In religion for example.

Ummmmmmmmmmmm 'Papa George' Romney made a trip to Viet Nam while running for POTUS... He talked to lots of Generals in the military (Westmoreland types, I guess) who told him: "Yeah! We can do this!"

after reflection, he told the press that he'd been brainwashed.
That 'didn't go over too well' with the public....

The same thing happened to Al Franken and a few other Senators formerly opposed to the Afghan war

Yes it is called "Grooming" it is when perpetrator or someone has an agenda to be fulfilled. They act in very subtle ways to steer the 'victim subject' into a pattern of life, the result of which is the endgame of the perpetrator.

It can and does happen expecially in religious organizations by guilting and flattery, then giving promises of position or eternal rewards. Think not to question your leaders and only obey and if we are wrong we will take the blame .. "When the leaders speak the thinking has been done "" (*Character Grooming at its best* )

It happens in the political/ military arena, take Hitler for instance, who brainwashed a whole nation into genocide without responsibility. (*Mass grooming, not the one on one scenario*)

It happens in monetary transactions, especially PONZI schemes. Take Bernie Madoff for instance who brainwashed exceptionally intelligent movie stars and captains of industry, with had teams of attornies and accountants, to invest with him with no accountability being required. (*Grooming by perceived success of others*)

It happens in families with sexual predators especially paedophiles. Where they convince their victims what is inherently evil is somehow natural and good. (Grooming by fear and by an authority figure status)

So yes in every area of life **deceptive indoctrine or brainwashing** is not only practiced but unfortunately the norm.
in some civilizations..


JB

I do. I like to call it "asymmetric influencing" because brainwashing is a loaded word.

We all try to influence the people around us: parents influence their children, managers their employees, companies their customers, etc.

The hallmark of such influencing is reciprocity: parents are influenced by what they think is best for the child, good managers have an eye for the development of their employees and companies better listen to what their customers want or ele they go under.

Assymmetric influencing occurs when there is no reciprocity, like in the Mormon church. The interests of the group supercede the interests of the individual. The individual has no influence over group leadership and direction, while group leadership, in contrast, interferes in the individual's life down to a very minute level (what food to eat, what clothes to wear, what entertainment to persue, etc.).

Basically, assymetric influencing is manipulation. It uses such techniques as:

- inducing fear and guilt;
- cultivating a strong us-versus-them mentality;
- encouraging group think, discouraging independent thought;
- enforce strict rules;
- meet out rewards and punsihment;
- social control and group pressure;
- inducing stress and keeping busy;
- discourage external information;
- polarisation, black-and-white thinking.

Of course, parents also meet out rewards and punishments, athletes live by very strict rules and sportsfans polarise and cultivate a strong us-versus-them mentality too.

However, when you combine manipulative processes with authoritarian structures, that's when the faeces collide with the ventilator. Manipulative processes do well in organisations with:

- a hierarchical, top-down command structure;
- many managerial layers;
- authoritarian, undemocratic decision making;
- non-transparent financial structure;
- own, layered information provision;
- isolated, inward focus;
- extensive control apparatus.

Again, these elements are not exclusive to any one organisation or necessarily bad in and of themselves but combined with the manipulative processes above, there is a huge potential for abuse stemming out of far-reaching and one-sided influencing and control of a person's behaviour, emotions and thoughts.

And that's what's popularly referred to as brainwashing.

[Quote]
Scholarly debate

James Richardson observes that if the NRMs [New Religious Movements] had access to powerful brainwashing techniques, one would expect that NRMs would have high growth rates, yet in fact most have not had notable success in recruitment. Most adherents participate for only a short time, and the success in retaining members is limited.[31] For this and other reasons, sociologists including David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cults" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible."[32] In addition to Bromley, Thomas Robbins, Dick Anthony, Eileen Barker, Newton Maloney, Massimo Introvigne, John Hall, Lorne Dawson, Anson Shupe, Gordon Melton, Marc Galanter, Saul Levine (amongst other scholars researching NRMs) have argued and established to the satisfaction of courts, of relevant professional associations and of scientific communities that there exists no scientific theory, generally accepted and based upon methodologically sound research, that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement.[33]

[There is among the majority of sociologists]...a rejection of brainwashing and of mind control as legitimate theories.
[End quote]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control)

I think its almost unavoidable. The problem is how do you know if you have or have not been brainwashed. If you have been, well, you're not likely to realize it. Obviously, some people find a way out. But I think we are faced with one obstacle to clear thinking after another. We clear one hurdle and think we see the world with clarity. But do we really? Or do we just think we do?

How do you avoid falling into another brainwashed manner of thinking? I try to avoid it or recognize it by regularly presenting myself with a series of increasingly asinine hypothetical questions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2011 12:47AM by thingsithink.

Absolutely. But it isn't politically correct to discuss in some circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jay_Lifton

Some academics claim that the "cult" label and "brainwashing" are prejudicial against "new religious movements." I have a different perspective...and most of this board would affirm that cults exist, some of great size, power and wealth.

Isn't the main argument that almost all groups, certainly any actual religion or mainstream religion, fall under all of Lifton's eight criteria? So then, the question becomes, why single out any of the NRMs?

Here the "ethical dilemma" raises its head on http:// w w w .
r e d d i t . com
/r/exmormon/comments/n8yh8/should_ihow_do_i_get_my_family_away_from_the/.

The problem of the vulnerability of children raised in a strict fundamentalist religion comes up in the sociological scholarship how?

And what is one's ethical obligation to someone who is being deceived?



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2011 02:03PM by derrida.

that exist between individuals, but when abusive, toxic controlling behavior is implemented by a group, it becomes protected as "religion."

There was a huge battle that took place at the APA over this issue, and Sanger and Lifton lost...but the controversy shows no sign of abating. Look at all the excult groups on the web. I wonder if the sociologists do?

Sociologists have a valuable perspective, but until they confront the reality--complete with its ethical problems--their views are esoteric to the point of irrelevance.

I like your points RAG.

Essentially the "freedom of religion" has worked to shelter almost any crazy BS whatsoever. A group actually has to rape children (FLDS groups that get caught) or kill people (People's Temple at Jonestown, Branch Davidians at Waco) before the state will step in. I wonder what the PC academics say about such NRMs? Reminds me of the problem of Jan Shipps.