Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Awake

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 28
Feed Your Head / Re: Movie "Over the GW"
« on: February 22, 2011, 02:07:49 AM »
Saw it. Definitely good, expressed some of the unbelievable stuff that has taken place. I may have wanted a bit more depth and detail, but good, and I felt it was portrayed realistically.

Hyde Schools / Re: PLEASE HELP!!! Should I send my son to Hyde???
« on: February 21, 2011, 09:36:02 PM »

I would be very wary of any program that uses mandatory group therapy or uses group pressures for conformity, and I think there are several reasons that it carries with it a high risk of being harmful to your child as well as being utilized as a powerful tool of coercion by staff, something that can be very hard to identify by a novice outside observer. I think it is worth considering that if therapy does not help your child it is going to actually harm him. Depending on the nature and intensity of the therapy the effects may be negligible, or the damage done could last a lifetime and destroy your relationship, but do not assume that if it doesn’t work it will result in ‘no change’. Another point of concern is that it is not the child’s option to participate in therapy, it will be forced upon him, and lack of progress may come with punishment, shaming, which might exacerbate current issues, inhibit their resolution, and even create new issues.  Troubled teen programs have an incredibly, incredibly disturbing history of employing coercive tactics and experimental therapies.  If you see a possibility where the program could be motivating peer pressures, and those pressures can be used as motivation to achieve individual therapeutic goals, if you see that therapeutic progress is held in the context of peer group progress through level systems, then my advice is to not take a chance. It is not worth it.

To switch gears a bit here, I may have some advice that you may want to look into. I was also diagnosed add when I was young and went through the gamut of prescriptions. Take this for what it is, but as an adult looking back on it all, I think it is either pretty easy to misdiagnose, and/or the diagnosis itself and the search for treatment can be more problematic to overcome than the add itself and just letting the child learn to deal with it naturally, just personally.  

That said I do recognize that you may need to keep exploring alternatives here.  My advice is to look into Landmark College in VT, I don’t know if you can find something quite like this for minors but maybe they know of some that work in a similar way. It is academically focused but will incorporate learning disability issues like add into the process. Actually I think it would provide huge advantages in getting accepted at other colleges. It is not focused on solving behavior issues, just very structured, but also very flexible in considering individual needs in academic learning. It is less a group thing and the daily learning schedule is structured individually, as stated they have the highest faculty to student ratio in the country. I know your son may not be old enough to go yet, but I think you should look anyways and call them and see if they can point you in a good direction. Maybe it will lead you toward better options, hopefully some you can find at home. (Unless he wants a change of environment).   I would prefer to see that any sort of therapy is individual and optional, and that the structuring of time is not dominated by group building excercises, but by academics, and a healthy amount of free time.  Anyways, I feel this is a far better environment than Hyde by comparison, so just thought I’d offer.


Open Free for All / Admit it. You need rehab
« on: February 05, 2011, 09:59:29 PM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
Snack I like

Twelve "baby" Asparagus (Preferably from Whole Foods)
Simmer in a pan over medium heat with olive oil.
Add a few cloves of freshly minced garlic
Turn until slightly crisp

Serve pouring garlic and olive oil over Asparagus
Can eat with a little Italian Bread.



sick... just.... sick

Thought Reform / Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
« on: February 05, 2011, 09:19:08 PM »
I normally don’t like to post information that I myself would find hard to believe if I had not experienced something relatable, but I found this paper on dissociation and trauma that hits on the specific subject of the use of dissociation for carrying out mind control. This is the part I am focusing on below. Some of it might be extreme but I think certain principles translate to how programs maintain control.

Dissociation, A Normal Response To Trauma

Mary Laura English

Initially written for a Special Research & Technical Writing Project, Spring Quarter, 2002,
Currently being revised for publication

Dissociation, a Normal Response to Trauma

Stress from Life’s Experiences Affects People Nearly 400,000 New York residents took an emotional battering from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to the World Trade Center twin towers. As a result of the attacks, more than a half million people have sought mental health treatment.1 The above New Yorkers were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This disorder uses a natural human ability called dissociation. In this paper we will address dissociation and how it comes into play in our everyday life, as well as in times of extreme stress.

What is Dissociation?

When the word dissociation is brought up, most people think of the Three Faces of Eve movie. Contrary to Hollywood’s portrayals, dissociation is a normal human capability used by everyone. Most of us understand association—where there is a connecting or joining together of things. Dissociation is when what should be together is separated. For example, association is when a person’s sight, sounds, smells, feelings, thoughts, meaning, memory, actions, and sense of identity are together. Dissociation happens when one or more of these elements is missing.2  Dissociation helps us cope with a wide range of situations—from the common and ordinary to traumatic events….

Dissociation Is On A Continuum

The uses of dissociation can be seen on a continuum.5 Figure 1 illustrates this continuum. From left to right the usage of dissociation unfolds from our responding to everyday common experiences, to our reacting to emergency crises, to our handling of trauma-related survival situations.

Figure 1 Dissociation Continuum
-Acute Stress Disorder
-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
-Dissociative Identify Disorder
-Structured Mind Control   ….

Structured Mind Control

Everyone is vulnerable to mind control. This is clear from the huge amount of money spent on commercial advertising form of mental suggestion or subtle mind control. Also, by the use of mind control methods people are “converted” daily into religious cults, like the Moonies.

Although cults use similar techniques, like sleep deprivation, structured mind control is more sinister. Victims who have been through structured mind control are not aware of having been programmed on cue to perform an “assignment” given to them.

Structured mind control takes advantage of the fine-tuned dissociation in DID victims. More complex programming is used. Therapists are increasingly recognizing these cases across this Nation and refer to them as either crossover abuse or marionette syndrome.38 In mind control conditioning, programmers structure a victim’s life to perform a suggested behavior when triggered by a cue or signal.

USA and Canadian governments have funded a number of mind control programs.39 One set of documents at the Center for National Security Studies in Washington DC uncovered 80 institutions, 144 colleges or universities, 15 research facilities or private companies, 12 hospitals or clinics, and three penal institutions in the USA and Canada involved in the mind control experiments. After eight years of litigation, 75 USA mindcontrol victims’ cases were settled out of court.40

This programming originated with Nazi German scientists during World War II. The German scientists experimented on human subjects to see how much abuse they could absorb and to use the better-trained victims for specific war assignments. Dissociation was perfect for espionage cases, in case the victim on assignment was arrested. These scientists were brought to the USA and South America during the World War II. Some of the programming went under the name of Monarch (butterfly) or MKULTRA.41 …

Every human being has basic needs: physical (hunger, warmth, and sex), safety and security, love and belonging, self-esteem, and selfactualization. A cult will deny or manipulate these fundamental needs at the critical stages of a child’s development. A cult will use torture, terror, extreme pain, sexual arousal, drugs, electroshock, sleep/food/water deprivation, temperature extremes, loud noises, or strobing lights. These perpetrators will use any technique within the cult settings to induce a deep trance to produce dissociation. In addition, threats, trickery, and deceit are used to build helplessness and hopelessness—to isolate the victim to the control of the perpetrators.50

The above methods also are used to break the will of prisoners of war. Only children of ritual abuse are not trained soldiers but children. The tormentors are not a recognized enemy, but the child’s parents. There is no escape or end to the child’s “war.” Ex-POWs know that they were tortured and brain washed. But with dissociation, victims of ritual abuse are not aware.51

…. The best way to keep a group’s abuse secret is by maintaining dissociation in their members. Coercion is what maintains dissociation. Therefore, cult programming needs to be repeated, or the victim’s mind will attempt to dismantle the programming and break free of it. To keep programming from breaking down, lessons, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and responses are paired up with cues or signals—just like the use of cues in hypnosis….
…. the purpose of these cues or signals is to trigger discomfort, bring up intrusive memory or programming, avoidance, and/or extreme fear in the victim….

The Making of a Perpetrator

Before coming down too hard on programmers52—those who plan and/or carry out the abuse/cult training—let’s look at how a perpetrator is made.

Ritual abuse programming begins with a very young child. The perpetrator’s goal is control over his/her victim’s mind. With the child exposed (usually nude) and vulnerable, the perpetrator becomes the allpowerful.

A programmer will use planned strategies to create and maintain dissociation. Putting the young victim in a double bind is one technique. An example would be the programmer ordering the victim to kill a puppy or his/her mother would be killed. The choice to kill the puppy to save his/her mother is then used against the child, as the young child is told that he/she is a bad person—a murderer. Placing the victim in a lifethreatening test with rules that suddenly change at the whim of the torturer is another technique. Changing the rules of the game is frustrating to anyone. To a child whose safety is at stake, it brings submission, a broken will.

To survive the child will deny him/herself and go along with the perpetrator. Intuitively the child will comply with the torturer in order to anticipate and control the abuse the only way that seems possible. Satisfying the perpetrator becomes the only thing that matters, for only when the perpetrator is pleased and finally satiated will the torture end.53 And in the process the very young child assumes the identity of his/her torturer and becomes a perpetrator.54 …” - -

Thought Reform / Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
« on: February 05, 2011, 09:13:52 PM »
Nicely stated Gatekeeper,  somewhat related to what I was about to post. One comment I would add though is that, despite all the external pressures, you were supposed to be 100%accountable for your feelings. When people made others ‘snap’ staff jumped on it like salivating dogs to ENCOURAGE the catharsis, ‘That’s right, what are you feeling right now! Don’t hold back! What are the feelings!’. And by that time you couldn’t do anything but agree with them and express your rage. And then it was ‘yeah, just stop holding back on your feelings and let everyone in’ like it was something they didn’t instigate.

Thought Reform / Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
« on: February 05, 2011, 06:54:27 PM »
@ Gatekeeper

I think there was always emphasis on ‘feeling’ being the real you  with the ‘truth’ and ‘little kid’, maybe not as explicitly stated like in the ‘I and me’. But I do seem to remember that this propheet gave staff the ability to attack a students ‘thinking’, by saying ‘that’s your thinking’ and essentially blame your ‘head’ for getting in the way of your ‘feelings’.  Wasn’t “I” associated with “thinking”? (Wasn’t the towel exercise a fight between I and Me?) I remember lots of language like ‘you’re in your head’, and that was generally recognized as a bad or ‘not the real you’. This is what I remember from raps, just like the rest of the tools, ‘you’re not living your Truth, that’s your Lie’, and so on.

I think my main point was to show that there is something extremely ironic in that the “I and ME” was originally a theory of consciousness developed by William James who at the time was carrying on an all but dead tradition in hypnosis and dissociation, and who also believed that schizophrenia, literally a split  mind, can be created by the therapist. Actually I think all the tools suggest that that was the intention, extreme polarizations of personality traits. I mean, what was all that screaming at the floor yelling ‘fuck you’ about as if there is someone else in your head. This was not a healthy thing for staff to emphasize, they were teaching us to manifest psychotic symptoms.  And the propheets, no sleep, exhausting exercises, heavy emotional stimulation, the whole thing was to hypnotize you and dissociate you to  produce a state of mind where you are most suggestible to others influences, ....I’m pretty sure.

Thought Reform / Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
« on: February 05, 2011, 12:54:45 AM »
I am intending to connect a particular line of influence with this post that may point to earlier roots of program philosophies related to dissociation, I think it ties in with the discussion so far, however this may be more interesting in relation to CEDU, as it points to the philosophy behind the “I and ME” propheet. Although the Cedu version contained a hodgepodge of distortions, I don’t think you’ll find this to be an unrelated coincidence.

Divided Consciousness: Multiple Controls in Human Thought and Action. Ernest R. Hilgard 1977

Ch.1 Divided Consciousness and the Concept of Dissociation

“The unity of consciousness is illusory. Man does more than one thing at a time – all the time – and the conscious representation of these actions is never complete. His awareness can shift from one aspect of whatever is currently happening inside his body or impinging on him from without, or events that are remembered or imagined. Furthermore, as an active agent, he is always making decisions and formulating or implementing plans, and he likes to believe that he exerts control over what he is doing; often, however, he may be deceived about the causes of his behavior.” P.1

“The problems of conflict, indecision, self- deception, on one hand, and persistence toward deliberately set goals, on the other, are important and baffling. Psychologists have proposed a number of ways of accounting for the manner in which an individual controls his behavior, especially when one kind of control is set against another, as in the voluntary – involuntary distinction, or the conscious-subconscious distinction. “

“Common criticisms of multiple personality make the assumption that this is a so called iatrogenic disease – that is, a disease created by the physician treating the person. The criticism has often been made, early voiced as a danger by Janet, and by William James, who was worried about one of Prince’s earliest cases. After hearing a lecture by Prince, James said:

It is very easy in the ordinary hypnotic subject to suggest during a trance the appearance of a secondary personage with a certain temperament, and that secondary personage will usually give itself a name. One has, therefore, to be on one’s guard in this matter against confounding naturally double persons and persons who are simply temporarily endowed with the belief that they must play the role of being double.” -- Divided Consciousness: Multiple Controls in Human Thought and Action. Ernest R. Hilgard 1977

(Ernest Ropiequet "Jack" Hilgard (July 25, 1904 - October 22, 2001) was an American psychologist, professor at Stanford university, who became famous in the 1950s for his research on hypnosis, especially with regard to pain control. Along with André Muller Weitzenhoffer, Hilgard developed the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales from the 1950s onwards. -     )

“Although there was great interest in dissociation during the last two decades of the nineteenth century (especially in France and England), this interest rapidly waned with the coming of the new century (Ellenberger, 1970). Even Janet largely turned his attention to other matters. On the other hand, there was a sharp peak in interest in dissociation in America from 1890 to 1910, especially in Boston as reflected in the work of William James, Boris Sidis, Morton Prince, and William McDougall.”      

“Over a hundred years ago, in his Principles of Psychology (1890), William James put forward a fascinating account of the self. In that theory, he makes a distinction between two aspects of self, the self as subject, or the "I", and the self as object, or the "Me."  James goes on to investigate the nature of these two aspects of self. He concludes that the me comes in three basic types: the "material me", the "social me", and the "spiritual me." As for the I, James concludes that, at least for the purposes of psychology, there is no need to postulate a subject of experiences, a metaphysical I that goes beyond the physical being who does the thinking. Rather, he concludes that 'the passing thought ... is itself the thinker'….

The main distinction that James draws at the beginning of his chapter on Self in Principles of Psychology (1890) is between the self as known (or me) and the self as knower (or I)

The issue of what is most central to the self appears once again in James discussion of the spiritual self, which he defines as " either the entire stream of our personal consciousness, or the present 'segment' or 'section' of that stream, according as we take a broader or a narrower view " (1890, Vol. I, p. 296):

When we think of ourselves as thinkers, all the other ingredients of Me seem relatively external possessions. Even within the spiritual Me some ingredients seem more external than others. . . . The more active-feeling states of consciousness are . . . the more central portions of the spiritual Me. (James, 1892, p. 181)

These active-feeling states are "the very core and nucleus of our self, as we know it."

And these states are "often held to be a direct revelation of the living substance of our Soul." But whether this is so or not is "an ulterior question," a question James attempts to answer when he turns to what constitutes the self as knower, or I.

James sums up his view of the self as knower or I and its relationship to the me:

The consciousness of Self involves a stream of thought, each part of which as 'I' can remember those which went before, know the things they knew, and care paramountly for certain ones among them as 'Me,' and appropriate to these the rest. (1892, p. 215)  

The I which knows these past thoughts and appropriates them, "for psychological purposes" is neither a "Soul" nor "transcendental Ego" outside of time. "It is a thought at each moment different from that of the last moment, but appropriative ofthe latter, together with all that the latter called its own" (1892, p. 215).

James' logic here is that, since the stream of thought is constantly changing, there is no reason to suppose some "fixed" entity beyond the stream itself. Rather, there are "pulses of consciousness" or thoughts, which are unified in themselves, involving, among other things, the immediate awareness of the body, and that these thoughts, as I's can remember and appropriate prior thoughts in the stream:

The nucleus of the 'me' is always the bodily existence felt to be present at the time. Whatever remembered-past-feelings resemble this present feeling are deemed to belong to the same me with it.

” -- ... l_Self.htm

George Herbert Mead  (1863–1931) was an American philosopher, sociologist and psychologist, primarily affiliated with the University of Chicago, where he was one of several distinguished pragmatists. He is regarded as one of the founders of social psychology and the American sociological tradition in general.

A final piece of Mead's social theory is the mind as the individual importation of the social process. As previously discussed, Mead presented the self and the mind in terms of a social process. As gestures are taken in by the individual organism, the individual organism also takes in the collective attitudes of others, in the form of gestures, and reacts accordingly with other organized attitudes. This process is characterized by Mead as the "I" and the "Me." The "Me" is the social self and the "I" is the response to the "Me." In other words, the "I" is the response of an individual to the attitudes of others, while the "me" is the organized set of attitudes of others which an individual assumes.[17] Mead develops William James' distinction between the "I" and the "me." The "me" is the accumulated understanding of "the generalized other" i.e. how one thinks one's group perceives oneself etc. The "I" is the individual's impulses. The "I" is self as subject; the "me" is self as object. The "I" is the knower, the "me" is the known. The mind, or stream of thought, is the self-reflective movements of the interaction between the "I" and the "me." These dynamics go beyond selfhood in a narrow sense, and form the basis of a theory of human cognition. For Mead the thinking process is the internalized dialogue between the "I" and the "me."  Mead rooted the self’s “perception and meaning” deeply and sociologically in "a common praxis of subjects" (Joas 1985: 166) found specifically in social encounters. Understood as a combination of the 'I' and the 'me', Mead’s self proves to be noticeably entwined within a sociological existence. For Mead, existence in community comes before individual consciousness. First one must participate in the different social positions within society and only subsequently can one use that experience to take the perspective of others and thus become self-conscious.

Mead is a major American philosopher by virtue of being, along with John Dewey, Charles Peirce and William James, one of the founders of pragmatism.” --

I don’t know but, dissociation, hypnosis, the I and me, internal conflict…. Sounds a lot like Cedu to me, and add emphasis on a divided self concept in which one part is ‘real’ and the other is like an infection that needs to be exorcized, as indicated  by ‘running your anger’ at your ‘thinking’ in raps. (At cedu the tool of the “I and me’ is the “I” is your thinking which lied and could not be trusted, and the “me” was your feelings which was the real you. You were encouraged to cathartically play out this fight in raps.) All the tools were like that, and dissociation was a common theme. Very much of the time people were not yelling at each other, they were yelling at themselves. Yet again, it is very hard to tell what is ‘genuine’ in these displays, for they were always under the pressure from staff and peers. You had to be ‘working on yourself’.

I actually did not go through this propheet as it was at the end of the program, although I witnessed  that tool in action in raps on many occasions. Maybe some others can weigh in on this here. I get the feeling the I and Me was also a silent homage to the hidden influences preceding Cedu in a way.

Thought Reform / Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
« on: February 04, 2011, 01:24:06 PM »
Quote from: "starry-eyed pirate"
Thanks for your contribution, Awake.  Here's an old thread that might interest you. ... ty#p127884

That is exactly what I was trying to get at in this thread, thanks Pirate. I read your post and it is very strikingly smilar to what I experienced in the after effects of Cedu, and other accounts I have read. I  can relate to much of what was said. My ability to communicate with people suffered in a way I couldn’t figure out. It was like I was always questioning whether I couldn’t trust other people, or myself, and seemed like trying to connect with others just added to my confliction. It seemed like there were times I was convinced my instincts were wrong and I just needed to trust others, but somehow I couldn’t judge my boundaries correctly because I’d be too open, or get taken advantage of, or maybe I was just misinterpreting it all. So then there were time I was convinced that people were manipulative, or fake, and even deluded to the point that they don’t know that’s what they are doing. I sort of took the attitude that people were ultimately going to take advantage of me even if they didn’t know it, I found myself being defensive and off-putting to people who were joking around or being friendly. At times I questioned if I was crazy or if everyone else was, either way I felt I had to accept that I could not identify with others and felt isolated with or without them. I also struggled with the program philosophy in the same way. Did that thinking really represent the nature of the people around me? If not people are certainly much better at maintaining false impressions than me. If they are being genuine, then I am just different. At times I was so distrustful of myself I wondered if the program was right about me, and I couldn’t even tell for myself how I was supposed to be myself. I actually let those Cedu tools seep in at times, all of them are pretty distinctly for the purpose of dissociating, or splitting the self concept into parts and putting them in conflict. Something I was going to bring up.

It is always difficult to try to judge from the perspective of any program but my own, but I have to wonder if creating dissociated states of mind was the overall intention, to crush the individual will by plaguing the mind with inner conflict and self doubt.

Thought Reform / Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
« on: January 29, 2011, 07:00:41 PM »
I hope that this will be a very interesting look into Pierre Janet’s period of influence on Freud, psychology, hypnosis, dissociation, and his approach to mental illness. I chose to highlight  portions of the article, but here for full review .

Pierre Janet And Dissociation: The First Transference Theory and Its Origins In Hypnosis
John Ryan Haule
This article was published in the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 29(2) (October, 1986): pp. 86-94.

‘Abstract. This paper describes Pierre Janet’s pioneering work in the area of hypnosis which was based on suggestion and dissociation. Janet was the first to describe somnambulism as a phenomenon whereby two or more states of consciousness are dissociated by a cleft of amnesia and seem to operate independently of one another. Janet’s early understanding of rapport also had roots in dissociation in that the patient seemed unable, due to dissociative restriction of the conscious field, to perceive anyone other than his own therapist. The implications of this dissociated conscious field for treatment led Janet to provide structure in therapy by assigning tasks and to mirror the patient’s experience rather than to confront it. These techniques are important even today in the treatment of dissociated states. ‘ [/i]

The French hypnotist Pierre Janet (1859-1947) is the source for most of the dissociation theory to be found in the writings of C. G. Jung (1946/1966). Janet began his career as a philosopher, who used hypnosis to explore the dissociative propensities of the human mind. Following his doctoral dissertation in philosophy, he rapidly completed a medical degree and, with the sponsorship of J. M. Charcot, opened a laboratory at the Salpêtrière in Paris, where he continued his research into the nature and treatment of dissociative conditions. Hypnosis continued to be his investigative tool and therapeutic intervention of choice because it was, in his view, a form of dissociation. "Hypnotism may be defined as the momentary transformation of the mental state of an individual, artificially induced by a second person, and sufficing to bring about dissociations of personal memory" ( Janet 1919/1976 , p. 291). "Dissociation" is the key word in the definition; he means the phenomenon that we presently see as diagnostic of multiple personality, that is, the simultaneous development of subpersonalities, parallel memories, in complete ignorance one of another.

Janet is also the nearly forgotten founder of the analytic tradition in psychology. Breuer and Freud (1895/1957, p. 12) credit him and other Parisian dissociationists with some of the fundamental discoveries which made their Studies on Hysteria possible. Although he was born 3 years after Freud, Janet’s reputation as a psychological investigator was already more than a decade old when Freud published The Interpretation of Dreams. Probably two factors concerned with style more than anything else account for the nearly century-long eclipse which has dimmed Janet’s influence upon twentieth-century psychology. The first of these is Janet’s stubborn nineteenth-century belief in the triumph of careful, plodding, scientific investigation. His style is dry, his images often very mechanical, and as Ellenberger points out (1970, p. 408), he did not cultivate a troop of disciples to champion his methods and principles. The other factor is Janet’s faithfulness to hypnosis, which had come into vogue around 1880 and then passed again into disrepute shortly after the turn of the century. Janet learned very early in his career the "contaminating" side effects of suggestion and, therefore, became very careful to imitate Pasteur (he liked to say) and keep his "cultures isolated." It was not without some bitterness, therefore, that he finally gave up his attempts to convince the world of psychology that hypnosis was a very powerful model and tool for investigation and therapy: "Hypnosis is quite dead until the day of its resurrection" (Janet, 1919/1976, p. 203).

Because of his dry style and because he almost never discusses a case fully from start to finish, it is possible to read a great deal of Janet’s voluminous output (15,000 published pages according to Schwartz, 1951, p. 31) without fully appreciating his sensitivity to the emotional intensity of the rapport and the effects it may have upon the patient….

Given this inconsistency, Janet’s accurate, detailed descriptions of the rapport are particularly surprising. He describes it variously as "influence," "adoption," and "electivity." In rapport, the patient has "adopted" the therapist as the axis of his universe….

Because of this dissociative mechanism, the patient declares that his therapist is "the only person in the world able to understand him" (Janet 1919/1976, p. 1155). Janet calls this "a strange illusion," for "it is by no means certain that we do understand them." Rather, their act of adoption means "that they themselves have made up their minds to talk seriously" (Janet, 1919/1976, p. 1156).

Janet had recognized this phenomenon already in the late 1880’s; he argued with Binet, who believed that Janet’s greater success with Lucie than any other hypnotist was due to the greater intensity of Janet’s suggestions. Janet insists that "It is due to the quality and not the intensity" of the suggestion. Specifically, it is the quality of the command’s being tied to the person of Janet himself ( 1889/1973 , p. 185). Rapport, in this early period of Janet’s career, was seen as a kind of a "negative hallucination" for everything but the hypnotist. It is as though the patient is "anaesthetic" for all sensory phenomena except the person, voice, and commands of the therapist. In the dissociation-generated sensory void in which the hysteric or "somnambulistic" finds himself, he (unconsciously) "elects" to perceive the hypnotist.

In his 1896 address to the International Congress of Psychology (published in 1898/1925), Janet says that many of these facts were already known to "the old magnetizers" (citing Bertrand, Dupotet, Charpignon, Noizet, and Despine d’Aix, whose books were published 40 to 80 years earlier). These earlier researchers were in agreement that rapport is characterized by (a) the patient’s inability to tolerate contact with any but "his own" hypnotist, (b) the patient’s "own" hypnotist being the only individual who could "put him to sleep," and (c) the patient’s inability, due to the dissociative restriction (rétrécissement) of his conscious field, to perceive anyone other than his own therapist.

Janet referred to the hypnotic process as " influence somnambulique ." Before 1900, Janet saw "somnambulism" as the essential condition, of which hysteria, hypnosis, multiple personality, and spiritualism were variations….

Janet describes the patient as having sentiments and thoughts about the hypnotist which he has never had before, a mixture of fear and affection, sometimes with hallucinatory images. Such phenomena are not found in patients who have been hypnotized only rarely or who have been hypnotized by a large number of hypnotists (Janet 1898/1925, p. 452f). In short., it represents an intense relationship with the therapist, precisely the kind of situation in which "transference" phenomena are most likely to appear. Furthermore, Janet deems a rapport of this kind indispensable for the cure….

In the third phase, which Janet calls " la periode de la passion somnambulique, " The apparently curative effects of the hypnotic influence have disappeared and the original symptoms have returned. In addition, however, the patient now has a great longing to be "put to sleep" (artificially dissociated) and is obsessed by the thought of "his own" hypnotist….

…. He tells us ( Janet, 1919/1976 , p. 1163) that a relationship of "influence . . . cannot possibly be established" without spending a great deal of time alone with the patient. "If you wish (the patient) to adapt himself to your personality, begin by adapting your own personality to his" (Janet, 1919/1976, p. 1170)…

Whereas Kohut’s concern is to describe a mechanism for the curing process, and Janet’s researches -- especially in the first 30 years of his career -- focus on the dissociated states attained by his patients, particularly important is the state he refers to as "complete somnambulism," the paradigm for what the Paris school of hypnosis hoped to achieve. Subjects capable of attaining the state of complete somnambulism were rare; indeed, Janet likened the quest for the perfect patient to the alchemists’ search for the philosophers’ stone (Janet, 1919/1976, p. 84) His brother Jules came near to finding such a patient in Marceline

Janet refers to Marceline as "une Félida artificielle," a reference to Azam’s famous patient from the 1860’s, "Félida X, who spontaneously passed from a debilitated personality to a fairly healthy one and back again. As the years went by, the healthier personality predominated more and more. Felida X was the "philosopher’s stone" of the Paris school of dissociationism, for her story proved that a healthy personality may reside within the neurotic, alongside or below the pathological personality(s). Janet’s "artificial" Félida, however, became pathologically addicted to her relationship with her hypnotist. When he tried to diminish this by holding less frequent and shorter sessions, she began to starve herself even more (Janet, 1910, p. 344). A similar situation occurred with the patient Janet calls Irène, who at one point seemed to have been cured of hysteria through complete somnambulism but reappeared 6 years later with a less debilitating but more persistent neurosis (Janet, 1919/1976, passim).

The stories of the imperfectly complete somnambulistics, Marceline and Irène, show a rather typical three-stage development: an opening phase of rapport building, a phase of somnambulistic influence in which the symptoms disappear for days or weeks at a time, and an addictive passion somnambulique in which the need for direction is so strong that the patient’s neurosis requires more and more frequent and lengthy sessions.

From this it seems evident that the real "philosopher’s stone" in Janetian psychology is not the perfect patient, the "artificial Félida," but rather the perfect rapport. Clearly, he had hoped to cure Marceline and Irène solely by means of inducing in them a profound state of hypnotic trance. The notion of "complete" somnambulism implies that the dissociated individual has a core personality which is whole. This healthy core can be reached when the patient trusts in and submits completely to the hypnotherapist. He does not direct her to outer activities but rather inwardly to her own healthy self. Her submission, the crucial element in the transformation, cannot be won by any means except through a powerful, affect-laden rapport which closely resembles erotic love.

 Janet’s explanation for his failures with these patients is that the primary cause of the rapport, the morbid need to be directed (besoin de direction), isa two-edged sword. On the one hand, no cure is possible without the rapport it makes possible. But on the other hand, the need to be directed is itself a primary symptom of the disease, which disappears when the patient is cured….

… the theories and methods of psychoanalyst and hypnotist Milton Erickson are quite compatible with those of Janet. Whereas Janet seems to have believed that he used hypnosis less and less as his career progressed, an Ericksonian, expanded view of hypnosis dispenses with the ritual of trance-induction as essential to the hypnotic process. Consequently, Erickson and his followers could subscribe wholeheartedly to Janet’s guidelines for adapting his own way of thinking to that of the patient:

"Our intervention needs to be masked; we must lead them (the patients) to believe that the decisions come from themselves, must allow for them to reap the full benefits of the work in hand" ( Janet, 1919/1976, p. 546). – excerpts from:


Thought Reform / the DISSOCIATION issue
« on: January 29, 2011, 06:56:35 PM »

I thought that one of the most important topics to discuss for program survivors is the topic of Dissociation, as it is a subject of focus for anyone who has endured a traumatic experience. However I think it is a particularly important subject as it relates to troubled teen programs, and there are many issues of which Dissociation is at heart of the matter. There are a few questions/ issues that I find come to attention:

1.   Dissociation has been an explanation for mental illness and for the hypnotic state that pre-dates Psychoanalysis, yet only recently has received general acceptance.

2.   Dissociation is the influential precursor to Freud’s Psychoanalysis, with remarkable impact such as on Freud’s theory of the unconscious/ conscious mind, yet Psychoanalysis had initially rejected the concept of Dissociation. However it survived in less dominant fields.

3.    Dissociative reactions, such as PTSD, or even Dissociative Identity Disorder, that can result from extreme situations faced in troubled teen programs, and possible unevaluated or misinterpreted symptoms.

4.   The creation of Dissociation as an intended therapeutic aim in considering certain program histories and influences, and the implications of ‘dissociation/ re-association’ approaches  in forced therapy concerning identity and personality formation, particularly in adolescents.

So I think it is an issue with several controversies, and I also think it is a pretty interesting subject. I am also curious if others will identify with dissociation as an experience and/ or possible intention of their program. For now I’m going to quote some articles that hit upon some broader points in this regard in order to get more specific.

“The National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
VOLUME 8. NUMBER 3 ISSN 10.50-1835 S1MMER 1997

Charles R Marmar, M.D.
Department of Psychiatry,
University of California, San Francisco and
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center, San Francisco

The past decade has witnessed an intense reawakening of interest in the study of trauma and dissociation. In particular, the contributions of Janet, which had been largely eclipsed by developments within modern ego psychology and cognitive behavioral therapy, have enjoyed a resurgence of interest. Putnam (1989) and van der Kolk and van der Hart (1989) have provided a contemporary reinterpretation of the contributions of Janet to the understanding of traumatic stress and dissociation. Recent research on the interrelations among trauma, memory, and dissociation is presented in a forthcoming book by Bremner and Marmar.

Paralleling the resurgence of interest in theoretical studies of trauma and dissociation, there has been a proliferation of research studies addressing the relationship of trauma and general dissociative tendencies. Chu and Dill (1990) reported that psychiatric patients with a history of childhood abuse reported higher levels of dissociative symptoms than those without histories of child abuse. Carlson and Rosser-Hogan (1991), in a study of Cambodian refugees, reported a strong relationship between the amounts of trauma the refugees had experienced and the severity of both traumatic stress response and dissociative reactions. Spiegel and colleagues (1988) compared the hypnotizability of Vietnam combat veterans with PTSD to patients with generalized anxiety disorders, affective disorders, and schizophrenia, as well as to the normal comparison group. The group with PTSD was found to have hypnotizability scores that were higher than both the psychopathological and normal controls.

Recent empirical studies have supported a strong relationship among trauma, dissociation, and personality disturbances. Herman and colleagues (1989) found a high prevalence of traumatic histories in patients with borderline personality disorder. A profound relationship has been reported for childhood trauma and multiple personality disorder (MPD). Kluft (1993) proposes that the dissociative processes that underlie multiple personality development continue to serve a defense function for individuals who have neither the external nor internal resources to cope with traumatic experiences. Coons and Milstein (1986) reported that 85% of a series of 20 MPD patients had documented allegations of childhood abuse.

Similar observations have been made by and Putnam and colleagues (1986), who reported rates of severe childhood abuse as high as 90% in patients with MPD. The nature of the childhood trauma in many of these cases is notable for its severity, multiple elements of physical and sexual abuse, threats to life, bizarre elements, and profound rupture of the sense of safety and trust when the perpetrator is a primary caretaker or other close relationship.

Peritraumatic Dissociation. The studies reviewed dearly demonstrate the relationship between traumatic life experience and general dissociative response. One fundamental aspect of the dissociative response to trauma concerns immediate dissociation at the time the traumatic event is unfolding. Trauma victims not uncommonly will report alterations in the experience of time, place, and person, which confers a sense of unreality of the event as it is occurring. Dissociation during trauma may take the form of altered time sense, with time being experienced as slowing down or rapidly accelerated; profound feelings of unreality that the event is occurring, or that the individual is the victim of the event; experiences of depersonalization; out-of-body experiences; bewilderment, confusion, and disorientation; altered pain perception; altered body image or feelings of disconnection from one's body; tunnel vision; and other experiences reflecting immediate dissociative responses to trauma. We have designated these acute dissociative responses to trauma as peritraumatic dissociation.

Although actual clinical reports of peritraumatic dissociation date back nearly a century, systematic investigation has occurred more recently.  Wilkinson (1983) investigated the psychological responses of survivors of the Hyatt Regency Hotel skywalk collapse in which 114 people died and 200 were injured. Survivors commonly reported depersonalization and derealization experiences at the time of the structural collapse. Holen (1993), in a long-term prospective study of survivors of a North Sea oil rig disaster, found that the level of reported dissociation during the trauma was a predictor  of subsequent PTSD. Koopman and colleagues (1994) investigated predictors of posttraumatic stress symptoms among survivors of the 1991 Oakland Hills firestorm. In a study of 187 participants, dissociative symptoms at the time the firestorm was occurring more strongly predicted subsequent posttraumatic symptoms than did anxiety and the subjective experience of loss of personal autonomy.” - ... iation.pdf

Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia

The unconscious is like a great holding area or reservoir of unprocessed events. Anything we don't or can't assimilate consciously goes there. The unconscious holds irrelevant things such as images of strangers we see on the street. It also holds important things that need to be brought into conscious awareness but may be too big to fit our existing system (conscious mind). There are times when people are unable to fully assimilate the significance of an overwhelming experience such as a car accident. One of the passengers calmly calls an ambulance, administers first aid, and reroutes oncoming traffic. Once the ambulance arrives, she falls apart and cries hysterically. In order to take care of the immediate priorities, she dissociated her feelings and emotions temporarily….

Children rely extensively on adults for interpretation. Their developing comprehension is largely fashioned after that of their parents or caregivers. If caregivers are emotionally damaged, their own skewed view of the world is imposed upon their children.

Unresolved issues in the parents' unconscious are misinterpreted for the child. This is a common phenomenon known as projection. For example, if parents feel shame but cannot admit it, they may deny it, separate themselves from it, disown it, dissociate from it, and project it onto their children. They then condemn their children as being shameful. In psychology this is described as retaliatory defense. In other words, the shame the parents have within themselves but cannot accept is expressed by shaming the children. In fact, the less parents are able to accept the "monster" within themselves, the more readily they are able to see it in their children.

Emotionally troubled parents frequently reinforce skewed interpretations with abuse. If the abuse is extreme, as practiced by destructive families, a child's conscious world becomes overwhelmed. The extreme abuse is dissociated into the unconscious, but it cannot be made to fit, even in a misinformed way. The trauma remains dissociated. To survive, children tap into extraordinary coping skills, fashioned from within their own unconscious.

Clinical (Amnestic) Dissociation

Our instinctive reactions to an assault are fight or flight. However, neither works when children are abused by sadistic adults. The only option left is to freeze, and take flight through the mind. A common initial coping mechanism is to escape the body. It is the beginning of clinical (amnestic) dissociation, which allows a shutting out of an unbearable reality. It is held unassimilated---in effect, frozen in time. A dissociated experience can be split up to store the emotions separate from bodily sensations, and the sensations separate from the knowledge of an event. In dissociating an experience, children split off a part of their self to hold the trauma. In some cases the dissociated aspects of self, immediately or over time, form their own and separate sense of self….

Some children maintain a complete split between their everyday life and the abusive episodes. They may be seen smiling when posing for family photographs. Perpetrators often use such photographs to prove there is nothing bad going on….

Clinical Diagnosis

Aftereffects of trauma are still being researched, and diagnostic terminology continues to evolve. Some existing terms are being retired and new terms are being proposed. In keeping with evolving trends and thinking, we will use the term post-traumatic reactions to indicate the overall condition; and the terms post-traumatic fear, dissociative experience, and dissociative identity to indicate the most prevalent reactions. Professionals are recognizing that post-traumatic reactions exist on a continuum, and many survivors use more than one coping strategy to survive. Trying to arrive at an exact diagnosis using existing terminology can be complex. It is sometimes more confusing than helpful to try to find the right "label."

The current list of specific diagnosis includes but is not limited to PTSD, also know as Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSS); various dissociative disorders, which include Depersonalization Disorder, Dissociative Fugue, Dissociative Amnesia, and Dissociative Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (DD-NOS); Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), formally referred to as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD); and catatonia or catalepsy….” -  -

Dissociation - Current List of Specific Diagnosis (2003)
(Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia)
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

The development of characteristic symptoms following a psychologically distressing event that is outside the range of usual human experience. The characteristic symptoms involve re-experiencing the traumatic event, avoidance of stimuli associated with the event or numbing of general responsiveness and increased arousal. This group of symptoms was initially recognized in conjunction with other types of trauma. Professionals noticed that some survivors of car accidents had reactions similar to those of soldiers returning from combat. In the past this group of symptoms was alternately called shell shock, battle fatigue, or combat neurosis.

With PTSD, aspects of the traumatic event are dissociated, but the event is not forgotten. Treatment usually focuses on processing the unassimilated parts of the trauma by giving expression to it, thereby healing the aftereffects. The trauma may be re-experienced through dreams, behaviors, emotions, and bodily responses. Sometimes the trauma or aspects of it are re-experienced through flashbacks, nightmares, night terrors, and/or startle responses. Although symptoms of PTSD may feel frightening and are a cause of great distress, they are the body/mind's attempt to heal. The trauma is breaking through into conscious awareness, where it can be assimilated and healed. (DSM-IV)

PTSD is characterized by:

-recurrent or intrusive distressing recollections of an event( images, thoughts, perceptions)
-re-experiencing the trauma of the event through dreams or flashbacks
-feelings of emotional numbness and detachment from others
-irritability or exaggerated startle responses, or hyper-vigilance
-sleep difficulties
-anger or anxiety
-difficulty concentrating
-physiological responses to situations or events that symbolize or resemble the original stressful event or situation.

Symptoms of the disorder may occur within hours of the stressful event. Or they may not appear until months or years later” - -

“This is a prepublication version of the version published in the Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2005, 18(5).

-Dissociation: An Insufficiently Recognized Major Feature of Complex PTSD-

Onno van der Hart - Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Ellert R.S. Nijenhuis Cats-Polm Institute, Zeist and Mental Health Care, Assen, The Netherlands
Kathy Steele -Metropolitan Psychotherapy Associates Atlanta, Georgia


The role of dissociation in (complex) PTSD has been insufficiently recognized for at least two reasons: the view that dissociation is a peripheral, not a central feature of PTSD, and existing confusion regarding the nature of dissociation. This conceptual paper addresses both issues by postulating that traumatization essentially involves some degree of division or dissociation of psychobiological systems that constitute personality. One or more dissociative parts of the personality avoid traumatic memories and perform functions in daily life, while one or more other parts remain fixated in traumatic experiences and defensive actions. Dissociative parts manifest in negative and positive dissociative symptoms that should be distinguished from alterations of consciousness. Complex PTSD involves a more complex structural dissociation than simple PTSD.” [/b]- ... 20ptsd.pdf  -

“Dissociation is a partial or complete disruption of the normal integration of a person’s conscious or psychological functioning.[1] Dissociation can be a response to trauma or drugs and perhaps allows the mind to distance itself from experiences that are too much for the psyche to process at that time…

HistoryThe French philosopher and psychiatrist Pierre Janet (1859–1947) is considered to be the author of the concept of dissociation.[12] Contrary to most current conceptions of dissociation, Janet did not believe that dissociation was a psychological defense.[13][14][15] Psychological defense mechanisms belong to Freud's theory of psychoanalysis, not to Janetian psychology. Janet claimed that dissociation occurred only in persons who had a constitutional weakness of mental functioning that led to hysteria when they were stressed. Although it is true that many of Janet's case histories described traumatic experiences, he never considered dissociation to be a defense against those experiences. Quite the opposite. Janet insisted that dissociation was a mental or cognitive deficit. Accordingly, he considered trauma to be one of many stressors that could worsen the already-impaired "mental efficiency" of a hysteric, thereby generating a cascade of hysterical (in today's language, "dissociative") symptoms.[12][16][17][18] Despite this, clinicians have routinely preferred Freud's motivational explanation of dissociation as a defense against pain or displeasure to Janet's explanation that dissociation is due to constitutionally-impaired mental efficiency. Clinicians' preference for the Freudian explanation is directly reflected in today's most popular understanding of dissociation; namely, that dissociation is a defense against trauma.

Although there was great interest in dissociation during the last two decades of the nineteenth century (especially in France and England), this interest rapidly waned with the coming of the new century (Ellenberger, 1970). Even Janet largely turned his attention to other matters. On the other hand, there was a sharp peak in interest in dissociation in America from 1890 to 1910, especially in Boston as reflected in the work of William James, Boris Sidis, Morton Prince, and William McDougall. Nevertheless, even in America, interest in dissociation rapidly succumbed to the surging academic interest in psychoanalysis and behaviorism. For most of the twentieth century, there was little interest in dissociation. Discussion of dissociation only resumed when Ernest Hilgard (1977) published his neodissociation theory in the 1970s and when several authors wrote about multiple personality in the 1980s.

Carl Jung described pathological manifestations of dissociation as special or extreme cases of the normal operation of the psyche. This structural dissociation, opposing tension, and hierarchy of basic attitudes and functions in normal individual consciousness is the basis of Jung's Psychological Types.[19] He theorized that dissociation is a natural necessity for consciousness to operate in one faculty unhampered by the demands of its opposite.

Attention to dissociation as a clinical feature has been growing in recent years as knowledge of post-traumatic stress disorder increased, due to interest in dissociative identity disorder and the multiple personality controversy, and as neuroimaging research and population studies show its relevance.” -  -


Pierre Janet originally developed the idea of dissociation of consciousness from his work with hysterical patients. He believed that hypnosis was an example of dissociation, whereby areas of an individual's behavioural control separate from ordinary awareness. Hypnosis would remove some control from the conscious mind, and the individual would respond with autonomic, reflexive behaviour. Weitzenhoffer describes hypnosis via this theory as "dissociation of awareness from the majority of sensory and even strictly neural events taking place."  -

…. I found the above to be an important wide angle to begin with. I will follow with more specific issues of dissociation and what that could mean in programs…..

The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Where did "the game" come from ?
« on: January 21, 2011, 09:54:28 PM »
Quote from: "starry-eyed pirate"
...Yeah, it's takin, a while for all the pre-Synanon/cybernetics stuff to settle in on me.  I feel kinda-like a fool for bein so blown away, cause really this stuff is a pretty basic survival mechanism, that most folks develop to one degree or another, in their childhood or at least by their teens.  I mean the principle of manipulation.  The ability to manipulate others through your own clever behaviour.  The set up.

Yeah. It seems that most people have that ability.  They can be manipulative, so isn't all the game theory/cybernetics an' all just a scientific articulation of that process, I mean, extrapolated out to the social group ??

Yeah, and it is quite an impressive articulation, I should say.

And it's not even a big secret, it's right there for anyone to see if you only know where to look.  The mind blowing thing is the way the government infects the minds of it's citizens with the double bind and even keeps itself in power that way.  So it is really, all the program.  Pledging Allegiance and singing patriotic songs about the revolution in school.  Standing at attention before the flag...only to go to $tr8 and learn all this.  The government espouses the values of freedom and democracy, while simultaneously plotting to control every social response of it's citizens to a social environment they all but control.  As a society we're in Skinners box.

I thought that was a right on interpretation there Pirate. At some level I wonder about the broader implications in society, but I think programs represent a level of control that crosses the line, and contributes to distorting our social definitions of values like ‘freedom’. I don’t know if anyone has been sucked into a multi-level marketing scheme, but  they are pyramid schemes that can’t really work. If you buy into the business it is organized so that you make money off of the sales of the people you have recruited under you in your downline. These mlms will claim that they are selling a product, but it is made obvious that the only way to really make money is to not sell the product, but the business . So it is the structure of the system that takes advantage of peoples self serving behavior, and that means no one is going to waste their time trying to do anything but recruit more people and maintain their downline with constant e-mails and calls, because everyone has to maintain a certain amount of sales or they don’t maintain their place in the hierarchy.

At some level I guess I can see how these bs organizations are allowed to legally operate. Maybe, (big maybe), since you have to sign on the dotted line, and if you aren’t smart enough to figure it out then I guess it’s legitimate for a business to take advantage of them. What I CAN’T see as being legitimate is this type of design for use in ‘therapy’ systems in programs, let alone for use on adolescents who are forced to participate, without consent, in a process that is meant to decieve them into deceiving each other . I just find this to be so blatantly in contradiction of America’s espoused values of freedom, democracy, individualism, the ‘self-made man, the ‘American Dream’ etc. that crossing this particular line exposes the two faced politics at play.

Quote from: "Ursus"
And the source of some of Skinner's funding was, of course, governmental in origin. It's a closed loop.

    Many prominent names were funded through The Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology ["a C.I.A organization used to channel money for MK-ULTRA research"], including:[1] B. F. Skinner, Carl Rogers, Carolyn and Musafer Sherif, Margaret Mead, Charles Osgood, Hans Eysenck, Martin Orne and Gregory Bateson.


    Relatedly, Ursus just named somebody, Carl Rogers, who sort of exemplifies that kind of two faced politics. This article “Carl Rogers and the CIA”  has been an intriguing read into Carl Roger’s involvement in MK-ULTRA, which ironically took place at the same time as he was advancing the new field of humanistic Psychiatry, which comes from an  individual, existential, and spiritual perspective. I won’t go too detailed into it but some things that were interesting to me were that the CIA funded Rogers to do research projects specifically into “the correlation of psychological and physiological variables in personality and personality change” and “personality change in psychotherapy for schizophrenics”. The article makes the suggestion that the CIA may have been interested in Rogers’ work on schizophrenics because the defensive, withdrawn schizophrenic is similar to a prisoner of war and an interrogator, and so the method of coercing compliance is similar.

    It is pretty interesting, with some very important connective history and names, but the article is admittedly speculating on what he could have been working on, and I think there is probably more not being considered. This comes from the journal of humanistic psychology after all.

    The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Where did "the game" come from ?
    « on: January 17, 2011, 01:49:39 AM »
    I am truly only speculating that the origin OF THE NAME ‘the game’ comes from game theory, to be upfront, I don’t know enough about it in particular (Ursus may have more suggestive evidence of that). All I know is it represents an all too coincidental metaphor, the history works, and it seems to make a lot of sense that it was inspired by the concept. Second, I don’t think game theory is, by itself, is the most significant source in considering the creation of the format in which ‘the game’ is played.  (I think the most significant influence definitely comes from Kurt Lewin and Sensitivity Training (or T-Groups, or human relations training) and Group Dynamics.)

    However it just seems to coincidental that game theory is the study of what people do when they are pitted against each other in various circumstances  and it was important at the time in trying to predict the outcomes of war strategies. “The Game” as this small group pitted against each other in psychological warfare, and let’s just see who’s strategy wins… it just seems like more than a coincidence.  In a sense, it is less important to know where it came from that to call it for what it is, either way I see a useful answer here.

    I know ‘the game’ might have been different depending on which program you were in, but a related example about raps at Cedu is we had a ‘rap box’ and before raps everyone had to write the names of two people we had issues with and wanted to talk to. They would use the names in the box to arrange the raps. The game started before it even began, it was like a shooting gallery. You were already tense because everyone  knew  they were in there because they were on someone’s list, and the staff already knew who you “had issues” with who before they even knew what the issue was. It was just “hey you, you had to talk to her, what about?”. There was just no way to avoid playing.

    Thought Reform / Re: The Macy Conferences:The Minds behind Mind Control
    « on: January 17, 2011, 01:23:51 AM »
    I think what is most significant is that cybernetics became the explanation  for an interactional, communicational  model of human behavior.  What these conferences suggest is that this was a huge revelation in many, many fields. But it also represents a new approach to human behavior, and advances a particularly behaviorist view of the human organism as being based on the transfer of information.  (ex. If you kick a rock, it moves due to the transfer of energy from your foot. If you kick a dog, and then it bites you, it is not because of the energy from your foot. It is because the dog is responding to what is perceived as a threatening message.) Game theory is quantified by the notion that humans have an inherent cybernetic quality, which is reflected in games, like chess, or nuclear war, wherein the players success depends on predicting what is going on in his opponents mind in order to come up with a strategy for himself, to be able to see himself through the eyes of another in a way. This is relatable to the human capacity for sympathy and sensitivity. The idea that people’s outputs (logic, behaviors, personalities, emotions) can be analyzed in terms of games or learned strategies for self preservation becomes popular in psychotherapy, like transactional analysis.

    Follow for a moment the behaviorist ‘black box’ concept of the human organism  (please take a brief look at the illustration on the link) . Behaviorism has taken a view of the human mind as being a black box of which the inner workings can’t be ‘opened up’ and known, one can never truly experience another’s consciousness. However this ‘black box’ can be examined as an input/ output mechanism, communication goes in, and there is a resulting communication/ behavior that comes out (all behavior can be taken as communication and vice versa).  But what Bateson  illustrates in the diagram you’ll find here  (scroll down to the related diagram) is the evolution of this black box concept to incorporate the idea of circular causality, as a principle of cybernetics. To put it plainly, what happens if you take what comes out of the output, and put it back into it? This is the notion of feedback, and the idea that humans rely on the ability to perceive feedback from our environment to orient ourselves is key to predicting how humans behave, organize and operate within a system, or environment.  ( If you consider a pyramid scheme, or multi-level marketing scheme it can be understood how a system can be designed in which human nature can be used against the individual to favor the organization, and relies on keeping people unaware of it.) Now I find I must recall that these ideas were the result of trying to understand how the phenomenon of hypnosis occurs, and how humans can manipulate each other covertly. And so as not to get too far ahead of the content of the thread, I’ll leave this that may at least contribute some historical significance pertaining to hypnosis and the Macy Conferences.

    This is by Lawrence Kubie, who was part of the core group. I didn’t find many resources on Kubie, but I found this portion of a paper he did in 1944 on his view of the process of hypnosis. I think it is interesting,   …although, Kubie is a mere grain of sand on a beach in the field of hypnosis compared to Milton Erickson, guest speaker at the 1942 Cerebral Inhibition meeting. Here is Lawrence S. Kubie’s paper : (This is offered as an abstract, but it is also the articles summary)

    1 The New York Neurological Institute of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York. - ... /100/5/611

    1. The process of inducing hypnosis and the fully developed hypnotic state are a continuum which can be studied satisfactorily only in the novice, and which under such circumstances consists of three stages which shade from one into the next.

    2. In the initiation of the process there is a progressive elimination of all channels of sensori-motor communication between the subject and the outside world, with the exception of the channels of communication between the subject and the hypnotist. As a consequence, during this phase the hypnotist becomes temporarily the sole representative of and contact with the outside world.

    3. In this essential characteristic, the induction phase parallels the sensori-motor relationships of the infant to the outside world during the earliest phase of infancy, during which the parents play in the psychology of the infant a rôle almost identical to that of the hypnotist in the mental life of the subject.

    4. The onset of the hypnotic state consists of a partial sleep in which active sensorimotor channels are restricted to those between the subject and the hypnotist.

    5. This reduction of sensori-motor channels obliterates the Ego boundaries of the subject and constricts them, which makes inevitable a psychological fusion between hypnotist and subject.

    6. This constitutes the second phase in the process, one in which a fusion of subject and hypnotist is achieved, with the result that to the subject the words of the hypnotist become indistinguishable from his own thoughts. It is this in turn which makes possible all of the phenomena of apparent passive suggestibility.

    7. At the same time, this same restriction of sensori-motor relationships induces and makes possible states of hypnagogic revery in which vivid sensory memories and images are released. These images and memories include olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and kinæsthetic modalities of sensation which are not ordinarily easily recalled or vividly imagined.

    8. The sensory vividness of these reveries in turn opens the way to buried memories, and particularly to the buried affects which are related to such sensory memories.

    9. Physiologically the hypnotic process is shown to be an extension of the processes of normal attention, the result of the creation in the central nervous system of a concentrated focus of excitation with the surrounding areas of inhibition (in the descriptive Pavlovian sense).

    10. In turn, this is dependent physiologically upon:

    (a) Relative immobilization through the immobilization of the head or eye.

    (b) The influence of monotony.

    11. Initiation of monotony depends upon sensory adaptation, which in turn is in part dependent upon rhythm.

    12. Psychologically the creation of the hypnotic state, with its focus of excitation within limited areas, depends upon a diminution of alertness through allaying anxiety and other defenses, a process which is a necessary prerequisite to the suppression of sensory warning signals.

    13. The shift to the fully developed final phase of the hypnotic state involves:

    (a) A partial re-expansion of ego boundaries.

    (b) An incorporation of a fragmentary image of the hypnotist within the expanded boundaries of the subject's Ego.

    14. In this final phase the compliance of the subject to the hypnotist's commands is again more apparent than real, in that the incorporated image of the hypnotist which echoes the hypnotist's voice has for the time being become a part of the subject's temporary Ego.

    15. It is obvious that the final phase in the hypnotic process, which occurs with the full development of the hypnotic state, parallels precisely that phase in the development of the infant's Ego in which its boundaries gradually expand, with the retention of parental images as unconscious incorporated components of the developing Ego of the infant. The incorporated image of the hypnotist plays the same rôle in the hypnotic subject as does the incorporated and unconscious image of the parental figure in the child or adult. Hypnosis thus is seen to be an experimental reproduction of a natural developmental process.

    16. The use of hypnosis in some form may conceivably be necessary, therefore, for the complete therapeutic displacement of disturbing superego figures which are retained out of childhood.

    17. In the hypnotic process mechanisms are at work identical with those seen in the dream (such as transference, displacement, condensation, etc.). Much has been made of these in the literature; but they are not the essence either of the process or of the state itself.

    The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Where did "the game" come from ?
    « on: January 15, 2011, 04:03:25 PM »
    I have put a response over on Casriel’s thread in response to the conversation here. Maybe it will help, although it is pretty hard to find a solid history on the guy so it is a bit speculative. viewtopic.php?f=31&t=28320&start=45 .

    … btw I may have missed something, but did I ever reveal my gender on here? I can’t remember doing that. ….


    Daytop Village / Re: Dr. Dan Casriel “A scream away from happiness”
    « on: January 15, 2011, 03:57:39 PM »
    (This was in response to a conversation on this thread ‘Where did ‘the game’ come from  viewtopic.php?f=9&t=32589  ‘ ,but I thought it was more relevant here)

    I have some background on where Casriel got some of his influence, however, I am no expert on him. He is really quite mysterious imo and certain stylistic aspects of his approach are suspiciously hard to trace. Casreil developed the New Identity Process, which is now called Bonding Therapy, which is based on the Attachment Theory of John Bowlby and others. I find it interesting that the Attachment Therapy (also based on attachment theory) of Robert Zaslow, and Primal Therapy by Arthur Janov all emerged at right around the same time, but despite the VERY similar approaches they seem to have developed independently of each other.  A common emphasis in all of them is acting out, or catharting, over childhood trauma. This undoubtedly has it’s roots in the Cathartic Method, as old as psychotherapy itself. ... erapy.html

     The Cathartic Method  was a common practice in Freud’s early career, due to Breuer,  to employ a model of hypnosis, age regression, and achievement of catharsis over a repressed childhood trauma (abreaction). He ended up abandoning this process because he concluded that the therapeutic results were due to what he termed ‘transference’ and didn’t provide a lasting cure (as exampled by Anna O.’s falling in love with Breuer). So he abandoned it in favor of ‘free association’.

    More recently Jacob Moreno and psychodrama also focused on catharsis. He felt that catharsis needed to be acted out even more deeply and in more ways.  Humanistic Psychiatry and the Human Potential Movement was all the rage leading up to and during Casriels time in the spotlight, Carl Rogers was largely responsible for the widespread use of sensitivity training which he called ‘encounter groups’. Some pretty marked changes showed up in Synanon that were resemblant of humanism. Human potential groups also focused heavily on inducing cathartic states, it was a held belief that the point of catharsis is the point at which a person is de-programmed and ready to accept new programming. Today ‘age regression’ and ‘abreaction’ are often terms heard in relation to the area of hypnosis. There is a commonly reffered to ‘trick’ in this area called the ‘affect bridge’ technique, which is just following a particular feeling back to when someone first remembers feeling it and focusing on that as the source of current problems. All in all what seems to be Casriels goal is to not just stop with age regression and catharsis, but to also ‘re-parent’ the individual from that point in development by applying attachment theory principles. This seems to be utilized by Casriel and a unique flare he adds to the Synanon group dynamic. So anyways, it is hard to get a clear reading on Casriel. Since Bowlby is the respected figure in this area it is probably important to note HIS perspective on the validity of Age Regression.

    “Bowlby explicitly rejected the notion of regression stating "present knowledge of infant and child development requires that a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress."


    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 28