jgnat: Neurologist do teach that flight or fight situations occur from the amygdala so yeah I do agree, live cat scans of the brains have been recorded during many test and they found (unlike what was thought before that each part of the brain being responsible for something) many parts of the brain were being triggered meaning that the brain is multi functional in its processes unlike any other animal organ. This gave rise to a new school of understanding the brain known as neuroplasticity. I know I am off topic but it's fascinating stuff to ever think of our brains as plastic constantly changing as we age.
As for Hassan, indeed he helped me a lot too, R franz two books were the Pandora’s box but Hassan's books delved deeper into the science of it all. In case we are not on the same page psychology is a science that uses the scientific method, just like physics, chemistry and biology. So psychology is all about findings through tests and statistical analyses released on peer review. The think is that Hassan is better advertised that other psychologists that contributed to psychological findings and books. To the average Joe his books are a revelation but to the psychological community, mostly those in findings regarding social situations and cults find his books partially correct, at times not quoting those who came up with ideas and at times just saying stuff without scientific backing.
Now compare Hassan to Margaret Singer, she released papers that are today studied at universities and other professional education centres like the Theory of Systematic Manipulation of Social and Psychological Influence. In her book Cults in our midst she properly quoted references. Not only that but she tried to add thought reform as part of the mental illnesses to be listed in the DSM, unfortunately the histograms were acute therefore rejected. Unlike Hassan who makes himself look like he has done all the hard work while in reality others have done it for him, just reading his book on how he confronts situations and wins like its some revelation of his and this properly portraits reality, this is what upsets others.
Here is a critic on his last book, enjoy - http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2444
If you want more material and in my opinion better, Janja Lalich has some really good books on cults, if you want a good source of only cult information- http://www.culteducation.com/ - . Of course the broader aspect of cult psychology is studied in social psychology so any social psychology book use in tertiary education is good.
adamah: The analogy is just there to help understand it, in fact almost everything as a psychological explanation that we can assimilate with other situations.
you wrote Think of it: if you COULD manipulate them to act based on what you'd say, they'd still be controlled by another!
Can you elaborate how what you mean by manipulate and controlled by another?
The greatest fallacy in dealing with a cult member is that there's some silver-bullet, some perfect logical argument that serves as the knock-out "one-two punch" that will FORCE them to "see the light". Nope: read accounts on JWN for a bit, and you'll see that most of those who saw TTATT had SIGNIFICANT MOTIVATION forced upon them (eg being DFed, seeing rampant hypocrisy after dealing with elders, death of a loved one, etc) that led them to be receptive to seeing TTATT. Sure, there ARE exceptions of those who saw TTATT without their cog diss dial being raised to '11' by what they personally experienced, but I'd say such cases are in the minority.
I never spoke of a silver bullet, the KO knock out I was referring to was not of converting them but getting them to seeking consonant logical information due to the cognitive dissonance. I don't believe in silver bullets.
For even if members cannot (or will not) verbalize their thought-processes to you, some (not ALL, mind you) JWs ARE content being in, and know exactly what they're doing and why they do it. Many JWs ARE perfectly aware that while it's not actually "the (whole) Truth", they enjoy the benefits of being in the group, perhaps enjoy the power, prestige, and control it affords them over others, or even like the idea of others who will tell them what to do (since they've FUBARed their own lives and are dependent on others as their source of power, AKA sheepol), etc. They've made a perfectly-rational decision that to leave the group would "rock the boat" and leaving the group would be too costly in terms of their family and business relationships, so they make the prudent choice to "go along to get along"; some even THRIVE (I think of my brother, who's an elder and big-deal on the local level, delivering talks at conventions; he truly enjoys his life, as it affords him possibilities he'd not have otherwise as an uneducated male working in the building trades).
Strawman, read the title of this thread.
Of course, the problem is things can and do change in a heartbeat, and then they get to experience first-hand the hazards of blind allegiance to authority, seeing why it's fundamentally a bad idea.
I agree with this. With me it was baby steps.
ABibleStudent: Thanks but this thread was not really about those who are in who partially or fully disagree with the WB&T$