Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 86
X disputational relevant correct
Notice that Anthony is unable or unwilling to argue against my theory on its own terms. He
prefers the indirect route of ―proving‖ that my theory is identical to a previously discredited
theory. This is not optimal scientific method, but it might be acceptable if Anthony had
succeeded in demonstrating this equivalence. But my previous comments have
demonstrated that he has failed to do so. This failure gives him no other choice but to
abandon his attempts to refute, or else to refute directly. But he will do neither.
Brainwashing Versus Totalitarian Influence: Summary of Empirical Conflicts
Proposition 63. (Page 262) Zablocki‘s cultic brainwashing theory, like the earlier
statements of cultic brainwashing theory, such as those of Singer and Ofshe, is contradicted
by its own claimed theoretical foundation that is, the research of Schein and Lifton.
X disputational X relevant correct
See my comments on proposition 2. Again we find an unwillingness to discuss my theory on
its own terms. We are already at proposition 63, and not once have any of the hypotheses
of my theory been so much as mentioned! Nor will they be in the remaining 35 propositions
in Anthony‘s argument. Instead, we have another attempt at guilt by association. This time,
the guilty association is with Schein and Lifton rather than the CIA, and my sin is not
equivalence but contradiction. Anthony will not understand that, in the social sciences,
bibliographic sources are just bibliographic sources. They are not authorities.
Proposition 64. (Page 262ff) As I have shown above, the research of Schein and Lifton
on westerners in thought reform prisons, upon which Zablocki claims to base his
brainwashing theory, confirmed and extended Hinkle‘s and Wolff‘s earlier findings. As I
argued in my earlier article, their research on Communist forceful indoctrination practices
disconfirmed the CIA model with respect to 8 variables. These are: 1) conversion none of
Schein‘s and Lifton‘s subjects became committed to Communist world views as a result of
the thought reform program. Only two of Lifton‘s 40 subjects and only one or two of
Schein‘s 15 subjects emerged from the thought reform process expressing sympathy for
Communism and none of them actually became Communists. Communist coercive
persuasion produced behavioral compliance but not belief in Communist ideology (Lifton,
1961, 117, 248-49 Schein, 1958, 332, 1961, 157-166, 1973, 295) 2) predisposing
motives those subjects who were at all influenced by Communist indoctrination practices
were predisposed to be so before they were subjected to them (Lifton, 1961, 130 Schein,
1961, 104-110, 140-156 1973, 295) 3) physical coercion Communist indoctrination
practices produced involuntary influence only in that subjects were forced to participate in
them through extreme physical coercion. (Lifton, 1961, 13 1976, 327-328 Schein 1959,
4371, 1961, 125-127) 4) continuity with normal social influence The non-physical
techniques of influence utilized in Communist thought reform are common in normal social
influence situations. (Lifton, 1961, 438-461 Schein, 1961, 269-282, 1962, 90-97, 1964,
331-351) 5) Conditioning No distinctive conditioning procedures were utilized in
Communist coercive persuasion (Schein, 1959, 437-438, 1973, 284-285 Biderman, 1962,
550) 6) psychophysiological stress/debilitation The extreme physically based stress and
debilitation to which imprisoned thought reform victims were subjected did not cause
involuntary commitment to Communist world views. (Hinkle and Wolff, 1956 Lifton, 117,
248-49 Schein, 1958, 332, 1961, 157-166, 1973, 295) Moreover, no comparable practices
are present in new religious movements (Anthony, 1990, 309-311) 7) Deception/Defective
Thought Victims of Communist thought reform did not become committed to Communism
as a result of deception or defective thought. (Schein, 1961, 202-203, 238-39) 8)
Dissociation/Hypnosis/Suggestibility. Those subjected to thought reform did not become
hyper-suggestible as a result of altered states of consciousness, e.g. hypnosis, dissociation,
disorientation, etc. (Schein, 1959, 457 Biderman, 1962, 550)
X disputational relevant correct
Notice that Anthony is unable or unwilling to argue against my theory on its own terms. He
prefers the indirect route of ―proving‖ that my theory is identical to a previously discredited
theory. This is not optimal scientific method, but it might be acceptable if Anthony had
succeeded in demonstrating this equivalence. But my previous comments have
demonstrated that he has failed to do so. This failure gives him no other choice but to
abandon his attempts to refute, or else to refute directly. But he will do neither.
Brainwashing Versus Totalitarian Influence: Summary of Empirical Conflicts
Proposition 63. (Page 262) Zablocki‘s cultic brainwashing theory, like the earlier
statements of cultic brainwashing theory, such as those of Singer and Ofshe, is contradicted
by its own claimed theoretical foundation that is, the research of Schein and Lifton.
X disputational X relevant correct
See my comments on proposition 2. Again we find an unwillingness to discuss my theory on
its own terms. We are already at proposition 63, and not once have any of the hypotheses
of my theory been so much as mentioned! Nor will they be in the remaining 35 propositions
in Anthony‘s argument. Instead, we have another attempt at guilt by association. This time,
the guilty association is with Schein and Lifton rather than the CIA, and my sin is not
equivalence but contradiction. Anthony will not understand that, in the social sciences,
bibliographic sources are just bibliographic sources. They are not authorities.
Proposition 64. (Page 262ff) As I have shown above, the research of Schein and Lifton
on westerners in thought reform prisons, upon which Zablocki claims to base his
brainwashing theory, confirmed and extended Hinkle‘s and Wolff‘s earlier findings. As I
argued in my earlier article, their research on Communist forceful indoctrination practices
disconfirmed the CIA model with respect to 8 variables. These are: 1) conversion none of
Schein‘s and Lifton‘s subjects became committed to Communist world views as a result of
the thought reform program. Only two of Lifton‘s 40 subjects and only one or two of
Schein‘s 15 subjects emerged from the thought reform process expressing sympathy for
Communism and none of them actually became Communists. Communist coercive
persuasion produced behavioral compliance but not belief in Communist ideology (Lifton,
1961, 117, 248-49 Schein, 1958, 332, 1961, 157-166, 1973, 295) 2) predisposing
motives those subjects who were at all influenced by Communist indoctrination practices
were predisposed to be so before they were subjected to them (Lifton, 1961, 130 Schein,
1961, 104-110, 140-156 1973, 295) 3) physical coercion Communist indoctrination
practices produced involuntary influence only in that subjects were forced to participate in
them through extreme physical coercion. (Lifton, 1961, 13 1976, 327-328 Schein 1959,
4371, 1961, 125-127) 4) continuity with normal social influence The non-physical
techniques of influence utilized in Communist thought reform are common in normal social
influence situations. (Lifton, 1961, 438-461 Schein, 1961, 269-282, 1962, 90-97, 1964,
331-351) 5) Conditioning No distinctive conditioning procedures were utilized in
Communist coercive persuasion (Schein, 1959, 437-438, 1973, 284-285 Biderman, 1962,
550) 6) psychophysiological stress/debilitation The extreme physically based stress and
debilitation to which imprisoned thought reform victims were subjected did not cause
involuntary commitment to Communist world views. (Hinkle and Wolff, 1956 Lifton, 117,
248-49 Schein, 1958, 332, 1961, 157-166, 1973, 295) Moreover, no comparable practices
are present in new religious movements (Anthony, 1990, 309-311) 7) Deception/Defective
Thought Victims of Communist thought reform did not become committed to Communism
as a result of deception or defective thought. (Schein, 1961, 202-203, 238-39) 8)
Dissociation/Hypnosis/Suggestibility. Those subjected to thought reform did not become
hyper-suggestible as a result of altered states of consciousness, e.g. hypnosis, dissociation,
disorientation, etc. (Schein, 1959, 457 Biderman, 1962, 550)
