firstname.lastname@example.org (Martin Hunt)
>email@example.com (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>If you don't believe the evidence I've posted
here, there's a simple test you can do for youself to see if the brainwashing/mind control hypothesis is accepted -- find a DSM-IV and look up what it says about cult mind control. You won't find anything -- not a word.
>I have been brainwashed. Evidence for its
existence is not required to convince me of something I have been through. You may as well try to convince me that I am not a Canadian.
I understand you now. "What's true for you is true." "It's
because I've tried it and it works." For one who places faith in
scientific rationality, your logic sounds strikingly similar to those
who say "The Bible says it. I believe it. My mind's made up."
I'm not surprised that you've finally admitted the basis for your
belief in brainwashing comes from subjective personal experience
rather than from any rational analysis of data. What I am surprised
about, however, is that you are willing to admit this after ridiculing
those who base a belief in a Supreme Being on similar grounds.
>>If you can locate a copy of the DSM-III, you'll
find the classification "Other Dissociative Disorders" includes
"trance-like states . . . . while the captive of terrorists or cultists."
That "disorder" is no longer recognized by the APA.
>Don't they also specifically mention
brainwashing in DSM, as has been quoted and cited by Monica Pignotti?
The APA deliberately removed any reference to cults in the diagnosis.
I asked Rob Clark to find any reference to "cult mind control"
DSM-IV. Monica Pignotti has posted the DSM-IV entry, which does not
include any mention of cults.
I have posted the DSM-III entry for the same disorder, which *does*
include a mention of cults. This change is not the result of
oversight or whim, it was a deliberate decision made, discussed, and
voted upon by the membership of the APA.
>>I have repeatedly, even yesterday, stated here
that I regard Margaret Singer as a highly regarded clinical psychologist. From all reports I've heard, she has helped more ex-cult members get back on their
feet than any other person in the world.
>>But excellent as a clinician does not make one
an outstanding theoretician. Margaret Singer is no theoretician.
>Yes, and Hadden, Bainbridge and his ilk are no
psychologists. What is the purpose in using sociologists to combat and dismantle the expertise of a psychologist? Are you trying to say that sociologists are in some way superior to psychologists? At first glance, I'd assume that experts in the correct field would be more apropos for the basis of your argument.
I was posting excerpts from the works of sociologists because this
thread began with a discussion of Professor Hadden's website.
Professor Hadden is a sociologist. You have now altered your request
for information to include only information written by psychologists.
Are you willing to accept papers written by psychiatrists as well?
Or do you wish me to include only research performed by psychologists,
excluding all others?
I will also point out that neither Monica Pignotti nor Steven Hassan
are psychologists. Monica is qualified as a social worker, not a
psychologist. Steve Hassan is qualified as a guidance counselor, not
>>I'm not angry, Martin. Generally, I'm laughing
uproariously at the absurdity of the arguments I face as I answer these posts.
>I'm glad you at least admit this.
I'm still laughing.