, making sure she discovers (or rediscovers) the
>tools necessary to make wise, informed decisions.
To point to the contradiction between exit-counseling and the
mind-control theory isn't non sequitur at all. It shows the basic
failings of this theory.
>I know of people like yourself, who have simply walked out of the movement
>they were involved in. Some just woke up one day and decided they weren't
>happy.
In my case, it wasn't as simple as that. The disillusion was a
question of gradual realization over time, combined with access to
critical information. Like for many things, information is processes
through a complex network of contradictory sources that one has to
integrate into his unique perspective, and it can sometimes tip off
the odds one way or the other. But the key point in discussing the
strength of persuasion in a cultic environment is that in most cases,
nothing prevents you to just step out. It remains a matter of personal
choice.
>Others read a book. Yet others met with people like me and
>learned to examine their own world views and/or were given information
>about their movement that provided them with a different perspective from
>which to evaluate their involvement.
That's certainly is their right, and your right as well. I do believe
that certain counselors do an honest job and provide a valuable
service to ex-members. OTOH, anti-cult activism isn't devoid of its
own form of illusions and dangers, which is the area in which I
personally am interested. Like you, I wish to provide observers with a
different perspective from which to evaluate the issue :-)
>As others have pointed out, many abused women stay in relationships not
>because they cannot leave, but because they fear the unknown more than the
>known.
I, luckily, don't have much experience (or even knowledge) about
abused women. As I said, various form of influences, circumstances,
beliefs, can make it difficult for one to leave a certain situation.
However, it has little to do with the person's *ability* to make
choices, which is the key question we are dealing with here.
I suppose one could take extreme examples of abused women who find
themselves in such a situation where they have no viable alternative,
but does this represent what happens in the majority of couples? I
hardly think so. It doesn't even represent the majority of cases where
the couple goes through a divorce or separation stage.
Obviously, there are situations in life in which important and
sometimes life shuttering decisions have to be made, none of which
being easy, but these are just part of the process of growing and,
Occam's razorwise, we don't need some fancifully, derogatory and
potentially dangerous theory of mind-control or "unusual power of
persuasion" to explain any of them.
>The right thing to do is to help them - not blame them.
Which brings us back to my initial point about the difference between
blame and responsibility, but never mind :-)
>BTW: Why did you leave Scientology?
I left because I gradually became aware that Scientology wasn't going
to give me what I expected from it, and because I gradually became
aware of what I now call the cultic mindset.
>What led up to your decision?
The combination of my own observations, experiences, reflections and
the reading of critical material. I described it at some length in
several essays I posted in the newsgroup, some of which are to be
found on my wepages, for example @
Bernie
wrote:
>Bernie <ma...@bernie.us-inc.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>: As for me, I speak from my own experience of five years on Scientology
>: staff. The day I decided to leave, I did just that, and there wasn't
>: any kind of physical restrain exerted at all. Even better, I didn't
>: just took my things and go away, I *told* them that I wanted to leave
>: and asked to follow the "proper lines" for it - which was what
>: happened, without any kind of physical restrain whatsoever apart from
>: the "normal" attempt to try to persuade me otherwise. I don't call
>: this "coercion", because the term is misleading and hints at physical
>: coercion. None of my friends who left the movement reported any
>: physical coercion either, nor have I ever seen it during my time in
>: the group.
>
>: The truth is simply that, in Scientology at least, all it takes for
>: one to leave the movement is basically to wrap his things and step out
>: - and that makes it an individual decision and makes the member
>: responsible for his involvement.
>
>Bernie, I believe you, that you are correctly describing your own
>experience.
Thank you.
>But I don't think your experience is universal because I
>believe a number of others who report having a much harder time.
I don't claim my experience to be universal, but I do believe that it
is quite representative of what happens in the majority of cases.
And please note that I didn't say that it was *easy* to leave.
Sometimes it just isn't that easy to leave something for which you may
have given up everything else. I just point out to the fact that at no
point are you deprived of your freedom to step out, and therefore the
decision remains yours.
>From the outside it looks like the higher in management you go, the harder
>time you have getting free of it.
Obviously, the higher you get, the deeper your involvement, and
reversely, but this kind of things are just part of the circumstances
that may make it more or less harder to leave and is not what I
dispute.
>: This doesn't mean of course that he is responsible for *everything*
>: that happens to him during his stay in the group, but the basic
>: decision certainly is his, which is the key point when discussing
>: cults and mind-control.
>
>I think the situation is hard to reduce to this simple a statement. The
>effects of high control and implanted control varies from person to person
>and from situation to situation. I only have to look at Patty Herst to
>get a really stark picture of the effects of high control/brainwashing.
In the case of Patty Hearst, we had *physical restrain* entering the
picture. Physical restrain is definitely where one draws the line.
>On the other hand, I now understand the evolutionary origin for the
>ability (and utility) of people to be brainwashed.
Good. Why don't you write a paper and submit it for peer review :-)
>Keith Henson
>
>PS Knowing you slightly from this forum, I can't help but wonder if
>your decision to get out of scn was not greeted with a certain amount of
>relief by those over you.
What makes you think that?
Zeno Nine
>have more to do with preferring one line of thought over another than with
>real life experience.
No doubt.
(snip)
>Yet this morning I saw one of the dwindling number of
>physicians who think CFS/ME does not exist except for in the head.
It's important to keep in mind, though, that they symptoms of
psychophysiological illnesses are no less real than the symptoms of of other
kinds of illnesses. Regardless of their ultimate source, the symptoms must be
treated.
>He
>assures me he has read books about it. Uhuh... that's like reading travel
>guides to Amsterdam without ever setting foot in this city.
I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that a person must himself be diagnosed with
CFS in order to have an understanding of it!
>>Facts? What are the facts? Is it a fact that some people have been
>physically
>>abused while in a cult? Yes, I believe it is. Is it a fact that some
>people
>>feel that they were psychologically abused whil in a cult. Yes, that's a
>fact,
>>too. Is it a fact that cults possess unusual powers of persuasion and
>>indoctrination? No, that's not a fact.
>
>So what is your criteria for facts?
In the sense of this discussion, facts would be information derived from the
study of representative samples, with sufficient replication of results
achieved so as to create general agreement among researchers that the results
are a true representation of reality.
>I would have to discount the personal
>experiences of hundreds of people I have personally interviewed, including
>three people within my own family.
Not so. You would only need to acknowledge that the experiences of those whom
you have interviewed are, perhaps, not representative of the whole population
of ex-cultists.
>If I have to believe the Klievers and
>Meltons of this world, these folks made everything up changing their
>stories as they went along, simply to please me.
Have both Kliever and Melton claimed that this is always the case? I was under
the impression that their claim is that these terrible cult experiences are
merely not typical.
>There's a good reason
>why Webster's gives one definition of "academic" as "having no practical
>or useful significance."
That's just silly! My goodness, Anton, I'm beginning to think you're an
anti-intellectual!
>On the jackets of some books, the word is like a
>warning label.
You ARE anti-intellectual! Please! Tell me I'm wrong!
>>have been a PhD by now...' This sort of thing is common. I have no reason
>to
>>believe that the regrets an ex-cultist might feel over having made poor life
>>decisions is substantively different from the regrets most anyone else might
>>feel.
>
>Sigh... been there, done that :)
As you see... it's common for people to re-evaluate their lives and to regret
some of the choices they've made. This is not unique to ex-cultists.
[regarding exit counseling]
>Poor choices can lead to involvement with a cult
>that uses persuasion tactics so powerful many people can not deal with
>them on their own. That is for the exit counselor to discover, and this
>is a process that takes a considerable amount of time.
My personal belief is that ex-cultists would be better served by a counseling
approach which didn't focus on the particulars of the most recent upset in a
client's life (cult membership), but rather dealt primarily with the cognitive
and emotional vulnerabilities which led the client to join a cult in the first
place.
Zeno Nine
>>>(and potential double binds) can neither be proved nor disproved,
>>
>>They don't need to be logically proved or disproved.
>
>Why are they exempt from proof or disproof?
Because they are based on faith. Faith is, by its nature, not proveable.
>> They are accepted (if
>>they're accepted) as matters of faith.
>
>Yes, this is the point I'm trying to make and to 'deconstruct'.
>
>> This is not a paradox.
>>
>Sorry, I hadn't made it very clear what I was describing as paradoxical.
>A statement or view such as 'we are all conditioned by the world we live
>in (or by engrams or by the influence of a malignant spirit or by any
>other conditioning factor)' is paradoxical because in most cases, it is
>almost certainly partly true and partly untrue.
As regards the influence of spirits and engrams, this would be correct if
these statements were descriptions of objectively verifiable events. (I'll get
back to subconscious influences in a little bit.) But since neither spirits
nor engrams are objectifiably verifiable, they are NEITHER true nor untrue in
the conventional sense. Their existence is something one must accept--if one
is to accept it at all--on faith alone. Faith is entirely subjective. It's
"truth" lies fully and solely in whether it is true for the individual
believer. This is not a paradox.
>The well-known Cretan paradox is the case of a man who claims
>'Everything I say is a lie.' If you think about it, it is not possible
>to verify whether what he claims is true or not. If this man is telling
>the truth, then not everything he says is a lie, and he has contradicted
>his own statement. So if he is telling the truth, he is telling a
>lie...etc.
Yes. That's a fun paradox. What you've described of engrams and spirits,
though, does not strike me as paradoxical.
>Imagine a modern-day Cretan says: 'I am unconciously conditioned by the
>world I live in.' This seems to me like a softer-edged, less obvious
>version of the classic Cretan paradox. I mean, what is one to make of
>this guy's statement? If it is true that he is unconsciously
>conditioned, as he claims, then how does he know? Has he been
>unconsciously conditioned to beleive that he is unconsciously
>conditioned? Or has he suddenly become consciously aware of a
>conditioning process which he was previously unaware of? Has he become
>aware of all aspects of this unconscious conditioning, or of only some
>of them. Are there other aspects of the process still hidden in
>unconsciousness, waiting to be discovered?
The "I have been unconsciously conditioned..." statement is different from the
liars paradox because it can be objectively demonstrated that individuals ARE,
in fact, unconsciously conditioned by their environments. Many experiments
have been done demonstrating this. The individual who makes the statement "I
have been unconsciously conditioned.." would have to be basing his statement
upon this research and, perhaps, upon a demonstration of exactly how he
personally has been conditioned. He would not be basing it upon an actual
awareness of the conditioning as it was taking place. Again, I'm afraid we
must disagree. I don't see this as a paradox.
> Once you've spotted one of
>the buggers, how can you be sure there aren't more lurking in the
>bushes? How can anyone be sure?..etc.
>
>I don't know if that's a whole load clearer, but it will have to do for
>now. Basically, I am suggesting that cults systematically exploit the
>ambiguities and half-truths inherent in certain kinds of paradoxical
>statements and concepts, in order to create a degree of intellectual
>doubt and uncertainty in the minds of anyone who takes the statements
>seriously.
I do agree that cults exploit people's vulnerabilities. I disagree that
there's anything paradoxical going on.
(snip)
[re whether faith is falsifiable]
>>Right. Such is the nature of all religion, wouldn't you agree?
>
>No. Not in the case of, for example, Buddhism. eg. 'Believe nothing, no
>matter where you hear it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it,
>unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.' (The
>Buddha)
Buddhism may be the exception.
>It's a while since I read the Bible, and no equivalent Biblical quote
>immediately springs to mind, but I am sure there are equivalents.
Oh, I don't think so.
>Perhaps one could take the parable of the talents, and say that faith by
>itself is not sufficient to know God, there also needs to be an active
>seeking, and a desire to improve and grow one's faith.
I'm not sure I know the parable you're referring to. At any rate, there is
certainly disagreement among the various Christian denominations regarding what
it takes to know God (and what it takes to be saved) but I doubt that any of
them would say that faith in God's existance is not one of the requirements.
>A religion that could only be taken on trust really would deserve the
>'opium of the people' opprobrium IMO.
Ultimately, all religion must be taken on trust (on faith) since the claims
that are peculiar to religions are claims which are not objectively verifiable.
>>(snipped discussion of Popper and the theory of evolution as it doesn't
>appear
>>to be relevant to this discussion--religious claims, based as they are on
>faith
>>and not on reason, are not subject to the same demands made of scientific
>>theories)
>
>Why should they not be? Well, OK not to exactly the same tests and
>demands as scientific theories, but to appropriate tests.
What would the appropriate tests be?
>I think there are a fair few scientists (Niels Bohr springs to mind) who
>would question the validity of the faith versus reason dichotomy,
Why do you think so?
>and
>who are unconviced that a clear distinction can be made between
>scientific intuition and religious inspiration.
Throughout human history, phenomena which were once understood to be the work
of the gods or (The God) have been discovered to actually be works of nature--
predictable, measurable, understandable, replicable.
>>Of course they can. "Spiritual awareness" is entirely subjective. Anyone
>who
>>tells you different is lying to you.
>>
>Well, this is true in one sense, as long as people keep their own
>'spiritual awareness' to themselves. Its when they try and impose it on
>others that problems start. And people who develop a spiritual mission
>can be a menace.
Certainly.
(snip)
>Admittedly, mind control or brainwashing are pretty unsatisfactory terms
>from any point of view, but I don't know of any other terms in the
>vocabulary which are capable of carrying the meaning. 'Undue influence'
>might do, but its a bit too broad really.
I think the terms influence, persuasion, manipulation and lying serve very well
to describe what some cult leaders do.
Dave Bird
<ma...@bernie.us-inc.com> writes
>>I know. I've read them. Owned many of those books as well - before the
>>USPO lost my library when I shipped it to Holland. Thing is, many
>>scholars write from within the confines of ivory towers and end up
>>discussing theory rather than reality. While they make a point here and
>>there, they have no real message or answers for people at the front lines.
>>When confronted with facts, many of these scholars then resort to such
>>tactics as accusing apostates of lying. Many ivory towers lean more more
>>than the tower of Pisa.
>
>Religious scholars usually conduct studies that span on a wider range
>than just the disgruntled ex-members. Much of their conclusions are
>drawn on the basis of an effective knowledge of the group's tenets
>rather than the ignorant and biased interpretation of it that is
>usually made on the media.
Translation: a bunch of silly arseholes paid for with cult grants
don't actually read the newspapers which report when their paymasters
have driven someone like Patrice Vic or Lisa MacPherson to their death.
--
//////\\\ BARM, N: the froth or foam on a vat of brewing ale.
/ (~) (~) \
[( / \ {)]} BARMY,ADJ: frothy; foaming at the mouth; insane.
\ ._. .-. / :
\_==oOo._/ BARMPOT, N: fool, crazy person, lunatic.
o00.o. ..oo..
oO@o.o..oOOo000@ooo..
o0o0@o@00@O%00O%%@Oooo...
Dave Bird
> William Barwell wrote:
>>As time went on, Popper's whole slant on falsifiability shifted
>>as he learned more of how science really worked. It has been years since
>>I have read much of this and no longer have many of the materials I once
>>had.
>>It is all really a complex subject.
>>
>Certainly is. Here's a tricky one: is the validity (or otherwise) of the
>criterion of falsifiability itself a matter which is non-falsifiable?
Erm, you're right, it isn't falsifiable because attempting to make
the thing self-referential produces nonsense. "Any statement which
is supposedly always true about the world is only useful if there
is a way in which it could in principle be disproved by observation
(observations that it is true can only make us confident not certain
it is always true, but one observation it is false proves for certain
that it is not); otherwise it is simply a matter of fantasy which
can neither be shown true nor false."
This is an axiom -- a statement underlying all others which cannot
be derived from anything earlier. Axioms can however be tested for
usefulness and judged on the consequences of assuming them.
One test is "effective results". How do we make this lightbulb
come on? X says we pray & Y says we push that switch over there.
As knowledge over the world, Y clearly wins as it produces an
effective result: understanding of the world which enables us
to repeatably control events in the world.
Another is "continuation." If we were in a maze and seeking the
way out, an effective way might lead us along this passage and
then into a new second passage leading from the first and from
that into yet another leading from the second, and always onwards.
The identifying property of quackery is that it essentially leads
nowhere, that it is always the same old stuff going round in
circles and never progressing.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Bernie
Title: Sopaipillas
Categories: Breads
Yield: 12 servings
4 cup Flour
2 tsp Sugar
1/4 cup Shortening or lard
1 Tbsp Baking powder
1 1/2 tsp Salt
1 1/4 cup Water or more if needed
Sift dry ingredients together. Cut in shortening until crumbly. Add
water and mix until holds together. Knead 10-15 times until dough
forms a smooth ball. Cover and let set for 20 minutes. Divide dough
into two parts. Roll dough to 1/8" thickness on lightly floured
board. Cut into 3" squares or triangles. Do not allow to dry; cover
those waiting to fried. When ready to fry, turn upside down so that
surface on bottom while resting is on top when frying. Fry in 3" hot
oil until golden brown, turning once. Add only a few at a time to
maintain proper temperature. Drain on paper towels.
MMMMM
MMMMM----- Recipe via Meal-Master (tm) v8.05
Title: Blue Corn Sopapillas
Categories: Breads, Desserts
Yield: 1 Recipe
1 cup AM Blue Cornmeal
1 cup AM Whole Wheat Flour
1 Tbsp Dry yeast
2 tsp Non-alum baking powder
1 tsp Sea salt (optional)
1 Tbsp Butter; softened
1 cup Milk
1 Egg; slightly beaten
1 tsp Honey
Mix dry ingredients. Cut or mash butter into dry ingredients
thoroughly. Stir liquids until honey dissolves. Combine mixtures.
Stir gently but completely. Let rise 1 hour. If dough is still
sticky, lightly stir in 2 to 4 tablespoons unbleached flour. Divide
dough in 3 parts. Lightly knead each part in unbleached flour. Roll
dough thin, 1/8 inch thick. Cut into squares or pie shapes. Heat oil
to 375 F. Drop into hot oil. Cook until golden on one side; turn
once; cook till golden.
Source: Arrowhead Mills "Something Sweet"
MMMMM
MMMMM----- Recipe via Meal-Master (tm) v8.05
Title: Blue Corn Sopaipillas
Categories: Breads, Desserts
Yield: 1 Recipe
1 cup AM Blue Cornmeal
1 cup AM Unbleached White Flour
2 tsp Non-alum baking powder
1/4 tsp Sea salt (optional)
3/4 cup Water (approximately)
1 Tbsp Honey (optional)
Mix dry ingredients in bowl, knead in water to make stiff dough. Coat
rolling pin with oil and roll out dough to 1/4 inch thickness on
lightly floured surface. Cut triangular pieces about the size of
sandwich bread slices, cut diagonally. Fry sopaipillas in several
inches of hot oil, pushing them under until they puff up like
pillows. Turn once. Remove and drain. Serve with honey and
cinnamon.
Source: Arrowhead Mills "Blue Cornmeal Recipes"
Bernie
wrote:
>>Bernie <ma...@bernie.us-inc.com> wrote:
>>: As for me, I speak from my own experience of five years on Scientology
>>: staff. The day I decided to leave, I did just that, and there wasn't
>>: any kind of physical restrain exerted at all. Even better, I didn't
>>: just took my things and go away, I *told* them that I wanted to leave
>>: and asked to follow the "proper lines" for it - which was what
>>: happened, without any kind of physical restrain whatsoever apart from
>>: the "normal" attempt to try to persuade me otherwise.
>
>This would be evidence that you know nothing of much value about
>$cientology. If you had known something of much value, you can bet you
>would not have been allowed to leave until you had been neutralized.
>Your seniors evaluated that you didn't know enough to be any threat.
Are you saying that only those who "know much value about Scn" are
sequestrated? You are making my point, since I am referring here to
the unusual power of persuasion cults are supposed to have, and
therefore something that would apply to all members.
Furthermore, how much is much value? And how do you think they would
have "neutralized" me?
>I think it would be good to show the level of knowledge you present here
>on ars.
>
>Where did your joining and leaving occur?
>
>When?
Like I said already in this forum, I joined in 1975 and spent about 2
1/2 years at my local org and at the European level in Copenhagen,
after which I joined the GO WW at Saint Hill. I left in 1980.
>These "proper lines," can you detail these?
We were often told that we should follow the "proper lines" and staff
who blew were blamed for having "withholds" and being unable to
confront. So, I told them: "OK, here I am. I want to leave. Get me
through whatever you think are the 'proper lines'". I didn't know what
these "proper lines" were supposed to be, I let them decide.
I believe that this position of mine is quite unusual. Most of the
staff who want to leave blow, and the public who want to stop simply
do not come in anymore. However, I have given the whole issue much
thought before taking my decision, and I felt rather confident about
it. I was curious to see how they would "handle" me. Details follow.
>When you say, "The day I decided to leave, I did just that," do you
>mean that you decided and left on the same day? Or that you decided,
>e.g., on May 5, that you would leave on, e.g., October 10, and when
>October 10 came around you did indeed leave. Or that on the day you
>decided to leave, you did just that, you decided to leave?
It took several days between the moment I told them to route me out
and the moment they finally did. I guess that if it would have taken
too long, I would have given them an ultimatum.
During all that time I was free to come and go between the place where
I lived in East Grinstead and the manor. I wasn't even required to
stay away from other staff and I kept on working as usual.
>If you had said on announcing your departure that it was because you
>had just cognited that organization leaders had been lying to you and
>everyone else, that the tech didn't work as claimed, that money was
>being squandered on lawyers to harass good people, that Hubbard really
>was a liar, that DM was a bullshitter, and that you were leaving to
>tell the world about $cientology, do you think your treatment would
>have been observably different?
I can only recount what happened, not what would have happened. During
the discussions in which they tried to convince me to stay, some of
these aspects did come up, although not in such a stupid fashion. I
don't even use this kind of primitive approach to this day. I usually
try to engage in dialog, mostly with those who seem reasonable enough,
so did I back then. Obviously, if I started to shout, insult people
and make life impossible for others, the reaction would have been
harsher, but that would probably be the case in any other environment
as well.
Quite frankly, the idea that they would physically restrain me didn't
even come to mind. At all times during my stay in Scientology, I was
always free to come and go as I pleased (within the rules, of course,
like you would in any normal working place), and since I have never
witnessed anything like physical restrain during my five years at the
local, European, and World Wide level, I had no reasons to even think
about this possibility.
>>: I don't call
>>: this "coercion", because the term is misleading and hints at physical
>>: coercion.
>
>Let's all be the judges of whether it was coercion. Tell us what was
>said and done to try to get you to not leave. The term is only
>misleading if it's unclear what you think it is.
Their reaction was rather interesting. They first thought that I was
"demoralized" because of my work, so they started follow me more
closely, give me targets to achieve and try to bring my "moral back
up". Of course, it didn't change my decision, because that wasn't the
cause of why I wanted to leave.
Then one of the staff of the department I was working in (I was
working in the personal department, the chief of which was Kevin
Kember, husband of Jane Kember) tried to convince me that I should
stay. The result of it of course was that he fairly quickly stopped,
because *he* was the one who started having doubt about Scn through my
own questioning - which was something rather interesting.
Then Kevin Kember himself tried to convince me. Interestingly enough,
we went into discussing Krishnamurti and I even lend him one of his
book. Believe it or not, he actually sent me the book back when he
finished reading it, and that was long after I was out of the CoS.
Goes to show what "evil" beings the "upper management" of Scn really
are, right?
I don't remember having received any special sec checks for wanting to
leave. The reason was probably that as a GO staff we were getting
those regularly, and they already knew everything about me they wanted
to know (even more so since they also provided for my auditing). Maybe
I did receive such a sec check and am just mixing it up with one of
the numerous other sec checks or overt write up we were regularly
required to do. I don't know, but it didn't seem important enough, or
I would remember it.
As I said, the only unusual thing in this story is that I challenged
them to "route me out" instead of blowing. I never saw anything that
prevented those who wanted to leave to just step out and go. People
are in the movement because they want to. They join out of their own
free will and quit out of their own free will. I know that this runs
contradictory to the paranoid picture you and your fellow critics
would like to give of the CoS, but that's the simple truth.
>>:None of my friends who left the movement reported any
>>: physical coercion either, nor have I ever seen it during my time in
>>: the group.
>
>That would support the observation that you were not in a place in the
>organization where you saw much of what was going on.
In five years of involvement at the local, European and World Wide
level, I saw quite a bit of the organization. If physical restrain
occurred, it must have been well hidden, and if it ever happened at
all, then certainly wouldn't represent what happens for the vast
majority of case, which is what we are discussing here.
>>: The truth is simply that, in Scientology at least, all it takes for
>>: one to leave the movement is basically to wrap his things and step out
>>: - and that makes it an individual decision and makes the member
>>: responsible for his involvement.
>
>Untrue. Dominating someone's will does not make him responsible for
>his involvement. But that's not the issue. It's, here at least, the
>right of any person anywhere to leave at any time without restraint.
>There are, of course, situations and institutions in which it would be
>unsafe, discourteous or unwise for that basic right to be the rule.
>But $cientology is, in almost all instances, not one of these
>situations or institutions.
What the hell are you talking about? Can we have that in Englese, por
favor?
>>: This doesn't mean of course that he is responsible for *everything*
>>: that happens to him during his stay in the group, but the basic
>>: decision certainly is his, which is the key point when discussing
>>: cults and mind-control.
>
>But the basic decision is not his. It isn't he that says what the
>conditions are by which he can leave.
Whether one follows the conditions for leaving or not (most don't),
there is nothing that prevents him to step out and go, and therefore
the basic decision is his.
>That decision is there before he
>walks in and will be there after he walks out of $cientology. No one
>knows while getting in what will get him out. That's why he must, in
>joining any such organization or cult, be forever free to go. It is
>$cientology which knows what the person joining must do to get out. So
>it is with $cientology that the shift can occur on people getting out.
>We're saying to $cientology (many of us having been locked up or
>otherwise held and not permitted to leave) change your policy and
>adopt a higher standard. Let our people go. This is an issue for
>discussion now before the upcoming mass exodus.
>
>(c) Gerry Armstrong
"Let our people go", eh...
"The upcoming mass exodus"...
Whatever.
Bernie
http://www.bernie.us-inc.com/go.htm
(more of my time in the GO)
Shayde
recipes being posted, but is this not a newsgroup related to support for
ex-cult members.... or has it been inadvertently changed to a food and
recipe news group? If so, can someone please steer me to a group for
support for ex-cult members?
If it's not a recipe group, would it be possible that the exchange of these
non-related recipe items be done by private email to those who want them?
I don't mean to be fussy, but when I get almost a dozen posts with nothing
but recipes, I am concerned that I am in the wrong newsgroup.
Thank you and I apologize if my words offended anyone.
William Barwell
This nonsense is the work of Scientology hackers. They are forging posts
in the names of Scientology critics on the net, using these posts grabbed
from some cooking newsgroup. It is at least an improvement of the hateful
posts from white power, neonazi groups that they had been using to forge
ugly posts using the names of well known Scientology critics.
When you see such a post, you will know that Scientology is responsible.
It is meant to clog newsgroups where ever knowledgable people discuss
Scientology and its abuses.
If you see a LOT of this, you may want to check alt.religion.scientology
for posts on how to filter this nonsense and updates as tehy abandon
one account and swhich they do quite often.
C0mm13
> Maybe I am not following some hidden message in all these over-abundance of
> recipes being posted, but is this not a newsgroup related to support for
> ex-cult members.... or has it been inadvertently changed to a food and
> recipe news group? If so, can someone please steer me to a group for
> support for ex-cult members?
> If it's not a recipe group, would it be possible that the exchange of these
> non-related recipe items be done by private email to those who want them?
>
> I don't mean to be fussy, but when I get almost a dozen posts with nothing
> but recipes, I am concerned that I am in the wrong newsgroup.
>
> Thank you and I apologize if my words offended anyone.
There is a lot of spam on this ng. A LOT of spam. Some posters here believe
that the CO$ or person(s) affiliated with such is behind the majority of this
spam, and I am one of them. I consider this to be extremely rude, and it also
is an attempt to violate our first amendment rights of free speech. CO$ is
becoming that which they so vehemently declare "Anti-$cientologists" are, but I
digress. If your connection is getting bogged down by it, I'd recommend that
you get a newsgroup spam filter ( You may want to surf around a bit to find one
that you like ).
The recipes are probably just part of someone's thread that got sidetracked a
bit. The spammers seem to change their focus from racist postings to whatever
in order to scare people with slow internet connections away. I have a t1
direct connection, so it's not a problem, but I'd imagine the slowdown from a
modem connection of less than 56kbps.
I don't post my email here due to the number of spammers. I have limitations
on my email account and can't handle twenty or thirty "big" messages
sometimes. Be careful about posting your email account as well. A person with
an email account or basic networking tools can find out pretty interesting
information about you.
This IS a newsgroup dedicated to ex-cult members of $cientology. But, like the
mob, $cientology doesn't like you to leave the cult and start saying things
about it.
I hope that clears something up.
C0mm13 ( Russell Daniels )
Jan Groenveld
> Maybe I am not following some hidden message in all these over-abundance of
> recipes being posted, but is this not a newsgroup related to support for
> ex-cult members.... or has it been inadvertently changed to a food and
> recipe news group? If so, can someone please steer me to a group for
> support for ex-cult members?
> If it's not a recipe group, would it be possible that the exchange of these
> non-related recipe items be done by private email to those who want them?
>
> I don't mean to be fussy, but when I get almost a dozen posts with nothing
> but recipes, I am concerned that I am in the wrong newsgroup.
>
> Thank you and I apologize if my words offended anyone.
>
Recipes???? HAve I missed someting?? I love recipes .... but I haven't seen any
...... maybe because I have learnt to delete postings I know are fullof nothing
...
This is ex-cult support and you can get even more if you go to:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/ex-cult-support
^^THE MOST DANGEROUS LIE IS THAT WHICH MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE TRUTH^^
_--_|\ Cult Awareness Web Page: http://student.uq.edu.au/~py101663
/ OZ x <-- Brisbane, Personal Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjgroen
\_.--._/ (OZ = Australia) Cult Awareness & Information Centre
v
Marcus Hill
>
> I guess there must be some aspects of the theory of natural selection
> which can be tested (tracking genetic markers in fruit-fly breeding
> experiments...?), and once Popper became aware of this, he did the
> gentlemanly thing, and modified his position.
Well, that's what real scientists and academics do - when their
position has been convincingly argued against and/or proven false,
they admit they were mistaken and move on. Of course, if one is the
kind of person who stands firmly by the crazed meanderings of a
proven liar in the face of masses of evidence that said meanderings
are so much bovine excrement, maybe one should try to learn from
Popper's example.
--
********* Song of Steel LRP at http://www.netlrp.uk.com/sos **********
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer"
- Homer Simpson
Marcus.
Marcus Hill
writes:
>In article <7V0WeIAK...@exeter0.demon.co.uk>,
> Jo Dobbs <J...@exeter0.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> My only conclusion so far about American cuisine is that I shall just
>> have to get over there and check it out, but I don't where or when!
>>
>> --
>> Jo
>> Remove nospam
>
>Jo, So you don't feel badly... We don't have butter tarts, coffee crisps or
>ketchup chips here! And they look at ya funny if you want vinegar with your
>fries, and fetch a salad dressing-vinegar!
>
>Tara
>>
ah ha!!!!! not so Tara. get your bod down to the boardwalk in OC, MD. there is
a french fries only stand called Thrashers. all fries are sold in cups, ranging
in size from about 12oz to about gallon size. ONLY topping offered is Vinegar.
in fact they say that they will not serve ketchup either(take that Stan(G). on
a good nite, their lines go forever. and, while you are on the boardwalk, make
certain that you stop at Pollock Johnny's. the polish sausage is great.
Marcus Hill
Mark
KurtBusiek wrote:
> >>From: Moose Baumann <moos...@vornet.com>
> Date: Wed, Jan 13, 1999 4:51 PM:
>
> >>EXCELSIOR! was being put together at Marvel's west coast office, with Evan
> Skolnick (I believe) editing.>>
>
> Rob Tokar.
>
OOPS!! My apologies to Rob. Like I said, it's been a few years, and the books
went through the office pretty quickly.
>
> >>Rumor around the office was that the whole line was shit-canned by Harras
> because the books didn't fit "The Marvel Mold".>>
>
> Stan pulled them himself, after looking at the first issues and realizing they
> wouldn't launch well in the marketplace of the time.
Again, a mistake, although not mine entirely. This was the word going around by
way of "well informed" Malibu editors. I should have known from experience to take
anything they said with a grain of salt.
We live & learn, huh?
MOOSE!!!