How to Tell You've Been Indoctrinated

[Clueless Morgan]

I've been thinking a lot about my Mormon penpal as of late (it looks like our conversation might be getting a reboot) and I've been trying to think of a way of explaining to her that she has been indoctrinated.* Which got me thinking about how an indoctrinated person can tell that they have been indoctrinated.

I know, for instance, that I have been indoctrinated to certain things. The most overt example of my own indoctrination is that I (now) consider myself indoctrinated into the D.A.R.E. program (Drug Abuse Resistance Education); As a teenager I don't remember a time when I thought that doing drugs was a good choice, it was always in the back of my mind that drugs were illegal and doing them was just wrong, wrong, wrong despite the fact that I didn't care whether others were doing them, I was adamant about not drinking before turning 21, and the one time I was offered the opportunity to smoke pot I said no before I even fully comprehended what had happened**. Reflecting on this incident (the pot-offering incident), which happened about seven years ago, I think this is my indoctrination presenting itself. It gave me an answer to a question that I could give without even thinking about the answer. It was automatic, out of my mouth before I knew what I was saying. There was no thought on my part. Which is one of the hallmarks of indoctrination.

I have no personal experience with religious indoctrination so I guess I'm wondering how a religiously indoctrinated person realizes that they have been indoctrinated. For myself, I came to think I was indoctrinated because of self-reflection after reading The God Virus and wondering if I had been "infected" with something that wasn't god or religion.

Does anyone on the forums have this kind of experience, being indoctrinated and then realizing it while still being in the midst of one's indoctrination?

How do you think one realizes that indoctrination has taken when one has been indoctrinated? Is it really as easy (or as hard) as self-reflection?

* I understand that explaining this to her is likely to have no effect and just piss her off.
** I concede that this might have as much to do with my goody-two-shoes personality as with being indoctrinated, but I definitely consider my attitude towards drugs to be externally imposed - through indoctrination at the grade-school age.

[Clueless Morgan]

Found this article on overcoming indoctrination from the Atheist Foundation of Australia:
http://atheistfoundation.org.au/article/...ds-sanity/

First, one must become acquainted with and become used to the correct terminology pertaining to religious indoctrination. Even though the religious are quick to point out that others have been brainwashed (such as communists, other religious adherents and even Atheists), it is they who have succumbed to this process.
...
Second, after recognising one has been abused and brainwashed against their will and without their knowledge, if escape is required, then effort to combat this negative outlook must be more intense and prolonged than the unwanted religious input.
...
Third, take a proper look at Earth. 50,000 Iranians have been recently killed by earthquake, 3,000 many-denominational people died in the Twin Towers, 6 million Jewish people died in the Holocaust etc etc. Where were their respective gods? They were remarkably silent as they have been throughout history in humanity’s darkest hours.
...

There are three more steps described for a total of six. It seems that their first step is dependent on self-reflection in order to come to the realization that indoctrination has taken place, but if one is indoctrinated, how does one's mind open up to the possibility that indoctrination has taken place at all? It seems that doxastic closure must first be overcome before such recognition can occur, but the religious can be very good at rationalizing away things which create cognitive dissonance...

Alas, no answers yet...

And, oops, found a typo in the last sentence of the OP; it should read: "How do you think one realizes that indoctrination has taken place when one has been indoctrinated?"

[Angrboda]

I'm not sure what you mean by "indoctrinated." It seems you're using it as a synonym for brainwashed, which is a concept of some ill repute. If we were to rephrase the question as, "How do you know when you've learned about the existence of God?" then the question tends to lose the rather negative attitude involved by using the term "indoctrinated." I think you're biasing your conclusions by using loaded terminology.

[popeyespappy]

I'm not sure what you mean by "indoctrinated." It seems you're using it as a synonym for brainwashed, which is a concept of some ill repute. If we were to rephrase the question as, "How do you know when you've learned about the existence of God?" then the question tends to lose the rather negative attitude involved by using the term "indoctrinated." I think you're biasing your conclusions by using loaded terminology.

Merriam-Webster defines indoctrinate as: "to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs."

bolding mine

If you accept that definition of indoctrination the bolded part is usually the problem. Most consider it OK to indoctrinate some people in certain things. For example most don’t have a problem with indoctrinating a child with the belief they should always look both ways before crossing the street, or two plus two always equals four. On the other hand indoctrinating someone into a particular political belief without due consideration of other positions is probably not a good idea. Unfortunately many religious groups fall into the latter category. They teach that their position is the correct position without discussion of other possibilities. When they do that it is religious indoctrination.

[Clueless Morgan]

I'm not sure what you mean by "indoctrinated." It seems you're using it as a synonym for brainwashed, which is a concept of some ill repute. If we were to rephrase the question as, "How do you know when you've learned about the existence of God?" then the question tends to lose the rather negative attitude involved by using the term "indoctrinated." I think you're biasing your conclusions by using loaded terminology.

Indoctrination and brainwashing are synonymous. I won't repeat the definition of indoctrination as popeyespappy has already provided one which I feel is adequate.

The question I posed, "How do you think one realizes that indoctrination has taken place when one has been indoctrinated?" has the same meaning as "How do you think one realizes that brain-washing has taken place when one has been brain-washed?"

It does not have the same meaning as "How do you think one realizes that one has learned about the existence of God when one has learned about the existence of God?" (What does that even mean?)

We know indoctrination and brain-washing occurs. To the best of my knowledge that's not in dispute - please correct me if I'm wrong. So your restatement of my question is not only a misunderstanding of the purpose of my post, it's completely beside the point. You can be indoctrinated into something that has nothing to do with god or religion, as I was with the D.A.R.E. program. The question I'm asking is not "How do you know when you've learned about the existence of God?" it is "If you become indoctrinated or brainwashed into anything, how do you come to know that indoctrination or brainwashing has taken place?"

Furthermore, my question to others in the forums was (I'm rephrasing here) "If you have had the experience of being indoctrinated or brainwashed (which in the case of the members of these forums is likely to have occurred in the context of religion, though it's not confined to this context) how did you come to know that you had been indoctrinated? What was the impetus of this realization?"

I maybe should have posted this thread in the philosophy forum, but since my particular interest happens to lie in a better understanding of religious indoctrination (which I never experienced) I posted it in the Religion forum. I don't suppose I can move it now, perhaps if a mod thinks the Philosophy forum is a better place for it I wouldn't be opposed to it being moved...

[Angrboda]

I'm not sure what you mean by "indoctrinated." It seems you're using it as a synonym for brainwashed, which is a concept of some ill repute. If we were to rephrase the question as, "How do you know when you've learned about the existence of God?" then the question tends to lose the rather negative attitude involved by using the term "indoctrinated." I think you're biasing your conclusions by using loaded terminology.

... We know indoctrination and brain-washing occurs. To the best of my knowledge that's not in dispute - please correct me if I'm wrong. ...

Well then, your knowledge differs from mine, as my understanding is that "brainwashing" as a psychological concept has fallen on hard times. If you have anything which says otherwise, please present it.

"The suggestion that NRMs [New Religious Movements] use mind control techniques has resulted in scientific and legal controversy." ~ Wikipedia

Reexamining the concept of brainwashing after the war, in 1956 the U.S Department of the Army published a report entitled Communist Interrogation, Indoctrination, and Exploitation of Prisoners of War which called brainwashing a "popular misconception." ... Two academic studies of the repatriation of American prisoners of war ... concluded that brainwashing ... had at best a transient effect. More recent reexaminations of the notion of brainwashing likewise have concluded brainwashing per se did not occur.

(ETA: I don't think it matters where its posted so long as the focus is understood. And while I think you're putting words in my mouth, and then using a fallacious appeal to ridicule, the question, "How do you think one realizes that one has learned about the existence of God when one has learned about the existence of God?" is a perfectly valid question with surprising implications. [See Robert Burton's book, On Being Certain, or would you prefer to simply mock doctor Burton?])

In 1983, the American Psychological Association (APA) asked Margaret Singer to chair a taskforce called the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC) to investigate whether brainwashing or "coercive persuasion" did indeed play a role in recruitment by such movements. Before the taskforce had submitted its final report, the APA submitted on February 10, 1987 an amicus curiæ brief in an ongoing court case related to brainwashing. Although the amicus curiæ brief written by the APA denies the credibility of the brainwashing theory, the APA submitted the brief under "intense pressure by a consortium of pro-religion scholars (a.k.a. NRM scholars)". The brief repudiated Singer's theories on "coercive persuasion" and suggested that brainwashing theories were without empirical proof. Afterward the APA filed a motion to withdraw its signature from the brief, since Singer's final report had not been completed. However, on May 11, 1987, the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because the report "lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur", and concluded that "after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue." This leaves the APA's position on brainwashing as equivalent to: more research is needed until a definitive scientific verdict can be given.

[Clueless Morgan]

(ETA: I don't think it matters where its posted so long as the focus is understood. And while I think you're putting words in my mouth, and then using a fallacious appeal to ridicule, the question, "How do you think one realizes that one has learned about the existence of God when one has learned about the existence of God?" is a perfectly valid question with surprising implications. [See Robert Burton's book, On Being Certain, or would you prefer to simply mock doctor Burton?])

1) I'm sorry you think I'm mocking you, or your post, but the statement "How do you think one realizes that one has learned about the existence of God when one has learned about the existence of God?" honestly makes no sense to me. I didn't post it to be mocking, I posted it to contrast it with the question I was asking in order to point out that the two questions do not have the same meaning. If you think they do have the same meaning, please tell me how they have the same meaning rather than simply accuse me of mocking you.

2) You don't think you were putting words into my mouth when you completely redefined the question I was asking to "How do you know when you've learned about the existence of God?" I was not asking how one knows when they have learned about the existence of God, I was asking "How does one come to realize that one doesn't critically examine what one has been taught when one is taught not to critically examine what one has been taught?" (Perhaps we are getting closer to a question that makes sense to you since you seem to have a problem using the words "indoctrination" or "brainwashing") Again, I am sorry you think I am putting words into your mouth, that was not my intention. My intention was to clarify what I meant and if I misunderstood you I apologize, but what you were redefining my post to mean (based on my understanding of what you were posting) you were completely changing the the meaning of what I was asking. I was not asking about god. I was asking about the hijacking of critically thinking about what one is taught to think or believe.


Perhaps you will object that hijacking is also a loaded term? In which case I would feel justified (though childish) is accusing you of being difficult.

3) You must have a really low opinion of me to think I would mock a book I have never read or a person I don't know simply because they might have an opinion or information that is contrary to my current position or a statement I have made.

I hope your opinion of me is at least moderately improved by knowing that I've added the book you suggested to my amazon wishlist so that I can read it and make an effort to better understand the information you are trying to inform me of. Perhaps in the future you could extend me the courtesy of not jumping to the conclusion that I am completely closed minded and not interested in correcting myself when I have misspoken or have been shown to hold a wrong belief or opinion and instead point me in the direction of a resource where I can learn about the topic I am misinformed about. And then do me the courtesy of not automatically assuming I'm going to mock the resource you provided me.

---

Reexamining the concept of brainwashing after the war, in 1956 the U.S Department of the Army published a report entitled Communist Interrogation, Indoctrination, and Exploitation of Prisoners of War which called brainwashing a "popular misconception." ... Two academic studies of the repatriation of American prisoners of war ... concluded that brainwashing ... had at best a transient effect. More recent reexaminations of the notion of brainwashing likewise have concluded brainwashing per se did not occur.

Thanks for providing this information (though it would have been more helpful if you have included a link to the wiki page, or at least the name of the wiki page you were citing, but seeing as how I can be accused of being petulant about the lack of a link and since I found the page despite the fact that no link was provided I'll let it slide)

Do you think the Chinese brainwashing of the American POWs had a transient effect because the POWs were returned to the US and were reintegrated into American society? Would the brainwashing have had a more "permanent" effect had these men not been returned to the US but stayed in China and continued to receive reinforcement? How do you think this kind of "coercive persuasion" would be different if one is born into a society that begins this kind of persuasion from childhood and one receives this kind of reinforcement all the way to adulthood?

Here's some more information from that same page:

Two academic studies of the repatriation of American prisoners of war by Robert Jay Lifton[19] and by Edgar Schein[20][21] concluded that brainwashing (called "thought reform" by Lifton and "coercive persuasion" by Schein) (if it occurred) had at best a transient effect. Both researchers found that the Chinese mainly used coercive persuasion to disrupt the ability of the prisoners to organize and maintain morale and hence to escape. By placing the prisoners under conditions of physical and social deprivation and disruption, and then by offering them more comfortable situations such as better sleeping quarters, better food, warmer clothes or blankets, the Chinese did succeed in getting some of the prisoners to make anti-American statements. Nevertheless, the majority of prisoners did not actually adopt Communist beliefs, instead behaving as though they did in order to avoid the plausible threat of extreme physical abuse. Both researchers also concluded that such coercive persuasion succeeded only on a minority of POWs, and that the end-result of such coercion remained very unstable, as most of the individuals reverted to their previous condition soon after they left the coercive environment. In 1961 they both published books expanding on these findings. Schein published Coercive Persuasion[22] and Lifton published Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.[23]

More recent reexaminations of the notion of brainwashing likewise have concluded brainwashing per se did not occur.

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

While I am not an expert by any means in the Korean War or what POWs are subjected to in POW camps (I don't even claim to know anything beyond what this article had to say), as stated above in the article it doesn't appear that brainwashing or indoctrination occurred, though I would say, rather, that it seemed that the Chinese were attempting it but were not successful in a setting where they were trying to alter the way their prisoners were perceiving them. Furthermore, the Chinese seemed to be attempting psychological persuasion for the primary purpose of prisoner control.

From that same article, Mind Control (brainwashing) is defined as:

"the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes",[30]

Which, while not word for the word the same, sounds a lot like the intent of indoctrination:

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
which supports my statement that indoctrination and brainwashing (mind control) are synonymous, or at least closely linked in practice.

Again, from the Wiki page on Mind Control:

Approaching the subject from the perspective of neuroscience and social psychology, Kathleen Taylor suggests that manipulation of the prefrontal cortex activates "brainwashing", rendering a person more susceptible to black-and-white thinking.[33] Meanwhile, in Influence, Science and Practice, social psychologist Robert Cialdini argues that mind control is possible through the covert exploitation of the unconscious rules that underlie and facilitate healthy human social interactions. He states that common social rules can be used to prey upon the unwary. Using categories, he offers specific examples of both mild and extreme mind control (both one on one and in groups), notes the conditions under which each social rule is most easily exploited for false ends, and offers suggestions on how to resist such methods.[34]

James Richardson observes that if the NRMs 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.[35] For this and other reasons, sociologists of religion including David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cults" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible."[36] 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.[37]

What this tells me is that there are people who think brainwashing is a thing and those that don't, or at least doubt its veracity. What the second paragraph above tells me is not that brainwashing per se doesn't exist, but that in the majority of cases when one is pulled into a group or movement that uses such techniques as an adult that the convert's rationality end up overcoming attempts to completely submit one's whole self to the group or movement.

WHICH IS BASICALLY THE POINT OF MY OP!!! How does this happen? What is it that ultimately causes most converts to walk away from the group or movement?

Other scholars disagree with this consensus amongst sociologists of religion. Benjamin Zablocki asserts that it's obvious that brainwashing occurs, at least to any objective observer; the "real sociological issue", he states, is whether "brainwashing occurs frequently enough to be considered an important social problem".[39] Zablocki disagrees with scholars like Richardson, stating that Richardson's observation is flawed.[40] According to Zablocki, Richardson misunderstands brainwashing, conceiving of it as a recruiting process, instead of a retaining process.[40] So although Richardson's data are correct, Zablocki states, properly understood, brainwashing does not imply that NRMs will have a notable success in recruitment; so the criticism is inapt.[40] Additionally, Zablocki attempts to debunk the other criticisms Richardson, et al., apply to brainwashing: if Zablocki is correct, there's a plethora of evidence in favor of the claim that some NRMs brainwash some of their members.[40] Perhaps most notably, Zablocki says, the sheer number of former cult leaders and ex-members who attest to brainwashing in interviews (performed in accordance with guidelines of the National Institute of Mental Health and National Science Foundation) is too large to be a result of anything other than a genuine phenomenon.[41] Zablocki also reveals that of two most prestigious journals dedicated to the sociology of religion, the number of articles "supporting the brainwashing perspective" have been zero, while over one hundred such articles have been published in other journals "marginal to the field".[42] From this fact, Zablocki concludes that the concept 'brainwashing' has been "blacklisted" unfairly from the field of sociology of religion.[42] Moreover, Zablocki claims that some prominent scholars who do not share his viewpoint have received "lavish funding" from NRMs.[39] These scholars tend to see no consensus, while what Melton sees as a majority of scholars[43] regard it as a rejection of brainwashing and of mind control as legitimate theories.[44]

I didn't know that the number of articles supporting brainwashing has been zero; I just learned something. I wonder, though, was it means that over 100 artciles have been published in journals "marginal to the field." Over 100 articles have been published supporting the notion of brainwashing, but were published in non-sociological journals? Or over 100 articles refuting the notion of brainwashing have been published in journals "marginal to the field"?

This leaves the APA's position on brainwashing as equivalent to: more research is needed until a definitive scientific verdict can be given.

Okay.

Does the need for more scientific evidence mean that we cannot discuss my (third) rephrasing of my OP question?

"How does one come to realize that one doesn't critically examine what one has been taught when one is taught not to critically examine what one has been taught?"

Is this finally a satisfactory rephrasing of the question?

[Angrboda]

At this point, you've buried things in so much crap that I no longer care.

[Whateverist]

Using Popeyespappy's definition of "indoctrination", the answer to the original question follows something like this. Someone realizes they have been indoctrinated into a particular belief when they realize that their learning about it was carefully managed to present only one view as acceptable. When they discover that others see the same things in a variety of ways which can be defended as well as the one they've had cultivated in themselves then they know they have been indoctrinated.

There may be instances of indoctrination where one doesn't mind. One might reason that having been brought up with certain values that those values justify the one sided attempt to instill them. One might even decide to pass them along in the same way. I'm not sure this falls so far outside the norm as to be universally damnable.

[Angrboda]

I think something that may be missing here is the difference between the learning done by a child in the context of a family and the learning by an autonomous adult. Because of the context, developmental psychology of children, and the incentives for both parent and child, much of the early learning of a child will fit the dictionary definition of indoctrination. And this definition doesn't communicate well that indoctrination is often viewed in a bad light, as something unhealthy. If we put the two together, we end up passing a blanket judgement that this early learning is unhealthy, and I think that's absurd.

As to my own view, I stopped believing in the virtues of my Christian upbringing at an age which I don't remember what happened. I do think that a factor in my abandoning Christianity is that my religious education was neglected. My sisters were confirmed, and once that had been accomplished, my mother no longer bothered to educate me in the ways of Christianity. I think it's natural to think that likely influenced my desire to continue learning and remain in the faith, but I just don't know. I simply don't remember. Though I was a willful child (am?), so it's possible that my thinking became autonomous in character earlier than that of most.