Talk:Brainwashing/Archive 2

message: I see no reason that "Mind control and recruitment rates" should be here, it seems irrelevant to teh subject and the article. Any arguments as to why it should be kept? Smilingman 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not belong there as it assumes that recruitment to a religion is based on mind control. Move  the text it to New religious movements≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind control and recruitment rates 

message: I saw a link before for invisible master and an article to go with it sounded like fiction but what ever why was it removed?(maybe i am wrong and the memory was implanted}Ansolin 08:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  invisible master 

message: I've been putting in time on this, my long overdue essay on the subject. I've tried to be comprehensive and as objective as I can given the controveries regarding this subject matter.
Wikipedia already credits my Brain Implants essay as the basis for its article.
I only hope that my Mind Control essay receives similar attention.
http://www.skewsme.com/mind_control.html
:Sorry, your essay rambles, provides no sources, and completely blurs the distinction between "mind control" and "persuasion". Perhaps the intro of the Wikipedia article should clarify this. See below, "Mind control and free will" --Uncle Ed 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind Control by SkewsMe.com 

message: Cut from intro:
:Electromagnetic manipulation of neurons, since the discovery that neural cells could be fired by establishing a potential voltage across a neural cell membrane in the 1930s, has been suggested as a technology, as has the use of hypnosis on unsuspecting victims by U.S. Government agents by using a device which is based on the microwave auditory effect (also called the "microwave hearing effect" or "Frey effect").  This type of hypnosis claimed to typically be delivered while the person is sleeping and completely unaware that it is happening.  The fact that the victim is unaware of it (and therefore cannot stop it from being done) makes it the only method by which hypnosis can be considered actual mind control.
Er, the fact? This is begging the question. The entire article is about the DEBATE over whether a person can be made into a mind control victim against their will. And here, the intro was saying that the victim "cannot stop it from being done". We definitely need a source for this.
If it's a fact, it should be EASY to find a source on Google. I'll leave it to other to do that. Once this passage is properly sourced, it can be put back. --Uncle Ed 14:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, both the United States Secret Service (for its use of hypnosis un unwilling victims via the Microwave Auditory Effect) and the Central Intelligence Agency (for its use of brainwashing on an unwilling American victim temporarily residing in a Canadian mental health hospital) have been caught and sued successfully for acts which can be considered 'mind control.'
--CronoDAS 21:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Involuntary hypnosis

message: Mind control means making someone do something against their will (or without their knowing it). Persuasion means getting someone to want to do the thing you want them to do.
What psychologists and judges have considered in the United States over the past few decades is whether mind control (as defined in the above paragraph) is possible at all. Wikipedia will make no judgment on this weighty question, but merely note that the APA called the idea "unscientific" while noting that "anti-cult" activists still promote the idea.
It will be interesting to our readers to expand upon the ethical implications of mind control, should it ever found to be possible. Does a zombie still have free will? Is it responsible for its actions? Can a government program an unsuspecting person to be a killer (as in novels like The Manchurian Candidate or The Bourne Supremacy)? Or can a person volunteer for mind control and lose a bad habit like smoking or over-eating?
Also interesting to our readers would be a much larger article (possibly organized in the form of a "portal article") about all the various ways one person (or group) can persuade another person to do something (or believe or feel something), as well as HOW and WHY people resist such persuasion.
Taking myself as an example, I wonder WHY I believe that the earth goes around the sun in an elliptical orbit, when I've never bothered to check the calculations. I know enough analytical geometry and calculus to do the math, but frankly I've just taken everyone's word for it. What made me trust them? Or, more to the point, why did I choose to trust them?
Anyway, there lies the distinction between the Mind Control and Voluntary Persuasion models of human decision making. The former says a person can be forced into certain thoughts and behaviors. The latter says that all thoughts and behaviors are chosen. 
There is a ocean of difference between these views, with many shades of gray in it. If you put a gun to my head and order me to give you my wallet, did I "choose" to do it (and live) or was I "forced at gun point" to do it? Not an easy question, is it? --Uncle Ed 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mind control and free will

message: The section on MKULTRA directly contradicts Wikipedia's article on MKULTRA, which states that "There is no evidence that the CIA (or anyone else) has actually succeeded in controlling a person's actions through the "mind control" techniques that are known to have been attempted in the MKULTRA projects. The file destruction makes a full investigation of claims impossible." Anybody wanna clean it up? Wahming 07:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MK-ULTRA & Hypnosis

message: I've removed the following links below from the article as they are not evidently related to the lemma itself:
* Comparing the One True Churches
* [http://www.theholdemans.com/breakchains.htm#Founders Introducing
* Starfishgirl Anti-Stalking Campaign works to help victims of mind control who have been gang stalked
However, given the subject matter, I propose we keep a record of what external links contributors think is relevant for this topic. -- Mabuse 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: i was directed to mind control from a link on the artical about compartmentalisation(psychology) i thought it would be about consciously controling ones thoughts, is this correct, did the author of compartmentalisation have this artical in mind when he included the link?
:Removed * Mind Control 101 -- Mabuse 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: thought control directed from compartmentalisation

message: I am very interested in the references for some statements in the article. Particularly under Legal issues at the last paragraph is the statement: 
"In addition, both the United States Secret Service (for its use of hypnosis on unwilling victims via the Microwave Auditory Effect) and the Central Intelligence Agency (for its use of brainwashing on an unwilling American victim temporarily residing in a Canadian mental health hospital) have been caught and sued successfully for acts which can be considered 'mind control.' " 
Further stated under Mind control in conspiracy theory is:
"These often involve proposed mind-control technologies such as the use of hypnosis, microwave radiation, or lasers to influence or control thoughts and actions, often by intelligence agencies and by secret societies, which has, so far, only been confirmed about the U.S. Secret Service's use of hypnosis and Central Intelligence Agency's use of brainwashing in past court cases where testimony was conclusive and the agencies lost."
I did see in browsing the history of this article that a legal case was cited, but not pertinenr to the above. Can anybody give me a line on such a reference or where it might be in the history of the article?  Josephus2000 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  very interested in the references 

message: Tests with ELF technology are better documented.  From the 1950s to the 1970s, both the Soviet Union and the United States carried out several experiments using ELF pulse transmissions to mimic human nerve impulses, in effect implanting certain states of consciousness -- particularly emotions -- by radiation.  Scientists found that certain ELF frequencies, when transmitted in pulse mode, could induce emotions in subjects. 
Anyone have sources for this? I'm going to tag it as not verified. -- CronoDAS 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELF technology? 

message: Hi folks.  Regarding "Opponents of exit counseling generally regard it as an even worse violation of personal autonomy than any loss of free will attributable to the recruiting tactics of new religious movements. These people complain that targets of deprogramming are being deceived...".  The passage starts out referencing "exit counseling" and ends referencing "deprogramming". Shouldn't the second sentence read "These people complain that targets of exit counseling are being deceived..."?  lTanaats 05:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...targets of deprogramming? 

message: I have a problem with this paragraph:
Hassan's critics argue that Steve Hassan uses the term "mind control" (for what they see as essentially a strong form of influence) only to justify the forcible extraction of believers from religious groups. They argue that Hassan does not merely say that fraudulent salesmanship persuaded the believers; he claims that these groups literally take away a victim's freedom of mind. For this reason an involuntary procedure must operate in order to "rescue" a "victim" from a "destructive cult", for "victims" may not realize their victimhood status and may resist rescuing.
This is paragraph written in the present tense.  Who exactly is saying that Hassan is just trying to justify the forcible extraction of believers?  Who exactly is saying that Hassan still believes that "an involuntary procedure" must operate?  
The paragraph as written is inaccurate and unsupportable and should come out.  I've put a "fact" tag on it for now. Tanaats 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hassan's critics argue... 

message: I changed the section describing Hassan's history as a deprogrammer.  He doesn't "distance himself" from the practice, that statement is spin.  The unspinned truth is that he no longer practices deprogramming.  
As for "criminal" that term has a lot of spin on it too.  And deprogramming wasn't always even illegal.  It was legal in the case of minors, or when parents had obtained a legal "conservatorship" over their adult children and were therefore legally allowed to treat them as minors.  Forcibly deprogramming an adult in the absence of a conservator ship was patently illegal.  Eventually courts stopped granting conservatorships, and deprogramming became completely illegal except in the case of minors.  But around that time (and pioneered in large part by Hassan) techniques of non-forcible intervention were being developed anyway, such as Hassan's SIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Distances himself" and "criminal" in re Hassan