Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 77
patients bleed while surgery is being performed, a person who is not bleeding cannot have
been a surgical patient.
Proposition 31. (Page 232) Ofshe and Singer, 1986 ...claim that cults use brainwashing
techniques that are different from and more effective than techniques used in Communist
thought reform. Zablocki, 1998, pg. 222, endnote 21, specifically claims that this article is
part of the empirical basis of his own brainwashing formulation.
disputational relevant X correct
This proposition involves two sequential nondisputational statements, both of which are true
but irrelevant:
1. Ofshe claims that cult brainwashing is different from Communist thought reform in
some respects. This is true, but what does it have to do with the matter at hand?
2. Zablocki claims the Ofshe article is part of his own empirical base.
Well, I guess this is true in the sense that I profited by reading Ofshe‘s early empirical work
on Synanon and other charismatic groups that I have never studied. And the similarity of
my findings on different, later charismatic groups increases my confidence that the subject I
have chosen to investigate is one that others have independently noticed in other contexts.
But similarity is not identity. My theory, on the face of it, is not identical to any of the
theories of Ofshe or Singer. I can, therefore, not be saddled with responsibility for a
proposition in one of their theories simply because I cite their work and find myself inspired
by Ofshe‘s evidence.
Proposition 32. (Page 233) attacks upon religious conversion as being involuntary
because they involve “irrational” states of mind are evaluative rather than scientific because
they are tautological.
X disputational relevant X correct
I wholeheartedly agree. Therefore, let‘s all agree never to make any such tautological
attacks upon religious conversion by claiming they involve ―irrational‖ states of mind. I have
never made any such attacks. My theory does not include or imply such an attack. I
promise never to make any such attack in the future. Why would anyone want to base an
intellectual attack on tautological reasoning?
Proposition 33. (Page 233) Zablocki, (1998, 227) claims that the research of Orne
(1972) provides scientific support for the idea that hypnosis can be used to compel
involuntary behavior. [In the section of his article on ―Mental or Physical Impairment‖ as an
explanation for cult membership, Zablocki states: Orne has done some interesting
experimental work on the extent to which subjects can be hypnotized to do things against
their will.]
X disputational relevant correct
First, the pedantic comment: The correct citation for the statement Anthony is talking about
is (1998a, 237), not (1998, 227). However, this proposition contains a far more serious
blunder. The purpose of the 1998a paper that Anthony cites is an extremely modest one. At
that time, I had not yet developed a fully formed social-psychological theory of
brainwashing and was simply arguing that the brainwashing ―conjecture‖ was at least as
plausible as any of the rival conjectures in the literature. After I set out my view of the
brainwashing conjecture as I understood it at that time, I then—in the interests of fairness—
took a page or two to discuss each of the rival conjectures. That Anthony does not notice
that the discussion of Orne and hypnosis that he alludes to takes place within a discussion
of one of these rival conjectures is incredible to me. Anthony seems so anxious to tar me
with the hypnotism brush that he rips this discussion out of context with absurd results.
patients bleed while surgery is being performed, a person who is not bleeding cannot have
been a surgical patient.
Proposition 31. (Page 232) Ofshe and Singer, 1986 ...claim that cults use brainwashing
techniques that are different from and more effective than techniques used in Communist
thought reform. Zablocki, 1998, pg. 222, endnote 21, specifically claims that this article is
part of the empirical basis of his own brainwashing formulation.
disputational relevant X correct
This proposition involves two sequential nondisputational statements, both of which are true
but irrelevant:
1. Ofshe claims that cult brainwashing is different from Communist thought reform in
some respects. This is true, but what does it have to do with the matter at hand?
2. Zablocki claims the Ofshe article is part of his own empirical base.
Well, I guess this is true in the sense that I profited by reading Ofshe‘s early empirical work
on Synanon and other charismatic groups that I have never studied. And the similarity of
my findings on different, later charismatic groups increases my confidence that the subject I
have chosen to investigate is one that others have independently noticed in other contexts.
But similarity is not identity. My theory, on the face of it, is not identical to any of the
theories of Ofshe or Singer. I can, therefore, not be saddled with responsibility for a
proposition in one of their theories simply because I cite their work and find myself inspired
by Ofshe‘s evidence.
Proposition 32. (Page 233) attacks upon religious conversion as being involuntary
because they involve “irrational” states of mind are evaluative rather than scientific because
they are tautological.
X disputational relevant X correct
I wholeheartedly agree. Therefore, let‘s all agree never to make any such tautological
attacks upon religious conversion by claiming they involve ―irrational‖ states of mind. I have
never made any such attacks. My theory does not include or imply such an attack. I
promise never to make any such attack in the future. Why would anyone want to base an
intellectual attack on tautological reasoning?
Proposition 33. (Page 233) Zablocki, (1998, 227) claims that the research of Orne
(1972) provides scientific support for the idea that hypnosis can be used to compel
involuntary behavior. [In the section of his article on ―Mental or Physical Impairment‖ as an
explanation for cult membership, Zablocki states: Orne has done some interesting
experimental work on the extent to which subjects can be hypnotized to do things against
their will.]
X disputational relevant correct
First, the pedantic comment: The correct citation for the statement Anthony is talking about
is (1998a, 237), not (1998, 227). However, this proposition contains a far more serious
blunder. The purpose of the 1998a paper that Anthony cites is an extremely modest one. At
that time, I had not yet developed a fully formed social-psychological theory of
brainwashing and was simply arguing that the brainwashing ―conjecture‖ was at least as
plausible as any of the rival conjectures in the literature. After I set out my view of the
brainwashing conjecture as I understood it at that time, I then—in the interests of fairness—
took a page or two to discuss each of the rival conjectures. That Anthony does not notice
that the discussion of Orne and hypnosis that he alludes to takes place within a discussion
of one of these rival conjectures is incredible to me. Anthony seems so anxious to tar me
with the hypnotism brush that he rips this discussion out of context with absurd results.
