Alex&#39;s Journal

There's Heaven's Gate and Manson's group. Real statistics though - I'm not sure!

- Administrator

From:

alexmegami

Oh, famously there are a few. But I'd give it away if I started listing 'em ;)

From:

adagioweapon.livejournal.com

Is it 50% percent of them?

From:

alexmegami

Is what 50% of them? My list or

audiolight's?

From:

Branch Dividian, Jonestown, Order of the Solar Temple... so that brings my count up to 5.

Seems like Google can't help me cheat, as I could only find the phrase a "tiny percentage". (http://www.cesnur.org/2003/brain_conv.htm - one of the references is indeed Dawson's.)

There's also mention of Dawson (here, and here) but nothing mentions the incidence rate of physical violence.

I would state that the bigger problem with cult-like behaviour is people's problems with some of the ideologies that they maintain and the psychological damage they can cause - which probably can't be measured reliably and is a value-laden measurement to begin with. (I for instance, consider anyone that considers anything supernatural above themselves should be labelled "psychologically damaged", but that's my personal opinion.) I think a lot of people take the stance that since cult-members "deviate" from their own beliefs, that the person is "dangerous" to themselves and others. I maintain that all beliefs are dangerous - whether they're from a small sect, a cult, or a religion.

- Administrator

From:

kisekileia.livejournal.com

I'd say the problem with cult-like behaviour is when religious groups are extremely manipulative of people, take control of their lives, and brainwash them.

From:

As referenced in the religioustolerance.org link mentioned above (here), it seems that most psychological organizations regard "brainwashing" as an impossibility. (See the APA's position here - as you read, you can see that they currently dismiss the notion of brainwashing).

What you're really seeing is what is the first lesson in Social Psychology: Never underestimate the power of the situation. Why else do people break out into glossolalia in pentecostal churches?

- Administrator

From:

alexmegami

Brainwashing doesn't exist. I'll dig out my notes for this, but - of the 150 POWs that they tried it with in either the Korean or Vietnam war [can't remember which], nine claimed to have been "brainwashed", and yet reintegrated back into American society with little problem (aside from psychological trauma from the torture). And that was with hours upon hours of physical pain, removal from basic necessities, etc. The "resources" cults have to work with don't even come close to what would be necessary to "brainwash" someone, and for a very very small value to their cause.

Now, some cults employ techniques that may result in issues like "groupthink" or the ones where you cut yourself off from dissenting opinions, but that's kind of common in MANY social groups.

From:

user-lain.livejournal.com

I don't think brainwashing works in the Hollywood sense.

I do think people are *socialized* to believe certain things, but socialization has to occur from a fairly young age.

Hey, there's always lobotomy.

From:

You'd be a fan of his Socioculutral theory.

- Administrator

From:

According to Psych 253 (social psych, in which we're presently studying the psychology of religious cults), "deprogramming" is, in general, much more psychologically damaging than anything the cults typically do. Also according to that class, there is no mental process called brainwashing, and no documented cases of it.

I take issue with manipulative, targeted recruitment. Of course, I take issue with the same techniques being used by salespersons and in advertising.

From:

kisekileia.livejournal.com

I take issue with such techniques in all contexts, too.

What does psychology make of people who feel they've been intensely manipulated by "cults" or other religious groups, or whose families feel that the person has been intensely manipulated by such groups?

From:

Well, we haven't gone into it deeply (we've mostly had a brief overview and a look at recruitment targeting and techniques at this point), but I get the impression that the former are less likely than the latter; either the cult is fulfilling personal or social identity needs for the person in the course of the manipulation, in which case they are likely to feel satisfied with the cult rather than manipulated, or they tend to duck out at an earlier stage. That's more my interpretation than any kind of established theory, though. Apparently there's about a 97% defection rates in cults; the people who remain, and become hardcore believers, are probably going to be both the least likely to feel manipulated and the most like to appear to others to be intensely manipulated.

We really haven't touched on the latter group much at all, at this point. I suspect that we'd feel that some of their concern and perception of manipulation comes from the perception that the person is abandoning the family's traditional belief system. Of course, it might well be well founded fear if the cult group is taking advantage of the person's material means or is restricting them from any other social support structure. I don't really know.

From:

alexmegami

90% was the number I heard. People will either leave a cult within the first 2 years, or stick with it (or bounce to another cult).

We really haven't touched on the latter group much at all, at this point. I suspect that we'd feel that some of their concern and perception of manipulation comes from the perception that the person is abandoning the family's traditional belief system. Of course, it might well be well founded fear if the cult group is taking advantage of the person's material means or is restricting them from any other social support structure. I don't really know.

All of the above can be true. Most often, I think, it's the former; even when the cult is non-harmful in its beliefs or practices (Hare Krishna, Shambhala), parents have gone to GREAT lengths (and often, have had courts support them) in order to have their adult children be legally deemed unfit to make their own decisions, so that they can remove them from the "harmful" cult.

From:

Well, maybe it's 90%, but Ennis definitely said 97% on Thursday. I don't know who came to the statistic or how, though.

From:

alexmegami

*shrug* The number I've heard from Dawson, who is the one that teaches Cults and New Religious Movements, is 97%, but it may be that they've got different sources. Who knows?

From:

alexmegami

This is fair, and I probably should have specified physically damaging. Psychologically, cult behaviour and practices are rarely very different from practices engaged in by "mainstream" churches or even just some social groups. (See also: Marines vs. convent vs. cult, and people's varied reactions to similar stories about people's reasons for joining each.)

What I find funny sometimes is, say, Wiccans who decide to deride cults as being brainwashy and horrible, without realizing that by the definitions used by sociologists and religious scholars, *they're* members of a cult.

From:

kisekileia.livejournal.com

I think you have a valid point that religious groups messing people up can occur in mainstream churches too. It's probably best to drop the term "brainwashing" and the assumption that only new religious groups are highly manipulative of people, and investigate the experiences of people who do feel that they've been intensely controlled and manipulated by religious groups they're part of.

From:

safti

Scientology, as well, apparently.

From:

safti

Wild guess: 18.

From:

she-prime.livejournal.com

Between five and ten - the high-profile ones.

From:

chezmax

7! My guess!

CULTS/NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS

I think it's because New Religious Movements and Cults have extremely different meanings in most peoples minds. "Cult" is only used popularly for ones which have "bad" traits.

(Whether these definitions are technically correct is another story)

From:

adagioweapon.livejournal.com

But I'm a cult of personality!

From:

Amen.

To be honest, people in our culture seem to regard religion in the way they regard sex - anything "nontraditional" is seen as harmful and bad, until it fights its way into the mainstream. Hell, I've met lots of people who claim that the Mormons are a cult, and they've been around for a good few hundred years now. True, they do tend to emphasize group dynamics over individualism (something that a Mormon friend of mine sometimes struggles with), but I've never met a Mormon I didn't respect enormously - they take their faith and its principles (which include things like cleanliness, respect for selves and others, and community service) very seriously.

Newer religious groups in general? Meh. Maybe I have a bit of an outside opinion on this, not being particularly attracted to any one religion, but the whole point of the First Amendment is that people are supposed to be able to worship however they want to, assuming it's not hurting others. So what's with all the intolerance? If you personally are uncomfortable with their religious beliefs, fine, but that doesn't mean you get to tell them what's right and wrong - they're on their own journey, and get to make (and learn from) their own decisions. Yes, it's difficult when someone you love is following what you perceive to be a destructive path, but it's still their life.

After all, when it comes to things that religion generally has a stake in (your immortal soul or lack thereof, what happens after you die, etc.) - when we die, we'll find out who's right. So in the meantime, let's just leave each other alone, nu?

From:

I think part of the suspicion and concern stems from the fact that it seems dangerously easy for a charismatic and clever con artist to take advantage of people under the guise of religion.

From:

This is true; however, it's pretty dangerously easy for charismatic people to take advantage of the populace without religion - that's what social engineering is about. We have a tendency to trust people that we perceive as attractive and intelligent, and there are any number of tricks to make people think we know more than we do.

I guess my point is, concern may or may not be warranted in a given situation, but in the end we need to let people learn for themselves (difficult as that may be). My mother's currently involved with (and giving much of her money to) Scientology, and while I may personally think that it's a bit of a strange place to put her money, if it makes her happy, then hey. If she decides she's not getting her money's worth, she'll find something else, I'm sure.

Incidentally, that's a very cute picture - I love the pink hair. =)

From:

Hehe, thanks. :-)

I know I shouldn't be so prejudiced against Scientology, but I just don't trust it. I don't like the entire process of auditing as I understand it. :-( As long as your mother's physically healthy and happy enough with her life, though, more power to her. I think part of my problem is that I just don't like John Travolta, and I think Tom Cruise is really creepy.

From:

Yes, well, the whole reason my mother got into it in the first place was that she was in love with Tom Cruise for a while. In a roundabout way, it's my fault - I was the one who took her to see The Last Samurai. You can imagine that I've banged my head on the wall a couple of times about that one...:/

From:

alexmegami

Mormons are a cult in some places, and a sect in others - in their case, "numbers" are a pretty defining factor (and even sociologists and religious scholars argue about which label to stick them under, because, like anything, they meet some of the textbook traits of one definition and some of the traits of the other).

From:

I guess what it comes down to is that the word "cult" (thanks to our wonderful freedom of press) has all sorts of negative connotations, at least in popular culture. Certainly, LDS is a fairly strict religion; but while I'm not particularly attracted to it myself, I can see the attraction and have met any number of people who feel their lives are the better for the religion (which, in the end, is what religion is supposed to be about). "Cult" seems to imply negative influences up to and including human rights violations; and while Mormons may seem a little Beaver-Cleaver-esque in their lifestyles, I've never thought of that as a particularly bad thing - if that's how you want to live your life, then hey.

From:

phreeque.livejournal.com

This is a guess out of 2000? I'm going to guess... ummm... 598. Simply because nobody has guessed a number that high yet. My guess is entirely uneducated beyond that.

More important to me, though, is what brought this post on in the first place. Who said what about which "cult," and why did it make you angry enough to use font size tags?

From:

alexmegami

It's something people do in general. When something is negative, they compare it to a cult, or they widely spread misinformation about Scientology (the popular target now thanks to a Mr. Cruise of fame), and it just pisses me off to no end.

Especially when it's being done by Wiccans and neo-Pagans. Because they totally fail to see the irony.

From: