Talk:Brainwashing

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brainwashing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 12 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scientology Mid‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not accepted a scientific fact?

I am removing from the article the sentence: The concept of brainwashing is generally not accepted as a scientific fact.^[1]^[2]

The original addition of this line (diff), long before it morphed into this version, was: However, in the view of many scholars, the theory cults and new religious movements use mind control on their members is still (as of 2012) not accepted as scientific fact.^[3]

I have just read Usarski and indeed it is covering the subject of coercion from cults as relates to legal cases—not scientific evidence—where he is discussing the dearth of availability of expert witness testimony that can be supplied in a courtroom.

I then obtained a searchable PDF copy of DSM-V and there is no such statement that brainwashing isn't recognized. On the contrary, the word "brainwashing" occurs twice in the book, including: The residual category of other specified dissociative disorder has seven examples: chronic or recurrent mixed dissociative symptoms that approach, but fall short of, the diagnostic criteria for dissociative identity disorder; dissociative states secondary to brainwashing or thought reform; (page 292) and Individuals who have been subjected to intense coercive persuasion (e.g., brainwashing, thought reform, indoctrination while captive, torture, long-term political imprisonment, recruitment by sects/cults or by terror organizations) may present with prolonged changes in, or conscious questioning of, their identity (page 306).

I read the DIMPAC article and it is related to the [non]acceptance of Singer's theories on the subject of brainwashing and cults, the result of which was the non-acceptance of her theories in courtrooms and the end of her career as a paid expert witness. But the rejection of Singer's DIMPAC report does not support the definitive statement in Wikivoice of "The concept of brainwashing is generally not accepted as a scientific fact."

So the citations given for that sentence fail to verify.

Then I check the body of the article to see if it could be a summarization of concepts presented in the article. No, it doesn't. The section Brainwashing#Other areas and studies introduces a whole slew of researchers and psychiatrists showing that the concept of brainwashing is generally accepted as a scientific fact and understood as such amongst society and professionals.

Not only don't the citations given for that sentence fail to verify, but it isn't even a valid summarization of the body of the article, therefore I have removed it.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ Usarski, Frank (1999). "The response to New Religious Movements in East Germany after reunification". In Cresswell, Jamie; Wilson, Bryan (eds.). New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response. Routledge. p. 238. ISBN 9781134636969. ... there has been until now a lack of any convincing scientific evidence which can be applied in a generalized form to show that involvement in a New Religious Movement has any destructive consequences for the psyche of the individual concerned. ... The fact that, in all the ensuing years, no one has succeeded in verifying beyond a reasonable doubt any of these claims has, however, never been regarded as a reason to exonerate the groups in any way. ... It has been alleged that the cults have never been convicted because they have managed to stay under cover through subtle subterfuge or have been able to pay large amounts to be represented in court by sophisticated lawyers. Thus, up to the time of writing, there has not been one single successful, legal conviction of the Scientology Church, even though this group has come to be regarded as the most dangerous of the new religious organizations. ... The fact that even long-term investigations have as yet failed to produce the desired results continues to be ignored.
^ American Psychiatric Association. DSM-5.^{[page needed]}^{[dead link‍]}
^ Usarski, Frank (2012-12-06). Cresswell, Jamie; Wilson, Bryan (eds.). New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response. Routledge. p. 238. ISBN 9781134636969. ...there has been until now a lack of any convincing scientific evidence which can be applied in a generalised form to show that involvement in a New Religious Movement has any destructive consequences for the psyche of the individual concerned. ... The fact that, in all the ensuing years, no one has succeeded in verifying beyond reasonable doubt any of these claims, has however, never been regarded as a reason to exonerate the groups in any way. ... Thus, up to the time of writing, there has not been one single successful, legal conviction of the Scientology Church, even though this group has come to be regarded as the most dangerous of the new religious organisations. ... The fact that even long-term investigations have as yet failed to produce the desired results continues to be ignored.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mind control (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source clean up?

There are several sources (80-82,84) linked with "Recent scientific book publications in the field of the mental disorder "dissociative identity disorder" (DID) mention torture-based brainwashing by criminal networks and malevolent actors as a deliberate means to create multiple "programmable" personalities in a person to exploit this individual for sexual and financial reasons." in the Other Areas and Studies section. Are these sources up to wikipedia's standards? Two are books written by the same person, and I can't find any peer-reviewed scientific publications that are validating these books.

Technically the entry just says books have been published recently, but that does not mean the books have the rigor to hold up as sources for the article.

Source 83 is a peer reviewed article, and, while it discussing feelings of whether or not someone is in control of themselves, it is about dissociation and not mind control. Sharklunch (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a Proposed Edit.

For the line, 'In casual speech, "brainwashing" and its verb form, "brainwash", are used figuratively to describe the use of propaganda to sway public opinion.', which is near the end of the introduction, isn't brainwashing itself a verb and a noun as we use it in American English, the word itself having its origin in American English?

Wouldn't the better line read as: 'Colloquially, "brainwashing" and "to brainwash" figuratively describe the use of propaganda to sway public opinion.' Or something to that effect? I apologize if there's a better syntax; I haven't reread Elements of Style in a while. Slowsand (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Usarski, Frank (1999). "The response to New Religious Movements in East Germany after reunification". In Cresswell, Jamie; Wilson, Bryan (eds.). New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response. Routledge. p. 238. ISBN 9781134636969. ... there has been until now a lack of any convincing scientific evidence which can be applied in a generalized form to show that involvement in a New Religious Movement has any destructive consequences for the psyche of the individual concerned. ... The fact that, in all the ensuing years, no one has succeeded in verifying beyond a reasonable doubt any of these claims has, however, never been regarded as a reason to exonerate the groups in any way. ... It has been alleged that the cults have never been convicted because they have managed to stay under cover through subtle subterfuge or have been able to pay large amounts to be represented in court by sophisticated lawyers. Thus, up to the time of writing, there has not been one single successful, legal conviction of the Scientology Church, even though this group has come to be regarded as the most dangerous of the new religious organizations. ... The fact that even long-term investigations have as yet failed to produce the desired results continues to be ignored.

[2] American Psychiatric Association. DSM-5.^{[page needed]}^{[dead link‍]}

[3] Usarski, Frank (2012-12-06). Cresswell, Jamie; Wilson, Bryan (eds.). New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response. Routledge. p. 238. ISBN 9781134636969. ...there has been until now a lack of any convincing scientific evidence which can be applied in a generalised form to show that involvement in a New Religious Movement has any destructive consequences for the psyche of the individual concerned. ... The fact that, in all the ensuing years, no one has succeeded in verifying beyond reasonable doubt any of these claims, has however, never been regarded as a reason to exonerate the groups in any way. ... Thus, up to the time of writing, there has not been one single successful, legal conviction of the Scientology Church, even though this group has come to be regarded as the most dangerous of the new religious organisations. ... The fact that even long-term investigations have as yet failed to produce the desired results continues to be ignored.

[1]

[2]

[3]