The Realities of Mind Control - What can actually be done?

[Ocelot]

However if you just want a good argument, I'll leave it to someone else.

Bye then Scott. It's been real.

 

[Greedo]

No, I don't mind, in fact I love nutty doughnuts.

Now that you pointed out my mistake, I can't stop chuckling at the image in my mind of doughnuts waving "911-was-an-inside-job!!!" signs with angry faces

 

[Jontg]

Okay... not sure how much I should weigh in here. I've been a practicing hypnotist since... actually, around the same time I joined JREF. I've done some pretty fascinating things with it since then--but I'm pretty sure my results are both unusual and slightly skewed, because for about that same time, I've been part of a freaky S&M subculture that thinks Trilby was a romantic comedy. Brainwashing, behavioral modification, conditioning, trigger phrases... all this stuff is possible and well-documented to us. But work-safeness aside, the problem with all this experimental data should be obvious...

 

[Scott Sommers]

You're making this up, right?

 

[Jontg]

Hah, no, as deranged as it still* seems, I'm not yanking your collective chain. I think it's sort of like the rule of first adopters... no matter what it is, if you can shoehorn sex into it, people will figure out how to do bizarre, improbable, and incredibly hot things with it. But, again, one big difference exists between, say, the CIA using LSD to make Khrushchev declare war on space toads, and a few hundred nerds experimenting with altered states to enhance what's basically just kinky roleplay. The reason this all works is because the subject thinks it will and desperately wants it to--like most out of the way, power-fetish type sex, how much control you get depends on how much your playmate trusts you. And now you're officially being weighed in on, btw.

*God, has it really been five years since high school? And the website that led me into this whole thing is defunct... *is depressed and old*

 

[Scott Sommers]

You seem to misunderstand me. I mean even you couldn't possibly think this is a real argument. Let me get this right, you and some of your teenage stoner friends have discovered 'mind control'.

So what exactly is this 'mind control' thing that has eluded the multi-million dollar efforts of government-backed research scientists but a handful of burnouts have been able to master?

As the Greedo might be thinking, in the end, this could all just be payback.

 

[Jontg]

Well, that's exactly what I'm saying--it's nothing really new or special. Hell, IIRC, the CIA tried all this crap in the 60s and tossed it out because it's totally useless for boot-stomping-on-a-human-face-forever purposes. You can't do anything with hypnosis that the subject doesn't want done--even though what you can do with a willing subject is pretty astonishing if the subject in question has erotic fantasies about that snake from The Jungle Book. Thus, my initial reluctance to bring it up at all. Forget I said anything?
ETA: And yes, there's a wikipedia article on the subject. And yes, there's a LOT of woo floating around this chunk of the alt-sex community. I try to weigh in when I see people talking about energy play and subliminal imaging, but I am but one teenage stoner burnout. Who's 23 and once did a single shot of straight vodka.

 

[Checkmite]

In fact, I am quite familiar with the idea of brain-washing. It is completely irrelevant what William Sargant says. He is/was a nut case. The American Psychological Association position on the idea is clear.
APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control. There is no professional voice that speaks about 'brain washing' or 'mind control'. It is wacko ideas from popular films and conspiracy theory. It is an idea that hangs around at the margins among lay discussions of some anti-social religious practices. And that is absolutely the end of it.

Tell me, what is this brain washing thing supposed to do? How can I tell that someone is brain washed? What are these things they will do by which I will know someone is under this form of control.

Nowadays, "mind control" and "brainwashing" are terms that tend to be used to describe an attempt at behavior modification through positive- and negative-reinforcement and milieu control. Yes, traditionally the quotated terms are used to describe something different, and this difference can be used as a vector of attacking the concept (which makes their use unwise).

I'm pretty sure the existence of psychological reinforcement and milieu control as behavior modification tactics is fairly well established; in a simplified form they're how child molesters groom their victims. Of course they don't always "work" on everyone.

ETA: These things have nothing to do with the "traditional" concepts of "mind control" and "brainwashing", which are what conspiracy theorists espouse the government is doing to the citizenry.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Well, that's exactly what I'm saying--it's nothing really new or special. Hell, IIRC, the CIA tried all this crap in the 60s and tossed it out because it's totally useless for boot-stomping-on-a-human-face-forever purposes. You can't do anything with hypnosis that the subject doesn't want done--even though what you can do with a willing subject is pretty astonishing if the subject in question has erotic fantasies about that snake from The Jungle Book. Thus, my initial reluctance to bring it up at all. Forget I said anything?
ETA: And yes, there's a wikipedia article on the subject. And yes, there's a LOT of woo floating around this chunk of the alt-sex community. I try to weigh in when I see people talking about energy play and subliminal imaging, but I am but one teenage stoner burnout. Who's 23 and once did a single shot of straight vodka.

Great to hear we're on the same side.

Nowadays, "mind control" and "brainwashing" are terms that tend to be used to describe an attempt at behavior modification through positive- and negative-reinforcement and milieu control.

Who uses them this way? Teenage stoners on the Internet? It's kind of a silly use of the term, since the systematic use of reward systems has nothing to do with 'control'.

I'm pretty sure the existence of psychological reinforcement and milieu control as behavior modification tactics is fairly well established; in a simplified form they're how child molesters groom their victims. Of course they don't always "work" on everyone.

It's also how parents toilet train their kids, teach them table manners and encourage them to wear clothing that their classmates at school won't laugh at.

ETA: These things have nothing to do with the "traditional" concepts of "mind control" and "brainwashing", which are what conspiracy theorists espouse the government is doing to the citizenry.

My God! I think you've stumbled onto something amazing. Everything is mind control! And isn't that what the conspiracy theorists have been telling us all along! Our whole world, our whole existence, is the product of mind control and brain washing. All of history is the history of human brain washing by powerful groups that really control our consciousness.

This is amazing stuff we're working on here. How far do you think we can take it?

 

[Jontg]

People are automatons. Not just the ones you disagree with--all of us. We're just so advanced that it's not always obvious. Conditioning, programming, training, whatever you want to call it, it's the foundation of everything we are. Everything from pathological hatred of socialism to not crapping your pants is the result of brainwashing. It's scary to think about if you value freedom and control as much as some people do--but if I've learned anything else from my adventures in the weird world of freaky sex, it's that some people enjoy the idea of not being at the helm.

 

[Robrob]

This is amazing stuff we're working on here. How far do you think we can take it?

It's CT 101, take a term like "mind control" or "conspiracy" and reduce it down to its lowest common denominator. Just because positive reinforcement works to potty train your kid doesn't mean it's "mind control" any more than because a couple of guys conspire to rob a bank means "vast international conspiracies of the NWO Illuminati" exist.

 

[Checkmite]

Who uses them this way? Teenage stoners on the Internet? It's kind of a silly use of the term, since the systematic use of reward systems has nothing to do with 'control'.

Mostly it's used by individuals such as Rick Ross, and opponents of Scientology and of some group-oriented "impact training" programs.

It's also how parents toilet train their kids, teach them table manners and encourage them to wear clothing that their classmates at school won't laugh at.

The difference here is, teaching toddlers such social skills for the first time is imprinting something upon basically a clean slate. "Behavior modification" in the context I'm using it involves a directed effort to cause a person reject or ignore already strongly-imprinted social norms in favor of the new ones you want them to adhere to. Using the Scientology example, here's a group with outrageous science-fiction "tenets" that manages to enjoy being defended and supported by its well-educated followers who would have never have even joined if they knew up front that it was secretly a UFO cult; they are managed in such a way that by the time they are introduced to the "Xenu" lore, they embrace it rather than laugh it off.

My God! I think you've stumbled onto something amazing. Everything is mind control! And isn't that what the conspiracy theorists have been telling us all along! Our whole world, our whole existence, is the product of mind control and brain washing. All of history is the history of human brain washing by powerful groups that really control our consciousness.

This is amazing stuff we're working on here. How far do you think we can take it?

You expressed a desire for clarification as to people using the same term "mind control" to describe apparently different things. I'm trying my best to describe the differences in a helpful way; I'd appreciate a little less patronization in return for my effort to answer your question if it's all the same to you.

 

[Jontg]

From now on, you should just consider all my posts to be prefaced by "If I've learned nothing else from my adventures in the weird world of freaky sex..."

 

[little grey rabbit]

Using the Scientology example, here's a group with outrageous science-fiction "tenets" that manages to enjoy being defended and supported by its well-educated followers who would have never have even joined if they knew up front that it was secretly a UFO cult; they are managed in such a way that by the time they are introduced to the "Xenu" lore, they embrace it rather than laugh it off.

And not just Scientology either.

You know I sometimes think that the whole idea of Cargo-Cults was nothing more than a construct made by elite Western academics which secretly expressed their views regarding the world religions - as opposed to a real phenomenon. Were Melanesians so utterly clueless? In my view people can assimilate new world-views quite quickly if the evidence is before their eyes.

In the same way Margaret Mead, if we accept Derek Freeman's work (I think he was mostly right), constructed Samoan society to resemble what she and her circle thought was ideal, rather than make any attempt to reflect Samoan society that was before her.

As Dr Mead herself said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

 

[Scott Sommers]

Let's start here,

You expressed a desire for clarification as to people using the same term "mind control" to describe apparently different things. I'm trying my best to describe the differences in a helpful way; I'd appreciate a little less patronization in return for my effort to answer your question if it's all the same to you.

I have never expressed desire for clarification. I need none on this topic. On the other hand, I do not mean to be patronizing, and apologize for sounding this way but honestly, some of things being described here are hard for me to take seriously.

I thought I had made things clear in my first post, which is the second post of this thread.

I am a PhD candidate in Educational Psychology. I have never been taught about how to control people's minds. In fact, in our studies, we can barely get any measurable effect. Where did this amazing secret technology that no one in a psychology department has ever heard of come from? Aliens? The secret global government developed in those underground cities? It would have to be, since even professors at top research schools have never heard of it.

There is no such thing as mind control. There is no such thing as brain-washing. I have tried talking to people before about what brain-washing could be. I still don't understand what it's supposed to be. Maybe you can clear this up for me.

Now I don't know what you think 'mind control' could be, but your description is extremely confused.

The difference here is, teaching toddlers such social skills for the first time is imprinting something upon basically a clean slate. "Behavior modification" in the context I'm using it involves a directed effort to cause a person reject or ignore already strongly-imprinted social norms in favor of the new ones you want them to adhere to. Using the Scientology example, here's a group with outrageous science-fiction "tenets" that manages to enjoy being defended and supported by its well-educated followers who would have never have even joined if they knew up front that it was secretly a UFO cult; they are managed in such a way that by the time they are introduced to the "Xenu" lore, they embrace it rather than laugh it off.

imprinting...behavior modification...these have nothing to do with control. Imprinting has nothing to do with how babies are toilet trained. That's the end of this. Imprinting is just irrelevant in all of this.

Behavior modification is a technical term from experimental psychology. Its clinical use is irrelevant.

Mostly it's used by individuals such as Rick Ross, and opponents of Scientology and of some group-oriented "impact training" programs.

While I know little about Scientology, I have met some high-ranking Scientologists. However, that is also irrelevant to the issue of control. This impact training thing you talk about would have been experienced by far less than 1% of Americans. All of them would have volunteered for it believing it has some powerful effect on them, in fact they would have paid for this powerful effect to happen. I believe that those who did not experience a powerful effect would have felt like they'd been ripped off and perhaps ask for their money back. So what this impact training thing could be, I doubt anyone really knows.

There seems to be a lot of confusion between different technical terms lifted from psychology, such as imprinting and behavior mod, with a more accurate term - socialization. These are very ideas. Certainly if you're trying to describe a deterministic explanation for why humans do things, it makes no sense at all to be confusing socialization with some form of 'mind control'.

 

[Checkmite]

There seems to be a lot of confusion between different technical terms lifted from psychology, such as imprinting and behavior mod, with a more accurate term - socialization.

I'm not sure I can do anything about that; I'll concede that "behavior modification" may be a technical psychological term that involves something completely different from what I'm describing, but I really don't know what else to call something that is "an attempt to modify behavior". Likewise if the term "imprint" is already taken, I suppose "etch" or "train" or "establish" or some other synonym might work instead.

Scientology's methodology very certainly is motivated by control. Its goal is to make money; in order to achieve this it has to somehow change the aforementioned intelligent, educated individuals, who would at first scoff at the core tenets of Scientology outright to say nothing of giving them any money, into eager cash cows who are actually willing to shun friends and family members that are critical of the "church". They use a prescribed method to purposefully accomplish this - it's not something that just "happens" when a novice hangs around the Scientology office for long enough. Maybe the methods used are commonly used to accomplish smaller goals.

But it's the "bigness" and "suddenness", I think, that causes people to be okay with calling what Scientology and groups like it do "mind control", while they wouldn't refer to a child trying to guilt-trip a parent into buying them candy in the same way. Trying to make this simple, what distinguishes common psychological "manipulation" tricks from what critics of these groups sometimes refer to as "brainwashing" (from what I can tell) might be that the so-called "brainwashing" involves the intentional transformation of a significant portion of a person's entire worldview or value set, especially when important parts of the new "set" are at odds with, contradictory to, or mutually exclusive of the old "set" it's replacing. Thus, trying to get a person to buy Coke rather than Pepsi wouldn't be "brainwashing"; this requires merely a singular change of preference rather than a whole new ontology. Convincing a mass of college graduates to run off to a foreign country and then poison their children and commit suicide en masse may qualify.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I think the points you raise are very good. They get to the essence of the problem of brain washing, which I see here as the obvious fact that some people join weird groups and do stuff you would never predict from their demographic background.

I don't know much about any of these weird groups, except the Family of Love. The Family is a Christ-based sex cult. They use sexually available women to lure people into their group. At one time, they used to send them to bars and other places to meet people. Once in the group, you live in communal houses, follow a strict regime, and have what appears to be unlimited access to women. At one time, they claimed a vast membership. My understanding is that these days, almost all members are born into the group. Apparently they're even having trouble keeping kids of members in the group. As much as that would be this powerful thing you're talking about, it hasn't worked very well for The Family.

I understand Scientology suffers from similar problems of recruitment. They have trouble finding new members and raising the kind of money they did in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology#Membership_statistics
Is this because their techniques don't work like they used to? In the Wiki page I posted, it states

...church's estimates of its membership numbers are exaggerated: "You're talking about anyone who ever bought a Scientology book or took a basic course. Ninety-nine percent of them don't ever darken the door of the church again."

This seems to be implying that huge numbers of people take their courses once or twice and never come back. If their loosing 90%+ of the people who experience this thing they do, it not what I would call a powerful form of getting new members.

But in fact, I suspect these courses that some might describe as 'brain washing' are not at all some powerful form of persuasion, and instead work as a selection mechanism. From the numbers posted in that Wiki entry, it seems well over 90% of people involved with Scientology have lost interest. These would be volunteers who have paid for the services of the group to transform them. And even these people hang around at a rate that could be less than 1%. Who are these people who get transformed by Scientology? I'm sure there's a particular type and I bet Scientology is on the look out for them because the methods they use work on that type. But they don't work on even 90%+ of them. And that's people who have shown interest and expect some amazing thing to happen.

Is there a way to take college graduates and get them "to run off to a foreign country and then poison their children and commit suicide en mass." Almost certainly not. Are there some college graduates who could be convinced to do this? Probably. In fact, certainly. And with enough time and interest, someone could figure out how to find them. Is there much interest in doing this? I doubt it, but success is defined differently in different situations.

Does that answer your question about Scientology and what they do?

 

[Horatius]

But in fact, I suspect these courses that some might describe as 'brain washing' are not at all some powerful form of persuasion, and instead work as a selection mechanism. From the numbers posted in that Wiki entry, it seems well over 90% of people involved with Scientology have lost interest.

I suspect that you'd find similar numbers for almost any activity that people start as adults, or even as teenagers. I do martial arts, and we have that 90+% drop out rate as well. Pretty much every MA teacher I've asked has said the same thing. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find similar numbers for any other activity, like golf, cooking classes or yoga.

Some people find what they're looking for and stay long term. The vast majority think it's boring after a few classes/sessions, and move on the the next thing.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I suspect that you'd find similar numbers for almost any activity that people start as adults, or even as teenagers. I do martial arts, and we have that 90+% drop out rate as well. Pretty much every MA teacher I've asked has said the same thing. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find similar numbers for any other activity, like golf, cooking classes or yoga.

Some people find what they're looking for and stay long term. The vast majority think it's boring after a few classes/sessions, and move on the the next thing.

And that is exactly my point. There is nothing going on here that doesn't happen everywhere else. You've either got accept that all of human consciousness is 'brain washing' or that whatever brain washing could be, Scientology isn't doing it.

I'm sure you realize that there are loads of folks keeping us friendly on the JREF who believe that no one - except all the Holocaust deniers, for example - who know anything about reality. So you know there are folks willing to accept the former idea. But I'm where I think you are, there's nothing really special going on there.

What kind of martial art do you do?

 

[Horatius]

What kind of martial arts do you do?

Japanese swordsmanship. Muso Jikden Eishin ryu and ZenKenRen iai, to be specific.

I've also done Kendo in the past, and still occasionally put on the bogu for a class or two.