Talk:Brainwashing/Archive 1

message: It is important to understand that to be obsolete against any form of mind control, you must question incomming information. You must ask yourself if this advantages you or not. Is it garbage information or not ? In the case the information received is garbage, it is in your choice to ignore that given information or not. If you ignore it, the values of the information will not be apart of your embedded mental values. 
</blockquote>
This appears to be somewhat POV to me, and bordering on a how-to guide (see Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not). Some terms being used here such as "embedded mental values" and "branch to action" seem to be novel, and thus appear to be original research (see Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not, again). Other bits I can't understand at all. -- The Anome 10:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to avoid Mind Control 

message: Comparing the English and German wikipedia entries on mind control and propaganda (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) I found it somehow strange that the English version doesn't mention the (British and US American) origins of modern propaganda at all. This combined with the fact that the English entry starts with Hitler, Goebbels and Stalin is somehow remarkable, I think. Is this the result or an attempt of brainwashing? If it is important to talk about propaganda in history then it is important to not only talk about those who lost    in the end (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) but to talk about the winners too. It is maybe even more important, because they still have the power to continuesly spread their propaganda. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are no threat to anybody anymore. And mind you, the one who wins is not always right and criminal acts don't become rightful just because you are fighting for a rightful cause or because you have proven military superiour. Maybe some links to internet resources on how the current US administration got the American public into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and therefor was a threat to American citizens would be more important for people of today than what happened before most of us (or even our parents) were born.
Also starting with a Goebbels quote makes it seem like propaganda would be always a bad thing while it could be argued that propaganda is just a neutral tool. A tool that can be used for good and bad things. A tool that might even be necessary for any leader in a modern mass society.
And why the Goebbels quote at all? You can't even name when or where he said that. Googling for it I couldn't find anything about the origin of this quote or if he really said it at all. I tried it both in English and German. So right now I doubt that he said it at all. Also I'm quite sure he did believe in that idea. But  would a "genius" like he is called in the article call himself (even indirectly) a liar while he still needs peoples trust?
So if you still feel the need to quote someone on propaganda, why does it have to be Goebbles? The first part of this Einstein quote might even be more relevant than the quote used right now:
"In two weeks the sheeplike masses of any country can be worked up by the newspapers into such a state of excited fury that men are prepared to put on uniforms and kill and be killed, for the sake of the sordid ends of a few interested parties. Compulsory military service seems to me the most disgraceful symptom of that deficiency in personal dignity from which civilized mankind is suffering today."(Albert Einstein, 1934)
That said, of course Goebbels needs to be mentioned in an article about mind control and propaganda. Maybe even more information about him and about what methods he and the nazis used to influence the public opinion would be nice. But be careful it doesn't get out of ballance and that can happen fast since it is a  natural thing that it is much harder to get information about the historical losers than to get information about the propaganda tricks the winners used (and still use). And if it gets out of ballance and the reader gets the impression propaganda is mostly a thing the "bad guys" use then the historical winners propaganda machine has been successful and you have become a propaganda tool yourself.
Knowing how limited my English is and also out of respect to the original authors of this entry I leave it to others to follow or not to follow my suggestions and edit this article.
-Stefan (first time wiki poster)
P.S.: Here is the part from the German wiki that I think should be in the English one too:
"Der Ursprung der modernen Propaganda liegt in Amerika und Großbritannien zur Zeit des Ersten Weltkriegs. In den USA wurde 1916, während der Amtszeit von Woodrow Wilson, die Creel-Kommission ins Leben gerufen, die unter Beteiligung von John Dewey, Walter Lippmann und des neugegründeten britischen Propagandaministeriums die Aufgabe hatte, das pazifistisch gestimmte amerikanische Volk gegen die Deutschen zu mobilisieren. Dies wurde ein grosser Erfolg. Lippmann verfasste später eine Demokratietheorie, die besagt dass das Volk im wesentlichen aus zwei Klassen besteht. Zum einen die Klasse der Spezialisten, die aktiv mit den Angelegenheiten der Allgemeinheit betraut sind und die Entscheidungen treffen, zum anderen die grosse Mehrheit, die mangels eigenen Wissens zur Unterstützung der "vernünftigen" Entscheidungen der Spezialisten gebracht werden müsse."
Maybe someone more capable of the English language than me could translate it in an appropriate way (and doublecheck the facts).
P.P.S.: Maybe the mind control article should also be linked to the article on FUD, since those two topics seem to be very close related to me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD)
"'Course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." -Dennis Miller
----
I strongly disagree with a redirect from brainwashing to mind control. They are different concepts. Mind control is more subtle than brain washing. Mind control is not discredited but brainwashing is. Andries 09:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "People's minds are clearly influenced by many influences from the outside world, such as advertising, media manipulation, and propaganda, however they are generally aware of these influences. The remainder of this article is about mind control that occurs either without the knowledge, or without the consent, of the individual. "
The usual meaning of mind control in the anti-cult movement is that of using propaganda and misleading people without the knowledge of the people. When people know that something is manipulation or propaganda hen it loses its effectiveness. I will delete or re-write the paragraph unless somebody has well founded objections. Besides according to some in the anti cult movementent mind control is just a strong form of inluence. Mind control in cults has everything to do with changing a person belief system. One can't directly control a mind, only indirectly by changing a person's belief system and basic attitudes through manipulation. Andries 19:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this brainwashing in action? Some suggestions.

message: "In 2003, the American Technology Corporation (ATC) released a subliminal loudspeaker technology..." This is NOT subliminal. It's a highly focused untrasonic beam (regular audible frequencies cannot be sent over such a narrow beam) modulated with audio - it gets converted to audio in the ear by its nonlinear response to high-volume ultrasonics. It's clearly audible to anyone standing in the beam, and not audible to anyone outside it.
It's definitely a freaky experience to go through such a narrow audio beam, and it has applications in advertising and many other 'hearing voices' type manipulations, but it's NOT subliminal.
I have removed this from the article: Aenar 11:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "subliminal loudspeaker technology" is NOT subliminal 

message: Pro-mind-control quote:
Delgado and other writers see "cult indoctrinees" becoming disoriented and even incapacitated through a combination of poor diet, sleep deprivation, manipulated social bonding, appeals to fear and guilt, behavioral conditioning and, above all, dissociative and trance states induced through "hypnotic" processes associated with meditation, repetitive chanting, glossolalia and other experiential rituals, which are said to enhance suggestibility and impair judgmental and cognitive functions. 
Anti-mind control (could be intro to mind control article]].
The mind control model of membership in new religious movement asserts that people never (or rarely) join of their own free will but are sucked in willy-nilly via advanced techniques that not even the CIA have figured out how to duplicate. Once programmed, they seem to innately possess the ability to seize the minds of others!
It should not be necessary to examine in detail the indoctrination or conversion methods of the many groups labeled as "cults" in order to conclude that "mind control" is a myth. The scenario of mindless robots who carry out the wishes of others, while believing they are doing as they please, may make exciting movies, but it is not consistent with human psychology. People who conform to behavioral expectations of a group have made a choice to do so. (Reign 323-324) 
Deception on the part of pro-deprogramming movement:
Q.What is involuntary deprogramming as you understand it?
A.To the best of my understanding, when the family decides that there is no other way to talk to the person but by keeping them at a location until they have heard the correct information about the group.
Q.Through the use of force?
A.No.
Q.How do you keep someone against their will without force?
A.You lock the door. [23] (cited in )
I'm thinking of a radical new slant for this article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:08, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Look forward to it. --Zappaz 01:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yep. Let's write an article: Debunking of the anti-cult movement myths. --Zappaz 01:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncle Ed mini-blog

message: a cult is an organization --an organization can be large or small; size is not the determinant -- that has expressive devotion to a leader, principle or idea.
Q.Is the Catholic Church a cult?
A.Under that broad definition, yes.
Q.Is the Democratic Party a cult?
A.Under this definition of cult above, yes.  
Deprogrammers' definition of "cult" is so broad as to include Catholics and Democrats. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:12, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
:yep. Let's write an article: Debunking of the anti-cult movement myths. --Zappaz 01:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's a cult?

message: Currently, the article reads "American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science."  Patty Hearst's conviction comes to mind, but her sentence was not surprisingly commuted (courts ordinarily tend to be less consistent when subjected to high powered lawyers and their wealthy clients).  Similarly, some domestic violence victims have been granted clemency after convictions for murdering controlling spouses.  Perhaps some mention of pardons - and the common sense reasoning behind such belated reprieves - is in order? Ombudsman 01:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency of the Courts

message: You need to learn how to use RfC, Andries. Please read RfC. What you have done, is a joke (Deleting disputed text three times, after posting the RfC, then changing the RfC summary). If your intention was to negotiate the dispute between us, we could have done it. But if you chose an RfC, you need to leave it alone and let other editors make comments if they wish to do so. --Zappaz 22:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree Zappaz. The opinions between is have come closer. We only disagree about the prominence given to their opinions. The RFc guidelines do not say anything that you cannot change the text after the contributors have come closer to each other. Andries22:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Interesting is the fact that you only want prominence of opinions that support your anti-cult POV. And you accuse me of not being serious about NPOV ... oh well... ) I am going for a walk in the park... Suggest you do the same. Let's revisit this in 7 days with the hope that by that time we have some useful comments from fellow editors. --Zappaz 22:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between you and me is that I do not insist on keeping non-notable, non scholarly quotes in the cult related articles. I do not extensively quote anti-cult activists, except in ACM articles that describe their views. I consider some of your edits foul play, like the Bob and Gretchen Passantino quotes here. Andries 11:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the problem, Andries. That you consider an edit "foul play" says it all. This is an encyclopedia not a forum or USENET. Use these to advocate your POV. Thanks. In regard of yor yet-another-acussation against me, you need to demonstrate that the citations I provide are not notable. They are. On the other hand, I need to go article by article, removing snippets of text you added to the articles on the subject of "cults" and new religions, just because your opinion, and without consideration for looking for a citation or reference to back it up with. I am comitted to comb all these articles and excise text that have no support. --Zappaz 17:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Gretchen and Bob Passantino have no academic credentials in sociology of religion, psychology of religion, or relgious scholarship the burden of proof that their quotes are notable is on you. I do not have to proof that they are not notable enough to have their lengthy quotes here. It would be so easy for me to insert non-notable, non-scholarly quotes by anti-cult scholars here and elsewhere but I have refrained from doing so because I consider this inappropriate and foul play. Please do comb the text for some of my unsupported snippets (that you most probably won't find) Andries 17:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Neither "Christian discernment ministry", nor "Answers in Action", nor Christian research institute", nor "Passantino", nor "Cornerstone magazine" give one hit in the +500,000 article in the English Wikipedia. I think this strongly indicates that they are not notable. And to say that their opinion is notable because they are critics of the mind control theory is quite strange when there are notable, scholarly  critics of the mind control theory. Why can't you cite those? Andries 00:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Using RfC

message: Under the 3rd paragraph of "Hypothetical technologies of mind control", there is the following sentance: "Physical implants discovered in the cerebral tissue of such 'schizophrenics' have allegedly substantiated such claims."
I vote to remove the sentance, due to a lack of any external source being cited.
I disagree. That was contributed  by anonymous (129.173.208.194) and they provided a reference: Kilde, Rauni Leena, M.D., Former Chief Medical Officer of Finland Microwave Mind-Control. --AI 14:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implants? 

message: "self-proclaimed expert on "destructive cults"" in view of Hassan having been expert witness to a congressional inquiry on a cult, self-proclaimed is not a correct way to put it. Considering that Hassan's views are contested from several sides, an unqualified "expert" might also not be acceptable, so I changed it to the neutral "psychologist" (where he has a master degree, so that's not controversal). --Irmgard 21:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steven Hassan 

message: Although the introduction flatly states mind control 'theories' have ethical implications, a quick glance through the article only turns up one line to that effect, buried at the end of a quote, "We must recognize that those who join the cults, while morally responsible, are also spiritually ignorant."  Since ethical issues obviously merit inclusion in the intro, then it would seem reasonable to have at least a paragraph, if not a section, addressing the matter.  Deleting the Moral compass link, under these circumstances, begs this question.  Ombudsman 18:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Moral compass]]

message: The section does not describe the fact that several countercultists believe in the  existence of mind control and is hence one-sided. I will try to correct this soon but in the meantme the section deserves a NPOV warning. Andries 12:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have a rebuttal to the Passantino's article, I have removed the NPOV waring for that section --ZappaZ  21:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: okay, thanks, though I do not agree with the selection of the Paul Martin's quote and will change it later. Far better rebuttals can be selected. Andries 22:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections about countercult NPOV warning

message: I tried to formulate the introduction more neutrally. --Irmgard 18:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The mind control theories as applied to membership in cults assumes that no one would join such a group if he was fully informed what he was getting into. The recruit is not to be held responsible for his actions, since he was "under control". Neither scientists nor sociologists generally consider this model a viable theory.
Gives a wrong impression. The definition is used aargument against the mind control concept but supporters qualify it as a straw man argument. True, both parties do not consider this a viable theory but for different reasons and with different deductions. So it should not be in the general section.  --Irmgard 18:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: BTW, it's not a very good idea to call mind control a theory - the frequent repetition gives the impression that someone wants to imply that mind control does not exist in practical reality, but in an encyclopedia article theory is rather used in the sense of scientific theory which does not imply that - on the contrary (Wikipedia: "is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct"). So I called mind control a concept - that's neutral regarding existence or non-existence. --Irmgard 18:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It is a theory as it pertains to the domain of Phsycology. Find me a citation in which "Mind control" is characterized as a "concept". Every way I look and read, "mind control" is discussed as a theory, unless it is a publication by anti-cultists, or fundamentalist Christians. Maybe better would be to say that "anti-cult" theories are accepted by the countercult and anticult movements as feasible, but not by mainstrean science. That is NPOV. I leave that to you to correct. --ZappaZ  21:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory

message: :Mind ControlR has also been trademarked by Roger Zamofing, a Swiss marketing consultant, for the use of mind control and marketing for the use in companies.
I removed this sentence because I could not find any evidence for it. Roger Zamofing does exist, a Swiss who does have some not quite mainstream concepts of management and personal enhancement  but I did find Mind Control nowhere on his various sites (Mind Power, Mind Mapping etc. are to be found). Could well be that he trademarked Mind Control as well, but as he is not using it, it's not very relevant for this article. --Irmgard 14:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Roger Zamofing

message: This was sadly missing in the article - I started to get it sorted out a bit. The first step was, getting all mind control models and explanations into chapter "Models and methods" (well, there might be some more, but I hope I got the most important ones). I wrote in the beginning chapter, that none of these are up to scientific standard, so it is not necessary to repeat this in each case - the models and methods are attributed to specific persons and referenced. As most counterpositions of mind control go against the general concept and not against the specific models, this makes more sense in a different chapter. --Irmgard 17:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks pretty good from what I can see.  Wouldn't it be better to move the "homeless" paragraphs to the talk page, though, until their proper form and placement can be determined? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you saying that you are interested in NPOV? I reading your comments in this and other articles you are editing, I must tell you that come across as a politically motivated PIA, and not as the Defender of NPOV. --38.119.107.70 05:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your apparent candor, .70.  I'm sure that in your almost 48 hours on Wikipedia, you must have absorbed all the information necessary for a truly meaningful evaluation of another editor's motivations.  Your own edits don't show the least sign of a political agenda themselves, therefore making you perhaps the only one of us worthy to cast the first stone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Some may find your language offensive, Antaeus. --AI 06:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: When you say you agree with .70, AI, do you mean you agree with his personal attacks on me?  Or do you mean you agree with the things he said which were relevant to the article mind control, which were ...  er...  uh.... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: Recovery from Cults (book) should be merged here. --Stefano Ponte 06:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: no, I do not agree. The concept of mind control is, I think (have to re-read it), not a major topic in the book. At least, the book treats much more. Andries 06:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The chapter of the book Understanding Mind Control: Exotic and Mundane Mental Manipulations by Zimbardo is given in the references and there mind control sure is a major topic. --Irmgard 07:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recovery from Cults (book) 

message: I removed this para, because I cannot follow the calculations - also I do not see to whom it appears that... --Irmgard 21:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking Barker's figures with Hendricks' figures, it appears that less than 0.5% of people who stayed overnight became long-term members.
Also I changed the title to the actual subject at hand and took Eileen Barker, who did the research, as source which is encyclopedically preferable to "The Passantinos write that Eileen Barker..." BTW, where do the figures of Tyler Hendrick's come from? --Irmgard 21:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recruitment rates 

message: Who thinks that the HAARP project can control minds? That sounds ridiculous! Scorpionman 14:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  goof 

message: # Oppose. No need to merge, as each article address a different context. What is needed is a pairing down of Mind control that can be done by merging the material related to Brainwashing to that article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contra merge 

message: If no consensus develops for an immediate merge, I still support the idea of preparing for one. Let's consolidate, as much as possible. 
Perhaps even make a Wikiproject on Cults and mind control - or something like that.
For starters, I'd like to see some tables which show the similarites among the various observations and theories which sociologists (and other "cult observers") have made. I have 28 years experience *in* a cult, so I can tell you what it's like from the inside.
I've also read a lot of the books, like Lifton, Barker, etc. Uncle Ed 22:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidation strategy

message: If you'd like to work together towards consolidation over the next few months, sign up here:
#Uncle Ed 22:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidation sign-up

message: Hi Jossifresco
I would cite for example parts of Lifton's eight criteria for Thought Reform.
http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/responsibility/lifton.htm
1. Milieu Control: 
Environment control and the control of human communication. Not just communication between people but communication within people's minds to themselves.
[...]
3. Loading the Language:
Controlling words help to control people's thoughts. ... The words constrict rather than expand human understanding.
4. Doctrine Over Person:
No matter what a person experiences, it is the belief of the dogma which is important. Group belief supersedes conscience and integrity.
5. The Sacred Science: 
The group's belief is that their dogma is absolutely scientific and morally true. No alternative viewpoint is allowed. No questions of the dogma are permitted.
[...]
7. The Demand for Purity: 
The creation of a guilt and shame milieu by holding up standards of perfection that no human being can accomplish. People are punished and learn to punish themselves for not living up to the group's ideals.
[...] [my emphases]
The perspective here is that 'mind control' is equivalent to 'Thought Reform'. IOW, a totalist group's ideology/dogma/belief system acts within a person's mind in such a way as to 'control' or strongly influence their thinking processes, and thence their behaviour. 
This 'soft' model of mind control needs to be distinguished from the 'hard' or robotic model of mind control, favoured by the tinfoil hat brigade, and also seemingly by some so-called cult apologists such as Dr Eileen Barker. Eg: 'If people are the victims of mind control, they are rendered incapable of themselves making the decision as to whether or not to join a movement - the decision is made for them.' [Dr Barker's italics] (Barker, 'New Religious Movements - A Practical Introduction', pub. HMSO London 1989, page 17).
In support of the soft model of mind control, one could also cite from the works of Zimbardo, Cialdini and others. ISTM that the present first introductory paragraph about mind control: '...theories proposing that an individual's thinking, behavior, emotions or decisions can, to a greater or lesser extent, be manipulated at will by outside sources.'[my emphasis] is biased too much towards the hard/robotic model of mind control, and there should be some indication of the alternative soft model. 
I think that my suggested paragraph '...various organisations promote their particular belief system or worldview, and then believers control their own minds ...' is a reasonable short precis or synopsis of the soft model as proposed by Lifton et al (bearing in mind that it is intended as an introductory paragraph). At any rate, I feel that something along those lines should be included, in the interests of NPOV and no bias. (See also section ==Thoughts on the definition of mind control and how it frames debate== at top of this page) EmmDee 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lifton's stuff can go into Thought reform article (now redirecting innapropriately to Mind control. The proposition that coercive persuassion, mind-control, thought reform and brainwashing are one and the same are the POV of the anti-cult and counter-cult movements. Read for example my recebt additions to coercive persuasion. I would srrongly advise editors to be careful not to digress into original research.  ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, many anti-cultists make a distinction between thought reform/brainwashing and mind control. Andries 19:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And you accuse me of original research after the assertions you make above? The discussion is about a proposed merger, that so far there is no consensus for. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One possible solution for this dispute could be creating a new article named Anti-cult theories of mind control or Mind control theories and cults,  were you and others can splurge in presenting the anti-cult POV as much as you want, leaving this article to describe non-cult related theories. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lifton's

message: This is one of the more common features - I can see that someone might point out that it is covered elsewhere - I can't see it - but just reverting the edit with no justification is poor editing.  This IP is the NHS, I'm a doctor, and see people who think they are haivng their minds controlled.  The rest of the article is very interesting, importnat common things generally belong near the top.
:Well, perhaps they thought you were a vandal of some kind.  You do have a point though, that mind control is a common paranoid delusion.  (In fact, one might argue that if you're still capable of wondering if you're under mind control, you probably aren't - wouldn't one of the first goals of a mind controller be to make you think your actions were self-willed?)  However, it's important to avoid your statement giving the article the appearance of coming out with a "no such thing" viewpoint, which would be biased (and IMO untrue).  Perhaps you can find a more appropriate location for the paragraph than at the immediate top?  Also, I would suggest toning "usually" down to "often".  In any case, the paragraph's insertion at that point interrupts the flow of the article; the preceding and following paragraphs are part of the same idea.  How about moving the paragraph down so it's right above "theoretical models and methods", and working up the paragraph?  How about this:
::"The belief that one is being manipulated or controlled by outside forces is also recognized as one the hallmarks of paranoid delusional complexes and other psychoses.  Those who suffer from this delusion may cling to it despite a complete lack of evidence of anything that might be controlling them.  Psychiatric therapy with anti-psychotic medication can often end the delusion or at least mitigate its severity.    This should not be taken to imply that mere belief in the existence of mind control is an indicator of psychosis.  Belief in the existence of mind control is wide-spread; it is only the obsessive nature of the belief that one is being mind-controlled despite the senses that is psychotic."
:How's that?  If there are no objections, I'll make the changes myself.  -Kasreyn 12:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: changing "usually" to "always" or sidestepping the difference between frequency and likelihood and saying "probably" would seem better.  There is a subtle change in emphasis there - it is not a question of the belief in th possibility of controlling a mind that is pathognomic of psychosis, it is the belief that the believign mind is personally being externally controlled that is pathognomic.  I've not seen it in anyone who was functioning in a way generally (or even often) regarded as sane.  But I've not seen everything, is there an example to hand?  Midgley 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would Bush's claims of guidance from God qualify him for such a diagnosis?  There may be a subtle distinction in terminology he uses, but the frequent, similar claims by clerics, to the effect that they have received guidance, direction, or inspiration might serve as examples for you.  The most obvious distinction that can be made, between these examples vs yours, is that the former clearly conform with widely held religious beliefs.  Typically, members of the psychiatric survivors movement disparage dianoses predicated upon 'symptoms' associated with unpopular or uncommon beliefs.  In the US, cultural divides may often contribute to mis-diagnoses -- the cultural chasm is widening between practitioners in the relatively insular medical community (who ascribe often questionable diagnostic labels) and their patients.  This growing disparity, and concurrent increased risk of mis-diagnosis, has resulted from an increase in the number of professionals trained in foreign countries while case loads now feature increased demographic diversity.  That which is described as divine communication, in many cases, may be little different from explanations given by an individual describing external control.  Ombudsman 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a good example.  However, the asker gives the answer in the fifth word.  The claim is of _guidance_ we are told, not of control.  If the President said that he had no choice, exercised no judgement and was under the direct control of god in launching eg an invasion of Iraq, then I suspect there would be a more general worry about the rationality of the exercise.  As it is the claims of guidance from god, and of taking into account reports of weapons of a wholesale devastating nature seem quite clearly subordinated, in the view of the person making or implying those effects, to the exercise of judgement by an intact and autonomous individual.  There is some eliding of influence and reaction into a poor synonym for control a th etop of this page - different topic, autonomy is the key.  Midgley 22:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  on the instance of clerics and direction from their gods, I'm no theologian, but I understood that central to the busines of good and evil was that despite the clear instructions from god the mortal had the choice, and made it freely, of whether to follow them or not.  Which appears to let priests generally distinguish themselves from madmen.  Midgley 22:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychosis common 

message: I think this article should be split into several different articles. I suggest:
*Mind Control (disambig)
*Mind Control (fiction) (referring to ficticious instances of mind control)
*Mind Control (religious) (referring to alleged mind control by cults)
*Mind Control (real-time strategy) (referring to the Mind Control strategy in StarCraft Brood War and Red Alert 2 among other places)
*Mind Control (scientific theory)
*Mind Control (conspiracy theory) --Nerd42 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And which would be the principle article the user would get when they searched for "mind control", hmm?  And how can we make that decision in an unbiased way?  I think the article is better left as it is.  Duplicate information will just creep into the daughter articles until they're as large as this one was.  Though a seperate article on the Mind Control spell in SC:BW would sorta be considered appropriate, it also seems a bit fancrufty.  Does a single ability in a single video game deserve an entire article?  Better to have an article on the Protoss and include it there.  -Kasreyn 08:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose split