Re: Brainwashing, Manipulation;The other side of the medal -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:42:05 05/23/04 Sun
Author: Donna A.
Subject: Re: Brainwashing, Manipulation;The other side of the medal
In reply to: fellow christian 's message, "Brainwashing, Manipulation;The other side of the medal" on 07:32:13 05/14/04 Fri

>>7. APA thus declared not once but at least twice in
>1987 that �the theory of coercive persuasion is not
>scientific� and that it �lacks scientific rigor�. The
>statement I made before the German commission that the
>American Psychological Association had rejected the
>brainwashing/mind control theories in 1987 insofar as
>they applied to religious movements, on the basis that
>they were not scientific is, therefore, perfectly
>accurate. It is, in fact, almost identical to Singer�s
>own statement that the rejection of the DIMPAC report
>was �described by the APA as a rejection of the
>scientific validity of the theory of coercive
>persuasion�.
>

I'm sorry that I didn't get involved in this discussion sooner, but it has been a bit since I've visited this site. Yes it is true that there was some controversy regarding the scientific validity of "brainwashing, coercive persuasion, thought-reform" or whatever term you choose to use (technically there are some slight differences, but most people tend to use those terms interchangably. I'm currently in the mental health profession. To diagnose and treat mental disorders we use the manual that the American Psychiatric Association (the APA) uses as a standard to diagnose and treat such conditions. Despite the distant past history that you have cited. The APA recognizes thought reform and brainwashing and its existence under the latest version (as well as the version before that printed in 1994) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (the DSM IV). Under Dissociative Disorder (NOS) there is a category for disorders in which the predominant feature is a dissociative symptom (i.e a disruption in the usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity, or perception of the environment) that cannot fit nicely under the other categories of Dissociative Disorders. It says in the DSM IV (published by the APA):
Examples include:

"States of dissociation that occur in individuals who have been subjected to periods of prolonged and intense coercive persuasion (e.g. brainwashing, thought reform, or indoctrination while captive)."

I should add that there are other categories of distressful symptoms that do not fit nicely into any one category as they exist currently. As scientific studies continue, the APA decides to update the DSM and therefore changes are made based on these studies, and sometimes new categories of disorders are formed. There currently is no statement that these types of symptoms cannot be displayed in religious organizations. There is absolutely no criteria in terms of the type of group where these kinds of symptoms are displayed.

Anyway, does the above statement sound like the APA does not recognize the scientfic existence of coercive persuasion?! Obviously not. Things have changed since 1987. More studies have been done and the DSM changed as a result. Please update yourself on the history....

Donna

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Since when... -- Tom Fosler, 14:35:58 05/24/04 Mon

Another "ad hominem" -- Mike K., 00:40:55 05/25/04 Tue

Re: Another "ad hominem" -- Chris, 04:58:33 05/25/04 Tue
- Re: Another "ad hominem" -- Tom Fosler, 07:26:49 05/25/04 Tue

Re: Since when... -- Donna A., 18:54:08 05/30/04 Sun

Re: Since when... -- Donna A., 18:59:12 05/30/04 Sun