Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2010, Page 23
stopping‖ and what he also infers is ―feeling stopping‖ with his words, ―[e]motional control,
the third part of mind control, attempts to manipulate and narrow the range of a person‘s
feelings‖ (1988, pp. 62–63). I question how loaded language, such as ―we are not our
feelings,‖ often heard in the Gurdjieff group, for instance, might neurologically affect the
member‘s decision making processes, and therefore creativity.
Damasio (1964), in his hope of bridging neurobiology with culture, concludes, ―[t]o
understand in a satisfactory manner the brain that fabricates human mind and human
behavior, it is necessary to take into account its social and cultural context‖ (p. 260). In a
later book (2001), he states that creativity ―cannot be reduced simply to the neural circuitry
of an adult brain and even less to the genes behind our brains‖ (cited in Sawyer, 2006, p.
83).
As discussed above, the sociocultural view represented by the Science of Creativity aligns
with this multidisciplinary understanding. Gardner (2001) writes, ―you could know every bit
of neurocircuitry in somebody‘s head, and you still would not know whether or not that
person was creative (p. 130). Sawyer further notes,
[a]ll of the evidence suggests that creativity is not coded in our genes. And
decades of study have found no evidence that creativity is localized to any
specific brain region in fact, all of the evidence suggests that creativity is a
whole-brain function, drawing on many diverse areas of the brain in a
complex systemic fashion.… To explain creativity, we need to look to the
higher levels of explanation offered by psychology, sociology, and history…
(p. 95)
Damasio (1994), emphasizing both progress and limitations within neuroscience as a vehicle
for understanding the functioning of the mind and creativity, views scientific results as
―provisional approximations.‖ He writes, ―But skepticism about the current reach of science,
especially as it concerns the mind, does not imply diminished enthusiasm for the attempt to
improve provisional approximations‖ (p. xxii). The study of cults and creativity has much to
gain from neuroscientific studies that explore links among the body, emotion, thought,
decision-making, and creativity, all prime targets of psychological manipulation in cults.
Cognitive Psychology
We might better understand the common refrain by former cult members and SGAs, ―I
could no longer think or feel for myself,‖ when we consider Harvard education researcher
Ron Ritchart‘s (1998) statement, ―[i]f we are serious about promoting good thinking, we
have to pay attention to the role of emotions. … they always precede‖ (p. 11). Current
cognitive research is taking another look at Aaron Beck‘s (2008) and cognitive psychology‘s
belief that cognition controls emotion. Reflecting on this, Damasio (2005 preface to 1994)
notes the historic ―neglect of emotion as a research topic‖ and states, ―[b]ehaviorism, the
cognitive revolution and computational neuroscience did not reduce this neglect in any
appreciable way‖ (p. x). In an informative Internet blog David Johnson (2008) provides an
overview of some efforts made within cognitive psychology to recognize the interplay
between emotion and thought. Promoting expansion of this view, he asks in his title, ―Is
there a place for emotion in cognitive theory?‖ and summarizes, ―[e]motion can provide a
linking concept between the body and the mind, between neurophysiology and cognitive
psychology.‖
3. Why Is the Study of Creativity Significant?
Addressing creativity within oppressive societies, May (1975) discusses the courage to
doubt as integral to the courage to create. Although creativity was a focus of
psychodynamic study since Freud, it was first researched within the field of psychology in
the United States by J. P. Guilford in the 1950s, and in the 1960s by Ellis Paul Torrence
stopping‖ and what he also infers is ―feeling stopping‖ with his words, ―[e]motional control,
the third part of mind control, attempts to manipulate and narrow the range of a person‘s
feelings‖ (1988, pp. 62–63). I question how loaded language, such as ―we are not our
feelings,‖ often heard in the Gurdjieff group, for instance, might neurologically affect the
member‘s decision making processes, and therefore creativity.
Damasio (1964), in his hope of bridging neurobiology with culture, concludes, ―[t]o
understand in a satisfactory manner the brain that fabricates human mind and human
behavior, it is necessary to take into account its social and cultural context‖ (p. 260). In a
later book (2001), he states that creativity ―cannot be reduced simply to the neural circuitry
of an adult brain and even less to the genes behind our brains‖ (cited in Sawyer, 2006, p.
83).
As discussed above, the sociocultural view represented by the Science of Creativity aligns
with this multidisciplinary understanding. Gardner (2001) writes, ―you could know every bit
of neurocircuitry in somebody‘s head, and you still would not know whether or not that
person was creative (p. 130). Sawyer further notes,
[a]ll of the evidence suggests that creativity is not coded in our genes. And
decades of study have found no evidence that creativity is localized to any
specific brain region in fact, all of the evidence suggests that creativity is a
whole-brain function, drawing on many diverse areas of the brain in a
complex systemic fashion.… To explain creativity, we need to look to the
higher levels of explanation offered by psychology, sociology, and history…
(p. 95)
Damasio (1994), emphasizing both progress and limitations within neuroscience as a vehicle
for understanding the functioning of the mind and creativity, views scientific results as
―provisional approximations.‖ He writes, ―But skepticism about the current reach of science,
especially as it concerns the mind, does not imply diminished enthusiasm for the attempt to
improve provisional approximations‖ (p. xxii). The study of cults and creativity has much to
gain from neuroscientific studies that explore links among the body, emotion, thought,
decision-making, and creativity, all prime targets of psychological manipulation in cults.
Cognitive Psychology
We might better understand the common refrain by former cult members and SGAs, ―I
could no longer think or feel for myself,‖ when we consider Harvard education researcher
Ron Ritchart‘s (1998) statement, ―[i]f we are serious about promoting good thinking, we
have to pay attention to the role of emotions. … they always precede‖ (p. 11). Current
cognitive research is taking another look at Aaron Beck‘s (2008) and cognitive psychology‘s
belief that cognition controls emotion. Reflecting on this, Damasio (2005 preface to 1994)
notes the historic ―neglect of emotion as a research topic‖ and states, ―[b]ehaviorism, the
cognitive revolution and computational neuroscience did not reduce this neglect in any
appreciable way‖ (p. x). In an informative Internet blog David Johnson (2008) provides an
overview of some efforts made within cognitive psychology to recognize the interplay
between emotion and thought. Promoting expansion of this view, he asks in his title, ―Is
there a place for emotion in cognitive theory?‖ and summarizes, ―[e]motion can provide a
linking concept between the body and the mind, between neurophysiology and cognitive
psychology.‖
3. Why Is the Study of Creativity Significant?
Addressing creativity within oppressive societies, May (1975) discusses the courage to
doubt as integral to the courage to create. Although creativity was a focus of
psychodynamic study since Freud, it was first researched within the field of psychology in
the United States by J. P. Guilford in the 1950s, and in the 1960s by Ellis Paul Torrence
