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
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
