I find it interesting that someone might take the stand that 'brainwashing' does not exist in light of the recent cases of Elizabeth Smart and Shawn Hornbeck. Both could have escaped at any time, having both means and opportunity. Psychologists via the media have bent over backwards to say these victims should not be judged, citing the psychological hold the captors had over these individuals.
The existence of cults also demonstrates how charismatic people can use coercive - persuasion to recruit and hold followers. Jonestown, Charles Manson, David Koresh, and the Heaven's Gate cult are all examples.
I grew up in the 1970s when the Krishnas and Moonies where making press with their recruiting and hold tactics. Parents were hiring deprogrammers to kidnap their children out of these organizations.
The so-called human potential movement (est, Lifespring) had their day in court and the courts found them guilty of psychologically damaging participants.
It seems to me that the phenomenon has been well documented and the debate is purely academic (definitions and formalizations).
Like The Who, Anne is a wordsmith that tries to divert the issue away from critical analysis and into rationalizations that are ultimately contradictory. Do programs screen for 'ego strength' whatever that is? Of course not. Someone with a strong ego strength would probably have a more difficult time in a program because their resistance would be stronger and more prolonged.
Programs often list ADHD and depression as things they can fix. Wouldn't these issues preclude the 'sane' or '100%' requirement? Wouldn't teens with these problems be the most vulnerable to the stresses induced by these techniques?
As for psychologists endorsing this, remember that there are psychologists who still back 'rebirthing' therapy for attachment disorder. A degree and license are no guarantee of sound judgement.
Finally, she attacks Margret Singer as thinking 'everything' is brainwashing. Ridiculous.
A clinician, researcher, and educator, Dr. Singer was the first woman and first clinical psychologist elected president of the American Psychosomatic Society. She has been honored by the American Psychiatric Association, American College of Psychiatrists, Mental Health Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, National Institute of Mental Health, American Family Therapy Association, and many others. She is a professor emeritus in psychology of the University of California, Berkeley.
She seems pretty sound to me. Keep in mind that her detractors most often come from the organizations accused of using the methods in question.
http://www.religio.de/server/statement.htmlFinally, the fact that Anne endorses the Forum (I have attended a Forum event) reduces her credibility in my opinion. My friends and I who attended the Forum joked about our 'cult' experience. We never bought into it. We took it in as bad theater and dismissed it as soon as we left as being the most idiotic event we ever witnessed. We considered it a scam. We still do.
If Anne buys the Forum, she has sipped Kool-Aid and is only parroting the party line.
Psy, don't give these people the benefit of the doubt, they are good at talking in the same way duplicitous politicians are. There ideas have no credibility and are scientifically unsound.