For second-generation cult members (those born
and raised in cultic groups), this dynamic is
magnified. They have been raised in an
encompassing community whose culture is
defined by the needs and abusive practices of the
leader during times of critical social and
emotional development for them. In addition,
their own parents will likely transmit some of
the traumatizing and immobilizing aspects of the
group in their own efforts to be good soldiers.
Thus, many people born and raised in high-
demand groups, or adults who have spent many
years in groups that are isolated and controlling
suffer from C-PTSD. C-PTSD is marked by
significant problems in nervous-system
regulation, identity confusion, avoidant
addictive behaviors, and more severe depression
than those with PTSD (Briere et al., 2010
Courtois &Ford, 2009 Herman, 1992b
Thomaes et al., 2011 Van der Hart et al., 2006).
This reality then raises the question: If high-
demand groups are so traumatizing, how and
why do so many people get drawn in?
The Epigenetics of Group Affinity
In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), E. O.
Wilson argues that there have been only a few
animal species in natural history that have
evolutionary “group selection,” and that humans
are one of those species. Wilson and others
have long wondered about this hypothesis first
proposed by Darwin (1871) but with recent
advances in behavioral genetics and applied
mathematics, Wilson set out to prove it. In
2010, he worked with mathematicians Martin A.
Nowak and Corina Tarnita to run mathematical
models to support the theory. Natural selection
is Darwin’s theory, which postulates that
individuals compete for life-sustaining
resources, and that the fittest survive and pass on
their genes (1871). The strongest individuals
survive and move the species’ evolution in
adaptive directions. But Wilson argues that
humans also may have evolved through
selection of groups of unrelated (nonkin) or
distantly related individuals. That is, in the
evolutionary record, groups of humans who
worked together in a cooperative manner would
advance the gene pool of that group. In this
vein, altruism for the group and its strivings may
be a genetic advantage for humans in the same
way that selfishness and individual competition
are viewed as an advantage.
Wilson argues that survival modes are
epigenetic and flexible. That is, when
individuals are in situations in which group
survival is needed, the gene will express itself as
strong altruism and group cooperation. When
environmental needs favor individual
competition, the gene will express itself as
relative selfishness. The more flexible the gene,
the more flexible the organism. Humans can
thus adapt to a variety of habitats and
circumstances.
If people are predisposed to be both morally
altruistic to favor group survival and self-
protective as individuals, then humans live with
conflict at all times: When and how much do we
strive to survive and protect ourselves, and when
and how much do we cooperate and submit our
personal needs for the group? This conflict is
evident in the case of 9/11 survivor Peter. He
actively protected himself and his brother and
survived, but he also left many colleagues frozen
and staring out the window. He did briefly call
out to his colleagues to get out of danger, but
that was the extent of his efforts toward his
coworkers. His coworkers at the window did all
survive but, unlike Peter, they had lasting stress
reactions. If he had spent a few minutes urging
his colleagues to leave and had ushered them out
of the building, Peter would have been seen as a
hero, reflecting human group/altruistic traits.
But then he might not have survived.
Everything Is Multidetermined
If we accept Wilson’s premise that group
seeking is epigenetic, then environmental factors
by definition can shape the expression of these
genes, which impact affiliation and cooperation.
Environmental possibilities may influence
whether the expression in human behavior goes
one way or the other. I propose that the factors
that impact the genetic expression of altruism
and group cooperation are necessary but not
sufficient to cause or predict cult involvement,
and that contextual issues will be part of the
multidetermined mix. In addition, as is the case
with so many other hereditable traits (Segal,
2012), it is possible that affiliation leanings are
16 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 5, 2014
and raised in cultic groups), this dynamic is
magnified. They have been raised in an
encompassing community whose culture is
defined by the needs and abusive practices of the
leader during times of critical social and
emotional development for them. In addition,
their own parents will likely transmit some of
the traumatizing and immobilizing aspects of the
group in their own efforts to be good soldiers.
Thus, many people born and raised in high-
demand groups, or adults who have spent many
years in groups that are isolated and controlling
suffer from C-PTSD. C-PTSD is marked by
significant problems in nervous-system
regulation, identity confusion, avoidant
addictive behaviors, and more severe depression
than those with PTSD (Briere et al., 2010
Courtois &Ford, 2009 Herman, 1992b
Thomaes et al., 2011 Van der Hart et al., 2006).
This reality then raises the question: If high-
demand groups are so traumatizing, how and
why do so many people get drawn in?
The Epigenetics of Group Affinity
In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), E. O.
Wilson argues that there have been only a few
animal species in natural history that have
evolutionary “group selection,” and that humans
are one of those species. Wilson and others
have long wondered about this hypothesis first
proposed by Darwin (1871) but with recent
advances in behavioral genetics and applied
mathematics, Wilson set out to prove it. In
2010, he worked with mathematicians Martin A.
Nowak and Corina Tarnita to run mathematical
models to support the theory. Natural selection
is Darwin’s theory, which postulates that
individuals compete for life-sustaining
resources, and that the fittest survive and pass on
their genes (1871). The strongest individuals
survive and move the species’ evolution in
adaptive directions. But Wilson argues that
humans also may have evolved through
selection of groups of unrelated (nonkin) or
distantly related individuals. That is, in the
evolutionary record, groups of humans who
worked together in a cooperative manner would
advance the gene pool of that group. In this
vein, altruism for the group and its strivings may
be a genetic advantage for humans in the same
way that selfishness and individual competition
are viewed as an advantage.
Wilson argues that survival modes are
epigenetic and flexible. That is, when
individuals are in situations in which group
survival is needed, the gene will express itself as
strong altruism and group cooperation. When
environmental needs favor individual
competition, the gene will express itself as
relative selfishness. The more flexible the gene,
the more flexible the organism. Humans can
thus adapt to a variety of habitats and
circumstances.
If people are predisposed to be both morally
altruistic to favor group survival and self-
protective as individuals, then humans live with
conflict at all times: When and how much do we
strive to survive and protect ourselves, and when
and how much do we cooperate and submit our
personal needs for the group? This conflict is
evident in the case of 9/11 survivor Peter. He
actively protected himself and his brother and
survived, but he also left many colleagues frozen
and staring out the window. He did briefly call
out to his colleagues to get out of danger, but
that was the extent of his efforts toward his
coworkers. His coworkers at the window did all
survive but, unlike Peter, they had lasting stress
reactions. If he had spent a few minutes urging
his colleagues to leave and had ushered them out
of the building, Peter would have been seen as a
hero, reflecting human group/altruistic traits.
But then he might not have survived.
Everything Is Multidetermined
If we accept Wilson’s premise that group
seeking is epigenetic, then environmental factors
by definition can shape the expression of these
genes, which impact affiliation and cooperation.
Environmental possibilities may influence
whether the expression in human behavior goes
one way or the other. I propose that the factors
that impact the genetic expression of altruism
and group cooperation are necessary but not
sufficient to cause or predict cult involvement,
and that contextual issues will be part of the
multidetermined mix. In addition, as is the case
with so many other hereditable traits (Segal,
2012), it is possible that affiliation leanings are
16 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 5, 2014
