Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 68
disputational X relevant correct
This proposition is relevant only in the sense that it would certainly be relevant to his
debunking attempt if he could show that my theory is no different from an epistemologically
spurious theory. However, what we have here is an example of burden shifting. He is trying
to establish that the burden of proof is on me to show that my theory is different from
Margaret Singer‘s theory. In fact, the burden is properly on him to show that these theories
are identical. If and only if he can show that they are identical in one of his other
propositions would this nondisputational proposition have a bite.
Evaluation of Zablocki’s Formulation
Proposition 7. (Page 218) All brainwashing formulations claim to provide criteria for
identifying social influence that results in involuntary conduct from social influence that does
not result in involuntary conduct.
disputational X relevant correct
Here we come to the first statement of the heart of Anthony‘s debunking argument. He puts
almost all of his chips on the hope that he can saddle my theory with what he calls the
―involuntarism assumption.‖ The implied argument has the structure of a well-formed
syllogism: All brainwashing formulations posit involuntarism. Involuntarism posits the
overthrow of free will. Statements positing the overthrow of free will are bogus. Zablocki‘s
theory is a brainwashing formulation. Therefore, Zablocki‘s theory must posit the overthrow
of free will. Therefore Zablocki‘s theory is bogus. Unfortunately for Anthony, even well-
formed syllogisms are correct only if their presumptions are correct, and Anthony‘s initial
presumption is wrong.
Proposition 8. (Page 218) In addition, authors of brainwashing formulations claim that
research upon Chinese and North Korean Communist coercive indoctrination practices
around the time of the Korean War provides the primary theoretical foundation for their
theories of involuntary cultic commitment.
disputational relevant correct
Maybe yes, or maybe no. But I have never made such a claim.
CIA Research on Brainwashing
Proposition 9. (Page 219) The core idea of brainwashing formulations is that world views
can be transformed to their polar opposites through techniques that create disorientation
and hyper suggestibility followed by intensive indoctrination.
disputational X relevant correct
It may be that world views can be so transformed, but that is not an argument my theory
makes. An examination of my theory will show that it talks of the inculcation of obedience
and attachment by some (but not all) of the techniques mentioned in Proposition 9.
Proposition 10. (Page 220) The basic model that was being explored [by the CIA]
consisted of two stages: 1) a “deconditioning stage” intended to wipe out previous
ideological loyalties through the imposition of a disoriented, hyper suggestible, state of
consciousness 2) a “conditioning stage” intended to implant new loyalties and a new self
through specialized conditioning procedures based upon behaviorist psychology.
disputational X relevant X correct
This is a brief but correct summary of the CIA program. That program is relevant to my
theory only in that the theory I present also involves a deconditioning stage and a
reconditioning stage. Anthony is trying to establish grounds for his later assertion that my
disputational X relevant correct
This proposition is relevant only in the sense that it would certainly be relevant to his
debunking attempt if he could show that my theory is no different from an epistemologically
spurious theory. However, what we have here is an example of burden shifting. He is trying
to establish that the burden of proof is on me to show that my theory is different from
Margaret Singer‘s theory. In fact, the burden is properly on him to show that these theories
are identical. If and only if he can show that they are identical in one of his other
propositions would this nondisputational proposition have a bite.
Evaluation of Zablocki’s Formulation
Proposition 7. (Page 218) All brainwashing formulations claim to provide criteria for
identifying social influence that results in involuntary conduct from social influence that does
not result in involuntary conduct.
disputational X relevant correct
Here we come to the first statement of the heart of Anthony‘s debunking argument. He puts
almost all of his chips on the hope that he can saddle my theory with what he calls the
―involuntarism assumption.‖ The implied argument has the structure of a well-formed
syllogism: All brainwashing formulations posit involuntarism. Involuntarism posits the
overthrow of free will. Statements positing the overthrow of free will are bogus. Zablocki‘s
theory is a brainwashing formulation. Therefore, Zablocki‘s theory must posit the overthrow
of free will. Therefore Zablocki‘s theory is bogus. Unfortunately for Anthony, even well-
formed syllogisms are correct only if their presumptions are correct, and Anthony‘s initial
presumption is wrong.
Proposition 8. (Page 218) In addition, authors of brainwashing formulations claim that
research upon Chinese and North Korean Communist coercive indoctrination practices
around the time of the Korean War provides the primary theoretical foundation for their
theories of involuntary cultic commitment.
disputational relevant correct
Maybe yes, or maybe no. But I have never made such a claim.
CIA Research on Brainwashing
Proposition 9. (Page 219) The core idea of brainwashing formulations is that world views
can be transformed to their polar opposites through techniques that create disorientation
and hyper suggestibility followed by intensive indoctrination.
disputational X relevant correct
It may be that world views can be so transformed, but that is not an argument my theory
makes. An examination of my theory will show that it talks of the inculcation of obedience
and attachment by some (but not all) of the techniques mentioned in Proposition 9.
Proposition 10. (Page 220) The basic model that was being explored [by the CIA]
consisted of two stages: 1) a “deconditioning stage” intended to wipe out previous
ideological loyalties through the imposition of a disoriented, hyper suggestible, state of
consciousness 2) a “conditioning stage” intended to implant new loyalties and a new self
through specialized conditioning procedures based upon behaviorist psychology.
disputational X relevant X correct
This is a brief but correct summary of the CIA program. That program is relevant to my
theory only in that the theory I present also involves a deconditioning stage and a
reconditioning stage. Anthony is trying to establish grounds for his later assertion that my
