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)

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 87
disputational relevant X correct
I‘ve given Anthony the benefit of the doubt with regard to his summary of the eight criteria
in Lifton‘s and Schein‘s research that disconfirm the CIA model. But none of this is relevant
to the theory I have presented. My theory stands alone, is not dependent on any previous
theories (although I am enormously intellectually indebted to them), and needs to be
evaluated on its own terms and in its own terminology. Anthony consistently refuses to even
begin such a project.
Proposition 65. (Page 264) The primary basis for Zablocki‘s ―exit costs‖ third stage
brainwashing perspective is the notion that the research of Lifton and Schein had
demonstrated that Communist thought reform could bring about a conversion to the
Communism world view.
disputational X relevant correct
It is not at all clear what Anthony means when he speaks of a ―perspective‖ having a
―basis.‖ If he means that a certain proposition about the efficacy of brainwashing for
producing political conversions is an unstated postulate of my theory, he is wrong. Since I
do not state this postulate, the burden of proof is on Anthony to show that my theory is
somehow, nonetheless, dependent of such a postulate—whether logically or in some other
way. Anthony has not undertaken this task, so his assertion is merely unfounded
speculation. For what it‘s worth, I don‘t believe that Communist thought reform could bring
about a ―conversion‖ (whatever that might be) to the Communist world view. My reading of
Lifton and Schein suggest that they did not believe this either.
Falsifiability/Testability of Zablocki’s Formulation: Demarcation of Science from
Pseudoscience
Proposition 66. (Page 265) It would seem that at the most he can claim that he has
developed a testable theory which in the future could serve as the basis for scientific
research. Surprisingly, when his brainwashing articles are read carefully, this turns out to be
all that he is really claiming. Consequently, the scientific status of Zablocki‘s exit costs
brainwashing model stands or falls upon its testability.
disputational X relevant X correct
Why does this ‗discovery‘ by Anthony of what I have always explicitly stated come as a
surprise to him? That is what social scientists do, Dr. Anthony. We propose carefully
constructed theories and then later do research to test them. If research produces findings
that contradict the results expected by the theory, we must then revise or discard the
theory. If anything about this approach is remarkable, it escapes me.
Proposition 67. (Page 265) Early in his brainwashing articles Zablocki boldly claims that
his brainwashing theory is falsifiable, i.e. testable.
disputational X relevant X correct
Certainly I claim that the theory I propose is falsifiable. I would not knowingly propose a
theory that didn‘t meet this minimal epistemological criterion. Why Anthony ascribes
boldness to this claim is unclear to me, although I‘m flattered, I suppose, in a Walter
Mittyan kind of way.
Proposition 68. (Page 266) It seems to me that in Zablocki‘s definition of them, neither
the independent variable (the coercive cause), nor the dependent variable (the involuntary
effect) of his brainwashing formulation are falsifiable. (sic) In other words, he has not
supplied criteria which clearly differentiate brainwashing techniques and their allegedly
involuntary effects from components of normal social influence, in particular from other
forms of religious conversions and commitments.