Quote:(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.
Wikipedia Wrote: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:
Wikipedia: Mind Control Wrote: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]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control
More recent reexaminations of the notion of brainwashing likewise have concluded brainwashing per se did not occur.
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:
Quote:"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:
Wikipedia: Indoctrination Wrote: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:
Quote: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?
Quote: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"?
ETA: Wikipedia Wrote: 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?
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.