[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Brinnie

eye know!!! it even starts with "hi, lolz!1"

Well, consistency can be a good thing!

OTOH, its good for girls to keep the boys on their toes by surprising the heck out of them once in a while...just to keep them in line, ya noe...

The quickest way to a man's heart is through his chest,
Buffy

[PsyCho]

I have reservations concerning the motives behind this discussion; but anyways, let's outline the basics.

(i) What is brainwashing?

A dictionary definition of brainwashing is:

"inducing a person to modify his or her beliefs, attitudes, or behavior by conditioning through various forms of pressure or torture"

That is taking an individual, with fixed beliefs; and subjecting them to various degrees and methods of coercion in order to make them internalise something that previously would have been 'out of character' (for want of a better phrase).

Now this, for one, highlights one of the limitations of so called brainwashing. You can not induce someone to change their beliefs so drastically that they will fundamentally go against their nature, but you can force someone to do that. Equally you could achieve a complete change via lots of baby steps. There is a highly amusing youtube vid on this:

YouTube - Mind Control Cults

1) when [a person perceives] that [a culture's] [institutional belief] as [wrong], to him the subject is "brainwashed"

political example: some americans believe (a person percieves) that afganistan people (culture) are brianwashed to believe that terrorism is justified (institutional belief) and that is wrong.

No i disagree, this is not brain washing. However, if you examine your example you could easily be providing a counter-example of the propaganda control exerted through the US media, causing you to internalise opinions that are considered acceptable and beneficial for the mass populous (i.e. yourself) to hold in order to allow certain political decisions and actions to pass un-questioned; inducing such apathy and lack of critical appraisal that it is just assumed that these opinions are yours because you are a free thinking individual who keeps up with the news and is certainly not brainwashed, coerced or sqewed in anyway by external agents...... Anyway, I diverge slightly.

The way I define brainwashing is when a large group of people believe in an idea that is unpopular to the individual.

Why to the individual?
Because some people don't think the idea is unpopular.

Why a large group?
Because no one it threatened when the belief is unknown.

Again, I don't agree and not entirely sure what your trying to say here (short of, at a guess, attempting to describe your situation as a scientololologist and how 'outsiders' may perceive your belief network, which though being wacky I'd stop short of saying it's brainwashing per se.. I'd be much more fair and evenhanded and state that all religions involve varying degrees of brainwashing.. No wait, lets get back on topic)

So, to be concise the definition of brainwashing requires several layers to it in order to supply a complete definition and to attempt to simplify it further really misses the point.

1) A brainwashed individual is one who has adopted a belief structure to a degree that certain actions which would have had a low probability of occuring as a 'normal', become 'high' probability.

2) A subject may only adopt beliefs that are within their current belief structure i.e. Large jumps are not permitted (requires too much energy causing rejection of the required belief), but a series of steps are allowed in order to convert from Beliefnorm->Bfreaky->Bbrainwashed

3) The route to 1) via 2) can be achieved through a network of methods and techniques which are beyond the scope this thread, and can be found in detail elsewhere.

Working example of above definition (yes it's wordy, but encapsulates a rough sketch of what I believe brain washing to be. Plus it's important to have a clear consensus of the strict definition of what we're trying to describe):

• Under normal situation (N): I would not kill person X, nor would I reject logic (L), nor would I give money to help "the cause" (C)
  
  
• Under "indoctrination" (i): I would not kill person X, nor would I reject logic (L) but I would give a little money to help the cause (C) and would identify with some of the less extreme external foreign beliefs
  
  
• Under "consolodation": I would not kill person X, I may reject some logic (L) and internalise some of the external foreign beliefs and would happily give money to help "the cause" (C)
  
  
• Under "Freakiness": I would not kill person X, I will reject all internal logic (L) and put belief in the external structure and would happily steal money to help "the cause" (C)
  
  
• Under "total brain wash": i will kill for the cause, die for the cause, give my money to the cause.... you get the picture

Now fluent in baysian probability I am not (give me time), but I suspect it would be useful in encapsulating 'brainwashing', combined with some propositional logic; but I'm sure one of you math or computational bods out there can beat me to it, but I know what I'll be doing at work tomorrow

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by PsyCho

I have reservations concerning the motives behind this discussion; but anyways, let's outline the basics.

Ditto & roger that

Originally Posted by PsyCho

(i) What is brainwashing?

A dictionary definition of brainwashing is:

"inducing a person to modify his or her beliefs, attitudes, or behavior by conditioning through various forms of pressure or torture"

That is taking an individual, with fixed beliefs; and subjecting them to various degrees and methods of coercion in order to make them internalise something that previously would have been 'out of character' (for want of a better phrase).
.
.
.
Now this, for one, highlights one of the limitations of so called brainwashing. You can not induce someone to change their beliefs so drastically that they will fundamentally go against their nature,
.
.
.
Now fluent in baysian probability I am not (give me time), but I suspect it would be useful in encapsulating 'brainwashing', combined with some propositional logic; but I'm sure one of you math or computational bods out there can beat me to it, but I know what I'll be doing at work tomorrow

If what follows is twisted or misused by scientology et al for nefarious means, a double-backfire curse on them & those efforts.

With that taken care of, I generally like your approach Psycho, but I take exception to the phrase I boldened and its part in the definition. Specifically, having studied & reviewed Stanley Milgram's seminal work Obedience to Authority, it is well demonstrated that any person can & will on a relative spur of the moment be 'brainwashed' into behavior they think is doing others severe harm, by little else than some environmental cues that connote or imply authority. While no one in the study thought they were killing someone, the researchers didn't ask them to either. In the case of Milgram's experiments, all it took basically was a white lab coat and a clipboard and a couple of bucks to get people of 'high moral standards' to happily be fooled into thinking they were punishing another person with strong electric shocks but it was OK in the name of the perceived authority.

Sorry if that's running on...the book made a strong impression on me. So, if that's within Psychos schema, or can be accomodated by some edit or other, and everyone is good with that schema, we're well on our way to squeaky clean neurons. :

PS video clip

YouTube - Anthony Hopkins-The Road To...

YouTube - The Road To Wellville(-An Erection Is A...

[Brinnie]

Originally Posted by PsyCho

I have reservations concerning the motives behind this discussion; but anyways, let's outline the basics.

(i) What is brainwashing?

A dictionary definition of brainwashing is:

"inducing a person to modify his or her beliefs, attitudes, or behavior by conditioning through various forms of pressure or torture"

That is taking an individual, with fixed beliefs; and subjecting them to various degrees and methods of coercion in order to make them internalise something that previously would have been 'out of character' (for want of a better phrase).

Now this, for one, highlights one of the limitations of so called brainwashing. You can not induce someone to change their beliefs so drastically that they will fundamentally go against their nature, but you can force someone to do that. Equally you could achieve a complete change via lots of baby steps. There is a highly amusing youtube vid on this:

YouTube - Mind Control Cults



No i disagree, [SNIP!]

Obviously, you disagree. Nothing new or different...

I gave you my definition of brainwashing can you put it into a formula? Don't agree? Fine. If you can define my formula into one word, you can take credit for it. If you believe what the dictionary is anything other than a medium for people to grasp concepts, then you're in for a long ride... A very long ride.

The Brinnie dictionary om my only dictionary.

[PsyCho]

It's called debate; if you disagree with something I please be encouraged to argue your point rather than trying to personalise it... It has absolutely nothing to do with taking credit, more trying to expand upon a subject YOU started in order to obtain a workable formula for brainwashing which academically would be interesting!

Now...

1) when [a person perceives] that [a culture's] [institutional belief] as [wrong], to him the subject is "brainwashed"

Obviously, you disagree. Nothing new or different..

You got me, clearly I'm disagreeing with you because it is you....

.......Why do I disagree, because what you've defined is not brainwashing. You might as well ask for a formula that describes which adjective people will use when describing people they disagree with! Trust me, I may believe or think many things about people who I deem to be wrong (some much less polite than others), but I rarely believe they're "brainwashed" because that implies a VERY SPECIFIC CONCEPT OR SET OF EVENTS. Why be picky with semantics, because it's important dammit! (The whole terrorism debate is strewn with examples of this!).

Also, when examining a subject it helps if we all agree on a standardised recognised definintion, which is why a dictionary is generally a reasonable starting place. It's like mathematics; you define the symbols you use before plunging headlong into using them, or you pluck them from a tree of well formed recognised formula you now you could prove and define further if necessary.

If you believe what the dictionary is anything other than a medium for people to grasp concepts, then you're in for a long ride... A very long ride.

Thank you for that, I'll bear it in mind....

The Brinnie dictionary om my only dictionary

n=1

Now back onto subject:

Specifically, having studied & reviewed Stanley Milgram's seminal work Obedience to Authority, it is well demonstrated that any person can & will on a relative spur of the moment be 'brainwashed' into behavior they think is doing others severe harm, by little else than some environmental cues that connote or imply authority. -Turtle

I think this is included in the definition as it is already part of most peoples belief structure to follow commands from figures of authority, which is why Milgram's studies worked, and how the system of indoctrination begins (charismatic authority figures)