Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 74
disputational X relevant X correct
This nondisputational proposition is composed mainly of a segment that Anthony correctly
quotes from an earlier (1997) article. Although correct, the citation out of context is
misleading. I make it clear in that earlier article that I was exploring various unproven
conjectures for explaining why brainwashing works. Although I stand by this earlier
conjectural quotation, it is not part of my scientific argument. Anthony‘s quotations from my
writings range over thirty years, but he presents them—misleadingly—as though all are part
of a single current scientific attempt to formulate a falsifiable theory.
Proposition 22. (Page 228) The ―profoundly modified self‖ referred to by Zablocki in the
above quote as characteristic of brainwashing is essentially the same as the false self or
―pseudo-identity‖ which Singer, (1995, 60, 61, 77-79), West and Martin (1994) and other
brainwashing theorists regard as an essential aspect of brainwashing.
disputational X relevant correct
Sez who? We have another instance of the false equivalency fallacy cropping up here. Only
now B =the theories of Singer, West, and Martin, none of whom are social psychologists.
Anthony has not done any of the difficult work of establishing an equivalency between my
theory and those of these three scholars. Without doing this work, he has no right to simply
assert that my theory is equivalent to theirs. Additionally, the ―profoundly modified self‖
that Anthony quotes me as discussing has no place in my theory but only in earlier
conjectural work in which I speculate about the question of ―why‖ brainwashing may work
the way it does.
Proposition 23. (Page 228) The new identity is viewed as false because allegedly it is
imposed wholly by extrinsic influence and thus is seen as discontinuous with the
pre-existing values and self-conception of the person that is, as being “ego-dystonic,‖ to
use Zablocki‘s appropriation of psychoanalytic terminology. (Within psychoanalysis, the
term ―ego-dystonic‖ refers to distortions of rational thought processes, such as delusions,
hallucinations, obsessive thoughts, or compulsive behaviours, produced by eruptions of
primitive unconscious materials into consciousness.)
disputational X relevant correct
There are two separate problems with this proposition. The first is that gets the definition of
ego dystonic wrong. According to the American Psychiatric Glossary (seventh edition) 1994,
American Psychiatric Press, the term ego dystonic refers to ―aspects of a person‘s behavior,
thoughts, or attitudes that are viewed by the self as repugnant or inconsistent with the total
personality.‖ There is no assumption that these aspects involve delusions, hallucinations, or
any of the other disorders Anthony suggests. The second problem is that the first sentence
in the proposition is wrong it is based on the erroneous assumption that the brainwashed
person‘s new identity is viewed as false either by the subject or by the observer. No such
value judgments are made or implied.
Proposition 24. (Page 228) Zablocki states: The result of this [brainwashing] process,
when successful, is to make the individual a deployable agent of the charismatic authority.
disputational X relevant X correct
Yes, this interpretation is correct and important, but the statement is merely a descriptive
one that does not dispute the validity of the theory.
Proposition 25. (Page 229) As Zablocki has stated, the cult is able to overwhelm—and
replace with a shadow self—the pre-existing authentic self of the person only by inducing an
altered, primitive state of consciousness in which the person is unable to resist

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 75
indoctrination. Zablocki refers to this alleged state of primitive consciousness as
―disorientation.‖
disputational X relevant correct
Total nonsense. Disorientation is defined as ―loss of awareness of the position of the self in
relation to space, time, or other persons.‖ Disorientation is a run-of-the-mill state of
consciousness that all of us experience at one time or another and that people often
experience as a reaction to prolonged stressful treatment.
Proposition 26. (Page 229) Zablocki doesn’t provide a definition for his use of the
disorientation term.... Elsewhere, Zablocki elaborates upon the disoriented state, which he
considers to be the core of the brainwashing process. He states that those in the throes of
the brainwashing process:
are, at times, so disoriented that they do appear to resemble zombies or robots:
glassy eyes, inability to complete sentences, and fixed eerie smiles are
characteristics of disoriented people under randomly varying levels of psychological
stress.... He elaborates in a later section of the same article upon the ―loose
cognition‖ and suspension of critical rationality referred to in this passage, which he
regards as essential to the brainwashing process.
X disputational relevant correct
See my reply to Proposition 25, above, for the standard definition of disorientation.
The following is conjecture on my part, but I can‘t help but suspect that what Anthony is
trying to accomplish by making so much fuss over the role of disorientation in my theory is
to construct an isomorphism between my theory and some rather silly caricatures of ―mind
control‖ that appear in Fu Manchu movies, for example. But I don‘t argue that brainwashing
turns people into robots. I simply state that, for a brief transitional period during which the
subjects are enduring sleep deprivation and random inquisitions, the subjects present
themselves as so worn down and traumatized that they resemble zombies or robots to the
observer.
Proposition 27. (Page 230) [Zablocki] states:
My argument is that his transition to the biological [essential to brainwashing]
involves both a suspension of incredulity and an addictive orientation to the
alternation of arousal and comfort comparable to the mother-infant attachment. At
the cognitive level this relationship [between the charismatic cult and its
brainwashed victim] involves the suspension of left-brain criticism of right-brain
beliefs such that the beliefs are uncritically and enthusiastically adopted.... By
preventing even low-level testing of the consequences of our convictions, the
[brainwashed] individual is able rapidly to be convinced of a changing flow of beliefs,
accepted uncritically. (1998, 241-242 emphasis mine)
disputational relevant X correct
Anthony is here quoting an earlier article of mine in which I offer a neuropsychosocial
conjecture as to why brainwashing might have the effects that it does. But the validity of
the theory does not depend on the truth of the conjecture. A theme that runs through
Anthony‘s critique is the failure to distinguish between an empirically based theory that a
specific event occurs, on the one hand, and conjectures as to why it occurs, on the other
hand. The social scientist has a responsibility to offer both, but only the former must be
falsifiable at the present time. In fact, we currently have no way of knowing whether or not
brainwashing involves this kind of left-brain and right-brain activity, although it might be
possible in the future to determine this. But, meanwhile, the possible truth of the conjecture