Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 81
X disputational relevant correct
See discussion of proposition 42.
Equating of Brainwashing and Totalitarian Influence Perspectives
Proposition 45. (Page 255) In affirming that such terms are roughly synonymous,
Zablocki is informing us that in his mind the CIA brainwashing paradigm as expressed by
Meerloo, Singer, Ofshe, and Farber, et al., on the one hand, and the totalitarian influence
perspectives of Schein, Lifton, et al., on the other, are essentially the same.
X disputational X relevant correct
See discussion of proposition 42.
Voluntary Versus Involuntary Influence
Proposition 46. (Page 256) Zablocki feels that the characteristic that distinguishes the
pseudo-scientific CIA brainwashing perspective from the valid brainwashing perspective,
which he claims to advocate, is that the CIA perspective claims that brainwashing “rob[s]
ordinary people of their free will,” whereas his own perspective does not.
disputational X relevant X correct
Yes! This descriptive proposition gets it right. One of the major differences between my
perspective and that of the discredited CIA program is that the CIA program claims to
overthrow free will.
Proposition 47. (Page 257) On the one hand, Zablocki says that brainwashing does not
claim that its victims are robbed of their free will. On the other, he says that the goal of
brainwashing is the modification of the preference structure on which choice is based. The
question then becomes whether a brainwashing account of how such a modification is
accomplished indicates that the modification is voluntary or involuntary. The central theme
of Zablocki’s brainwashing articles is to show that the accomplishment of such a
modification of preferences by brainwashing is involuntary, and that once the modified
preference structure is accomplished, the person becomes stuck in it against their will.
X disputational X relevant correct
In this proposition, Anthony confuses an early article of mine in which I speculate about the
conjecture that the effect of brainwashing occurs at the level of preference structure. We
could argue about whether preference modification involves the overthrow of free will. If it
does, then political debates by presidential candidates should perhaps be outlawed because
they all attempt to modify our candidate preferences. But such argument is unnecessary
because the theory of brainwashing as stated in chapter 5 of Misunderstanding Cults does
not rely on a discussion of preference modification. So even if Anthony‘s contention about
the association between preference structure and free will were correct, it would have no
bearing on the theory but only on a conjecture I once offered to explain why brainwashing
has the effect that it does. As I explained more fully in my comments on proposition 27,
Anthony consistently confounds the formal theory of brainwashing with various speculations
about why it has the effects it does.
Proposition 48. (Page 257) Zablocki develops quite explicitly his contention that
brainwashing produces a compulsive attachment to a totalistic world view, group, and false
or shadow self. As we saw above, Zablocki contends that brainwashing involves ―an
addictive orientation to the alternation of arousal and attachment comparable to the
mother-infant attachment.... In these terms, brainwashing can be operationalized as an
influence process orchestrated toward the goal of charismatic addiction. My hypothesis is
that each of the three stages of brainwashing achieves a plateau in this addictive process.
X disputational relevant correct
See discussion of proposition 42.
Equating of Brainwashing and Totalitarian Influence Perspectives
Proposition 45. (Page 255) In affirming that such terms are roughly synonymous,
Zablocki is informing us that in his mind the CIA brainwashing paradigm as expressed by
Meerloo, Singer, Ofshe, and Farber, et al., on the one hand, and the totalitarian influence
perspectives of Schein, Lifton, et al., on the other, are essentially the same.
X disputational X relevant correct
See discussion of proposition 42.
Voluntary Versus Involuntary Influence
Proposition 46. (Page 256) Zablocki feels that the characteristic that distinguishes the
pseudo-scientific CIA brainwashing perspective from the valid brainwashing perspective,
which he claims to advocate, is that the CIA perspective claims that brainwashing “rob[s]
ordinary people of their free will,” whereas his own perspective does not.
disputational X relevant X correct
Yes! This descriptive proposition gets it right. One of the major differences between my
perspective and that of the discredited CIA program is that the CIA program claims to
overthrow free will.
Proposition 47. (Page 257) On the one hand, Zablocki says that brainwashing does not
claim that its victims are robbed of their free will. On the other, he says that the goal of
brainwashing is the modification of the preference structure on which choice is based. The
question then becomes whether a brainwashing account of how such a modification is
accomplished indicates that the modification is voluntary or involuntary. The central theme
of Zablocki’s brainwashing articles is to show that the accomplishment of such a
modification of preferences by brainwashing is involuntary, and that once the modified
preference structure is accomplished, the person becomes stuck in it against their will.
X disputational X relevant correct
In this proposition, Anthony confuses an early article of mine in which I speculate about the
conjecture that the effect of brainwashing occurs at the level of preference structure. We
could argue about whether preference modification involves the overthrow of free will. If it
does, then political debates by presidential candidates should perhaps be outlawed because
they all attempt to modify our candidate preferences. But such argument is unnecessary
because the theory of brainwashing as stated in chapter 5 of Misunderstanding Cults does
not rely on a discussion of preference modification. So even if Anthony‘s contention about
the association between preference structure and free will were correct, it would have no
bearing on the theory but only on a conjecture I once offered to explain why brainwashing
has the effect that it does. As I explained more fully in my comments on proposition 27,
Anthony consistently confounds the formal theory of brainwashing with various speculations
about why it has the effects it does.
Proposition 48. (Page 257) Zablocki develops quite explicitly his contention that
brainwashing produces a compulsive attachment to a totalistic world view, group, and false
or shadow self. As we saw above, Zablocki contends that brainwashing involves ―an
addictive orientation to the alternation of arousal and attachment comparable to the
mother-infant attachment.... In these terms, brainwashing can be operationalized as an
influence process orchestrated toward the goal of charismatic addiction. My hypothesis is
that each of the three stages of brainwashing achieves a plateau in this addictive process.
