Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 Page 66
Later on, when witnessing, members are given other sorts of indirect suggestions to achieve
―proper‖ behavior. One of the often noted behaviors of cult recruiters is their extraordinary
eye contact. A former member described how such unwavering eye contact is achieved.
―They direct your attention to other people‘s eyes, the people you are trying to get to come
to dinner. They say, ‗look for people who have a fuzzy edge to the colored part of their
eyes. If they have a sharp line around where the color and the white of the eye meet, they
are intellectual types. Look for people with fuzzy edges in their eyes. They are warm
people, more likely to come to eat and join us.‘ ― The recruiter is looking for a ―sign‖ that
his witnessing will be accepted. The suggestion that some property of a person‘s iris will
indicate ―intellectuality‖ is patently absurd, yet is metaphorically intelligible. The search for
warm, fuzzy people is also a suggestion that the recruiter himself should ―be‖ a warm fuzzy
person, one who is not intellectual or questioning, one who is quite childlike. This
―suggestion‖ to recruiters accomplishes two tasks at once. It gives them something ―active‖
to do--getting unwavering and transfixing eye contact--while reminding them to maintain
their regressive behavior. The effect of such suggestion can be enormous, whether or not
―trance behavior‖ is predicated.
It cannot be stated strongly enough that the process of pacing and leading recruits is not
only part of the initial indoctrination but is also--along with elaborate reinforcement
schedules and the merciless manipulation of guilt and humiliation --an ongoing feature of
cult membership. There are several techniques popularly thought to be ―hypnotic‖ which
indoctrinators use masterfully during long lectures characteristic of certain cults. They
include the ―yes set,‖ the use of metaphor, the ―confusion technique,‖ and the ―interspersal
technique.‖ The following brief descriptions of these phenomena will be illustrated by
excerpts from a twelve-page typed transcription of a lecture which could conceivably have
been drawn out into a three-hour meeting.
The “Yes Set” and “Confusion” Techniques
Erickson describes the yes set as a way of initiating trance in a subject. A series of
statements is posed and questions asked to which the hypnotist--or, we might add, a
recruiter--is certain there will be agreement and affirmation. After a number of these
statements and questions, the subjects will have established an agreeable ―yes‖ set. This
ensures that subsequent statements and questions are agreed with and affirmed even if
such acceptance would not have been gained if they had been made at the beginning of the
lecture. The subject‘s critical faculties have been lulled into acceptance.
In the following example, the first paragraph of a long discussion of God, my comments are
in parentheses. The only assumption is a belief in God.
God is the origin of us all (yes). Everything comes from God (yes), and
without God there cannot be anything (yes). Nothing can exist without God
(yes). This is the most essential understanding of God (yes). Nevertheless,
we came to be unable to understand God (yes) therefore, we lost
everything. (Here the transition from pacing to leading begins with a non-
sequitur. There is nothing in the statements previously agreed to which
suggests that we lose everything without an understanding of God. All
religions speak of the incomprehensibility of the deity.) We became unable to
understand anything. (This again is a logical non-sequitur. ―We cannot
understand God‖ does not mean that we cannot understand anything. Placed
in the sequence, it seems to make sense.) We came not to understand
anything at all because we lost God. (This ties the entire passage together
with a statement of total ignorance.)
The effect of long nonrational arguments of this sort, presented to young adults who are
already tired and confused, is the real belief that they are unable to understand anything.
Later on, when witnessing, members are given other sorts of indirect suggestions to achieve
―proper‖ behavior. One of the often noted behaviors of cult recruiters is their extraordinary
eye contact. A former member described how such unwavering eye contact is achieved.
―They direct your attention to other people‘s eyes, the people you are trying to get to come
to dinner. They say, ‗look for people who have a fuzzy edge to the colored part of their
eyes. If they have a sharp line around where the color and the white of the eye meet, they
are intellectual types. Look for people with fuzzy edges in their eyes. They are warm
people, more likely to come to eat and join us.‘ ― The recruiter is looking for a ―sign‖ that
his witnessing will be accepted. The suggestion that some property of a person‘s iris will
indicate ―intellectuality‖ is patently absurd, yet is metaphorically intelligible. The search for
warm, fuzzy people is also a suggestion that the recruiter himself should ―be‖ a warm fuzzy
person, one who is not intellectual or questioning, one who is quite childlike. This
―suggestion‖ to recruiters accomplishes two tasks at once. It gives them something ―active‖
to do--getting unwavering and transfixing eye contact--while reminding them to maintain
their regressive behavior. The effect of such suggestion can be enormous, whether or not
―trance behavior‖ is predicated.
It cannot be stated strongly enough that the process of pacing and leading recruits is not
only part of the initial indoctrination but is also--along with elaborate reinforcement
schedules and the merciless manipulation of guilt and humiliation --an ongoing feature of
cult membership. There are several techniques popularly thought to be ―hypnotic‖ which
indoctrinators use masterfully during long lectures characteristic of certain cults. They
include the ―yes set,‖ the use of metaphor, the ―confusion technique,‖ and the ―interspersal
technique.‖ The following brief descriptions of these phenomena will be illustrated by
excerpts from a twelve-page typed transcription of a lecture which could conceivably have
been drawn out into a three-hour meeting.
The “Yes Set” and “Confusion” Techniques
Erickson describes the yes set as a way of initiating trance in a subject. A series of
statements is posed and questions asked to which the hypnotist--or, we might add, a
recruiter--is certain there will be agreement and affirmation. After a number of these
statements and questions, the subjects will have established an agreeable ―yes‖ set. This
ensures that subsequent statements and questions are agreed with and affirmed even if
such acceptance would not have been gained if they had been made at the beginning of the
lecture. The subject‘s critical faculties have been lulled into acceptance.
In the following example, the first paragraph of a long discussion of God, my comments are
in parentheses. The only assumption is a belief in God.
God is the origin of us all (yes). Everything comes from God (yes), and
without God there cannot be anything (yes). Nothing can exist without God
(yes). This is the most essential understanding of God (yes). Nevertheless,
we came to be unable to understand God (yes) therefore, we lost
everything. (Here the transition from pacing to leading begins with a non-
sequitur. There is nothing in the statements previously agreed to which
suggests that we lose everything without an understanding of God. All
religions speak of the incomprehensibility of the deity.) We became unable to
understand anything. (This again is a logical non-sequitur. ―We cannot
understand God‖ does not mean that we cannot understand anything. Placed
in the sequence, it seems to make sense.) We came not to understand
anything at all because we lost God. (This ties the entire passage together
with a statement of total ignorance.)
The effect of long nonrational arguments of this sort, presented to young adults who are
already tired and confused, is the real belief that they are unable to understand anything.
