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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 28
61
Daytop Village / Re: Alexander Bassin
« on: January 11, 2011, 11:36:54 PM »
This looks like an important historical hotspot. Interesting to trace through that history. The vid in the first post paints a pretty clear picture. I can’t help but notice the solution that Bassin so emphatically offers is to train the drug addicts to be Change Agents for the new arrivals who will in turn be trained for the next group (in the video he is excited about  reality therapy being the basis for training at one facility).  Bassin sounds as if he is taking directly from  forms of human relations training regarded as a modification of early thought reform. And he specifically uses the term ‘Change Agent’… I wonder where that comes from?

“Organization development (OD) is a planned, organization-wide effort to increase an organization's effectiveness and viability.

Kurt Lewin (1898–1947) is widely recognized as the founding father of OD, although he died before the concept became current in the mid-1950s. From Lewin came the ideas of group dynamics and action research which underpin the basic OD process as well as providing its collaborative consultant/client ethos. Institutionally, Lewin founded the "Research Center for Group Dynamics" (RCGD) at MIT, which moved to Michigan after his death. RCGD colleagues were among those who founded the National Training Laboratories (NTL), from which the T-group and group-based OD emerged….

OD is a long range effort to improve organization's problem solving and renewal processes, particularly through more effective and collaborative management of organizational culture, often with the assistance of a change agent or catalyst and the use of the theory and technology of applied behavioral science.


Change agent

A change agent in the sense used here is not a technical expert skilled in such functional areas as accounting, production, or finance. He is a behavioral scientist who knows how to get people in an organization involved in solving their own problems. His main strength is a comprehensive knowledge of human behavior, supported by a number of intervention techniques (to be discussed later). The change agent can be either external or internal to the organization. An internal change agent is usually a staff person who has expertise in the behavioral sciences and in the intervention technology of OD….” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_development

There is no question that there is a connection to this influence, and Bassin seems so  familiar with it in this particularly coercive organizational format,  it’s like he’s reading straight from the text.  For more on this I’ll submit my post  ‘Training, Therapy or Thought Reform in the TTI? -    viewtopic.php?f=81&t=31447

.

62
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Where did "the game" come from ?
« on: January 06, 2011, 11:00:23 PM »
Although I can still only guess (doesn’t look like there will ever be any hard evidence to prove this topic imo) I thought I’d add this to support my previous guess that it was named after Game Theory and the prisoners dilemma, and maybe related to John von Neumann’s influence coming  from the Macy Conferences.

viewtopic.php?f=81&t=32643

.

63
Thought Reform / Re: DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI
« on: January 06, 2011, 10:43:27 PM »
.... Thanks so much for all the good responses y'all. It helps to feel some validation about an experience that left me so isolated from others, unable to explain an environment that was unexplainable.


I have to include here a review of a most important history of Gregory Bateson, this (effort) is really, long overdue in showing the Double Bind's importance and history in relation to mind control. I thought of putting it here, but I gave it it's own thread. I can't overstate the importance, and historical relevance. Here's the link.

 
The Macy Conferences: The Minds behind Mind Control and the birth of Cybernetics
 viewtopic.php?f=81&t=32643


...

64
Thought Reform / The Macy Conferences:The Minds behind Mind Control
« on: January 06, 2011, 06:20:57 PM »
The Macy Conferences: The Minds behind Mind Control and the birth of Cybernetics
 

Even before I begin I find I can only hope to impart upon the reader the importance of the Macy Conferences as being perhaps the most important meeting of minds for the purpose of understanding control of human behavior, mind control. The Macy Conferences were a series of conferences that originally, and with extensive effort, organized any and all great minds of the era to further the understanding control in human behavior beginning with the conference titled ‘Cerebral Inhibition’.  These meetings gave birth to Cybernetics. The people involved represent an unprecedented nexus of great minds from the time. I am beginning with a section that outlines the early history of a pivotal individual, Gregory Bateson. (Most of this will be sections quoted from other material)


Bateson, Mead and the OSS


- The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was a United States intelligence agency formed during World War II. It was the wartime intelligence agency, and it was the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This agency was formed in order to coordinate espionage activities behind enemy lines for the branches of the United States military. Formed 1942. Dissolved 1945 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_ ... c_Services


- Starting in 1950, the CIA researched and experimented with the use of possible mind-control drugs and other chemical, biological and radiological stimuli on both willing and uninformed subjects. The purpose of these programs was to "investigate whether and how it was possible to modify an individual's behavior by covert means. …. Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, is perhaps the most famous of the CIA mind-control programs.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activi ... ted_States


Gregory Bateson and the OSS: World War II and Bateson’s Assessment of Applied Anthropology
by Dr David H. Price, USA http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=1110


This article uses documents released from the Central Intelligence Agency under the Freedom of Information Act to examine Gregory Bateson’s work for the Office of Strategic Services during World War II…

Gregory Bateson and the OSS

The OSS was created by President Roosevelt on June 13, 1942, and was the direct institutional predecessor to the CIA. Over two dozen anthropologists worked for the OSS during the War, including: E. Wyllys Andrews IV, William Bascom, Gregory Bateson, Lloyd Cabot Briggs, Carleton Coon, Cora DuBois, Anne Fuller, Nelson Glueck, Gordon Hewes, Frederick Hulse, Olov Janse, Felix Keesing, Alexander Lesser, Edwin Loeb, Leonard Mason, Mark May, Alfred Métraux, George Murdock, David Rodnick, Morris Siegel, Richard Starr, David Stout, Morris Swadesh, and T. Cuyler Young.2 There was a great variation in the type of work these individuals undertook – ranging from assignments as linguists, spies, budgetary managers, economic forecasters, and foreign news analysts. By far the most intriguing published account of any of the OSS anthropologists was that of Carleton Coon(1980) in his book “A North Africa Story: The Anthropologist as OSS Agent”, in which he describes his experiences using his pre-war geographic and cultural expertise to help develop allied intelligence and counter-intelligence networks, and insurgency squads in wartorn North Africa.


From its creation onward, the OSS was a fundamentally new type of military-intelligence agency. Its director, “Wild” Bill Donovan, saw the OSS as a new type of multidisciplinary intelligence agency which relied on a variety of creative and unconventional means of both collecting intelligence and undertaking covert actions. The OSS recruited the best and brightest from elite academic and social circles for its ranks. In many ways, Gregory Bateson was a natural candidate for the OSS. Since 1940, Bateson and his then-wife Margaret Mead had been developing and refining the methods used in their studies of “culture at a distance” (Yans-McLaughlin 1986a: 196). These were the very sorts of techniques that the OSS was interested in using to understand and subvert the enemy.

Bateson was initially reluctant to work for a military or intelligence organization. It was his view that, when working for an intelligence organization – as with most applied projects – one is far from free to choose the scope of research, or what is actually done with the fruits of one’s labors. Even before Bateson considered joining the OSS, he was troubled by the ethical questions raised by anthropologists using their knowledge as a weapon in war, or further – that social scientists could expect to have little say in what was done with their research. In 1941, he wrote that the war


“is now a life-or-death struggle over the role which the social sciences shall play in the ordering of human relationships. It is hardly an exaggeration to say (…) this war is ideologically about just this – the role of the social sciences. Are we to reserve the techniques and the right to manipulate peoples as the privilege of a few planning, goal-oriented and power hungry individuals to whom the instrumentality of science makes a natural appeal? Now that we have techniques, are we in cold blood, going to treat people as things? Or what are we going to do with these techniques? (Bateson 1942:84 – as quoted in Yans-McLaughlin 1986a:209).”


While Bateson expressed second thoughts before and again after the war, surprisingly, the picture that emerges from examining the material in his OSS files show a dedicated, even enthusiastic intelligence operative during the war.


Bateson began the war working under contract at Columbia University for the OSS and later the US Navy as a PidginEnglish instructor for troops heading to the South Pacific (Yans-McLaughlin 1986a: 197). His next post was as the “secretary of the Morale Committee” (Yans-McLaughlin 1986a:200). Finally, he served as a civilian “member of a forward intelligence u[n]it in the Arakan mountains of Burma from 1944 to 1945” (Bateson 1944).


Bateson spent much of his wartime duty designing and carrying out “black propaganda” radio broadcasts from remote, secret locations in Burma and Thailand (Lipset 1980:174), and also worked in China, India, and Ceylon (Yans-McLaughlin 1986a:202). The term “black propaganda” simply refers to a technique whereby an individual or group pretends to represent the positions of their enemy, and mixes a preponderance of facts with a careful seasoning of disinformation that will portray the enemy in a negative light. In this work Bateson applied the principles of his theory of schismogenesis to help foster disorder among the enemy.


[He] helped to operate an allied radio station that pretended to be an official Japanese station: it undermined Japanese propaganda by following the official Japanese line but exaggerating it (Mabee 1987:8).


Carleton Mabee noted that,

“Even though both Mead and Bateson were disturbed by the use of deceit in psychological warfare, Mead was not as upset by it as Bateson was. During the war and after, the naturally optimistic Mead never lost her basic faith that science, if responsibly applied, could contribute to solving the practical problems of society, whereas Bateson, more pessimistic by nature, and deeply upset by his wartime experience, emphasized that applying science to society was inherently dangerous, and that the most useful role of science was to foster understanding rather than action. These differences between them were reflected in the breakup of their marriage just after the war (Mabee 1987:8).”  ‘”…

Anthropology and counterinsurgency: the strange story of their curious relationship
Military Review, March-April, 2005 by Montgomery McFate http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1


‘… Perhaps the most famous anthropologist who served in the OSS was Gregory Bateson. Bateson, a British citizen, spent many years conducting ethnographic research in New Guinea, the results of which were published in 1936 as Naven. At the beginning of World War II, having failed to find a position with the British War Office, Bateson returned to the United States and was recruited by the OSS, where he served as a civilian member of a forward intelligence unit in the Arakan Mountains of Burma. (29)

In addition to intelligence analysis, Bateson designed and produced "black propaganda" radio broadcasts intended to undermine Japanese propaganda in the Pacific Theater. He found the work distasteful, however, because he believed that truth, especially the unpleasant truth, was healthy. Despite his misgivings about deceitful propaganda, Bateson was a willing and competent operative. In 1945, he volunteered to penetrate deep into enemy territory to attempt the rescue of three OSS agents who had escaped from their Japanese captors. For this service, Bateson was awarded the Pacific Campaign Service Ribbon. (30)


Bateson had remarkable strategic foresight concerning the effect of new technology on warfare. While in the Pacific Theater, he wrote to the legendary director of the OSS, "Wild Bill" Donovan, that the existence of the nuclear bomb would change the nature of conflict, forcing nations to engage in indirect methods of warfare. Bateson recommended to Donovan that the United States not rely on conventional forces for defense but to establish a third agency to employ clandestine operations, economic controls, and psychological pressures in the new warfare. (31) This organization is, of course, now known as the Central Intelligence Agency.


Later in his career, Bateson was allegedly involved with a number of experimental psychological warfare initiatives, including the CIA's Operation MK-Ultra, which conducted mind-control research. It is generally accepted that Bateson "turned on" the Beat poet Allen Ginsberg to LSD at the Mental Research Institute, where Bateson was working on the causes of schizophrenia. (32).’



‘Like her husband, Mead was also involved in the war effort. In addition to producing pamphlets for the Office of War Information, she produced a study for the National Research Council on the cultural food habits of people from different national backgrounds in the United States. She also investigated food distribution as a method of maintaining morale during wartime in the United States. Along with Bateson and Geoffrey Gorer, Mead helped the OSS establish a psychological warfare training unit for the Far East. (34)


Like Bateson, Mead had reservations about the use of deceitful propaganda, believing that such methods have "terrible possibilities of backfiring." Mead's larger concern, however, was the "tremendous amount of resentment" against using anthropological insights during the war. In particular, she noted that using anthropologists to advise advisers is ineffective; to be useful, anthropologists must work directly with policymakers.’”

 ‘ Bateson had long been interested in structuralist or systems approaches, as evidenced by his ethnography Naven. But during World War II and for years afterward, he and Mead began enunciated their ideas employing a kind of discourse more familiar to engineers and computer scientists. That language was cybernetics.
-(1)- http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/availab ... D_vol2.pdf)’



THE CEREBRAL INHIBITION MEETING: The Beginning of the Macy Conferences.


‘Frank Fremont-Smith (1895–1974) was an American administrator, executive with the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, president of British General Rees's World Federation of Mental Health, known together with Lawrence K. Frank as motivators of the Macy conferences[1], and as promotor for interdisciplinary conferences as platforms for advancing knowledge.

Fremont-Smith was familiar with what would become cybernetics' prehistory, because of his involvement in the 1930s in an informal conversational network around neurophysiology and the work of Walter Cannon on homeostasis.[1]


A second initiative he organized in the 1940s was a meeting about "physiological mechanisms underlying the phenomena of conditioned reflexes and hypnosis as related to the problem of cerebral inhibition." [3] This socalled "Cerebral Inhibition Meeting" was sponsored by the Josiah Macy Foundation attended by scientists like Gregory Bateson, and Margaret Mead, and five others. Together they would initiated the Cybernetics Group. Among its members this group was as called the "Man-Machine Project". Other participants were Warren McCulloch, Arturo Rosenblueth, Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, and Lawrence K. Frank. According to Steinberg (2000) "Rosenblueth, a protégé of Norbert Wiener, set out the broad parameters of the proposed effort.


Between 1946 and 1953 Fremont-Smith worked as Medical Director in the Macy Foundation, when ten Macy Conferences were a set of meetings of scholars from various disciplines held to discuss "Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanisms in Biological and Social Systems".[4] It was one of the first organized studies of interdisciplinarity, spawning breakthroughs in systems theory and leading to the foundation of what later was to be known as cybernetics. End 1950s he was among the first members of the Society for General Systems Research.


In 1959 Frank Fremont-Smith, as head of the Macy foundation, was the organizer of the first ever held conferences on LSD. ’- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Fremont-Smith -


Harold Alexander Abramson (Nov 27, 1899 – September 1980) was a U.S. Allergist who played a significant role in CIA's MKULTRA program to investigate the military applications of LSD.


In 1953 Abramson proposed an $85,000 study to the CIA on the effects of LSD on unwitting hospital patients. This was the same year that the MKULTRA program was established. Funding for the project was funneled through the Macy Foundation. Abramson was notably the attending physician in connection with the notorious (and allegedly LSD-induced) supposed suicide of Frank Olson, a doctor who was being given LSD as part of the CIA's psychedelics research.


He is said to be the person who influenced many members of the Cybernetics Group to turn to LSD, including Frank Fremont-Smith, head of the Macy foundation. (The Cybernetics Group, originally named The Conference on Feedback Mechanisms in Biology and the Social Sciences, was started in 1946).
’ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Alexander_Abramson -

‘The Macy Conferences were a set of meetings of scholars from various disciplines held in New York by the initiative of Warren McCulloch and the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation from 1946 to 1953. The principal purpose of these series of conferences was to set the foundations for a general science of the workings of the human mind. [1]


It was one of the first organized studies of interdisciplinarity, spawning breakthroughs in systems theory, cybernetics, and what later became known as cognitive science.


Some of the researchers present at the conferences later went on to do extensive government funded research on the psychological effects of LSD, and its potential as a tool for interrogation and psychological manipulation in such projects as the CIA's MKULTRA program. ’ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy_conferences -


(below is from an interview with Mead and Bateson)


Gregory Bateson: There was this Macy meeting in what, ’42? 1

SB: Who started it, and what was it about?

Bateson: This was a meeting called ‘Cerebral Inhibition,’ which in fact was a meeting on hypnosis.* ‘Cerebral inhibition’ was a respectable word for hypnosis. Most of what was said about ‘feedback’ was said over lunch.

Mead: Well, I know that’s what you always tell people, but I didn’t sit at the same place at lunch, and I heard what was said at that conference. But at that conference, which is the one where Milton Erickson hypnotised that Yale psychologist, it was at the end of that conference that you really had the design of what needed to be done. And then you were caught up in war work and went overseas and there was that long period.

I think that you actually have to go back to that earlier meeting that was held in the basement of the old Psycho-Analytic building on the West Side the day of Pearl Harbor.’ - http://www.oikos.org/forgod.htm -


‘Though largely of interest to mathematicians, engineers, and new “scientists” in the field of computing, Mead, Bateson, and their mutual friend psychologist Larry Frank, played an integral role in the growth and direction of cybernetics in its earliest years, with Frank serving as the link to Macy Foundation funding.11  After the War, the founding group of like-minded thinkers—Frank, Bateson, Mead, Rosenblueth, Wiener, and Bigelow—continued to meet with an expanded “core” of enthusiasts including: mathematicians John von Neumann and Walter Pitts, neurobiologists Warren McCulloch and W. Ross Ashby, and Viennese engineer Heinz von Foerster. Though he was not in a settled academic position in the States, Bateson provided the impetus for the well-known series of Macy-funded cybernetics meetings that commenced in March 1946 in New York City’s Beekman Hotel.12 The commitment to broad social applications of cybernetics that he shared with Mead and Frank colored the spirit of the first few proceedings.


Deutero-learning, or learning to learn, did not originate with Bateson any more than cybernetics. If anything, he imbibed this notion of meta-learning in conversations with Larry Frank even before WWII.30 However, over the late 1940s, Bateson added deutero-learning to the psychological work of another Macy conference participant, father of social psychology Kurt Lewin, and stirred these concepts together with cybernetic tools of analysis.31 At Langley-Porter, Bateson, together with Jurgen Ruesch, crafted an elegant theory of dual-level communication.32 Bateson applied this model of communication first to a theory of play.33 Then, beginning in 1952, Bateson and his new colleagues at the Palo Alto VA Hospital began developing a cybernetic model of schizophrenia. In 1954, Bateson successfully applied to the Rockefeller Foundation for a grant to assemble a multi-disciplinary team to study schizophrenia as a mental disease arising from errors in inter-personal communication between parent and child. His collaboration with Jay Haley and John Weakland on the one hand and Don D. Jackson on the other, attacking the seemingly insuperable problems presented by schizophrenic patients, led to the kind of high-profile professional recognition for Bateson that he simultaneously cherished and loathed’… - http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/availab ... D_vol2.pdf -


THE MACY CONFERENCES: The Core Group


‘…Though citation of the Macy Foundation explains the source of werewithal for the cybernetics group's conferences, one might still wonder about the source of interest and even enthusiasm that caused this medical foundation to sponsor something not often associated with medicine per se. This motivation can be attributed to two persons - Lawrence K. Frank and Frank Fremont-Smith.


In the late 1930's Frank had been a senior executive with the Macy Foundation, where he was a friend and mentor to Fremont-Smith. Frank's longtime interests included child development, and he is often considered to be the godfather of the American child development field.
At the time the cybernetics group coalesced, he was what we'd now call a 'free-floating consultant'. Frank was no stranger to cybernetics' prehistory. He'd been intrigued by Walter Cannon's 1929 writings on 'homeostasis' and how this concept might pertain to child development. His role in the rise of American social science was significant, though perhaps his most important contributions pertained to fostering programs and careers. [/]At the time of the first cybernetics meetings, Frank and his longtime friend Margaret Mead represented a formidable social science contingent. [/b]


One of the careers Frank fostered was that of Frank Fremont-Smith, who by the 1940's was the head of the Macy Foundation's medical office. Fremont-Smith's familiarity with cybernetics' prehistory dated back to around 1930, when he helped establish an informal conversational network on subjects such a neurophysiology and Cannon's 'homeostasis'….


It is common to correlate cybernetics' origins with a series of 10 conferences sponsored by the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation from 1946 through 1953. This cursory approach overlooks the fact that those conferences might never have occurred had the key participants not met in a small May 1942 meeting where they first exchanged ideas and generated the enthusiasm which would motivate those later conferences. The title of this meeting, set up by Frank Fremont-Smith, was 'Cerebral Inhibition'. Attendance was by invitation only, and the two topics on the agenda were hypnotism and conditioned reflex. Milton Erickson [(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_H._Erickson )] and Howard Liddell were the featured speakers on these topics, respectively. The planned agenda went well, but it turned out to be merely peripheral to the event's most significant outcome.  The attendees included Lawrence Frank, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, psychiatrist Warren McCulloch, Mexican physiologist Arturo Rosenblueth, and psychiatrist Lawrence Kubie. These 6 people would later become members of the persistent 'core group' for the more famous 'Macy Conferences' (1946 - 1953).


It was Arturo Rosenblueth's presentation of ideas he'd been developing with Norbert Wiener and Julian Bigelow that drew everyone's attention. Rosenblueth outlined a conceptual agenda based on similarities between behaviors of both machines and organisms that were interpretable as being 'goal-directed'. This goal-directedness (long spurned by hard science) was framed in terms of definitive and deterministic 'teleological mechanisms.' 'Teleology' was transformed from philosophical mumbo-jumbo to concrete mechanism through the invocation of 'circular causality' in a system, whereby new behaviors were influenced by 'feedback' deriving from immediately preceding behaviors. This approach allowed one to address apparent purposiveness with reference to the present and the immediate past, without having to invoke references to possible or future events.

Rosenblueth's presentaton resonated with everyone present - most particularly with Bateson and McCulloch, each of whom immediately saw linkages between these new concepts and issues in their respective fields. Mead would later claim she'd been both so excited and so absorbed in the lecture that she didn't noticed she'd broken a tooth.

However, American involvement in WWII was underway, and the various participants were scattered to their wartime duties. For example, Bateson undertook assignments in the Pacific region, while Rosenblueth and McCulloch returned to their research at MIT.


The following year the content of Rosenblueth's presentation was published as:

Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., and J. Bigelow, "Behavior, purpose and teleology", Philosophy of Science, Vol. 10 (1943), pp. 18 - 24. – (this most influential work can be found here http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Books/Wiener-teleology.pdf )


As soon as the war ended, Bateson contacted Fremont-Smith, pushing for some sort of conference to follow up on the concepts from the 1942 meeting. As it turned out, McCulloch had already been pushing for the same thing since immediately after the 1942 event. Fremont-Smith had begun arranging a conference for March 1946 to be chaired by McCulloch. It was originally planned to include scholars from the fields closest to the topics being addressed by McCulloch and his colleague Walter Pitts (biology, neural physiology, and mathematics). However, Fremont-Smith accepted Bateson's recommendation to invite selected people from the social and behavioral sciences as well.


The legendary 'Macy Conferences' were thus set in motion. A total of 10 conferences were held from 1946 through 1953. The first nine were held at the Beekman Hotel in New York City, and the tenth was held in Princeton New Jersey. …


A core group of approximately 20 recurring participants was drawn from engineering, biology (particularly fields dealing with neural systems), medicine, and the social sciences (most particularly psychology). As time went on, some core group members left (or, in Kurt Lewin's case - died) and were replaced by others.
’ - http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundati ... tm#MacySum


Starting in 1946 the ‘core group’ was expanded to include many other prominent names


CONFERENCE ATTENDEES - http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundati ... People.htm

The full list of core members is available above, but I find there are quite a few who are particularly notable:


Frank Fremont-Smith – Simultaneously funded and organized the Macy Conferences and the first ‘World Health Organization (WHO) Study Group’ of whom Mead was an integral figure, Money was funneled through the Macy Foundation from the CIA program MK-Ultra to study LSD.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Fremont-Smith , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Alexander_Abramson


Margaret Mead- Worked for and received funding from the O.S.S., Part of the initial ‘Core Group’ of the Macy Conferences. Pivotal figure in the WHO study group.


Gregory Bateson- Worked for and received funding from the O.S.S.,  Husband of Mead , In the original Core group, formulated cybernetic theories of human behavior, figurehead in the Human Potential Movement and New Age psychologies including Hypnosis and Neuro-Linguistic Programming, studied behavior in family systems and formulated communicational theories of mental illness notably the Double bind theory of Schizophrenia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson , viewtopic.php?f=81&t=30423


Arturo Rosenblueth- Co-wrote the influential 1943 paper first presented at the ‘Cerebral Inhibition Meeting’ entitled ‘Behavior, purpose and teleology’, part of the core group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Rosenblueth


Kurt Lewin- Father of social Psychology, Affiliated with Tavistock and the NTL, developer of sensitivity training, pioneer in the study of group dynamics and director at MIT, died 1947. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Lewin , http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/lewinnotes.html ,   viewtopic.php?f=81&t=31447


John von Neumann- Founder of Game Theory, frequent consultant for many large organizations including the CIA and RAND corp who first studied game theory such as ‘The Prisoners Dilemma’, involved in the Manhattan project and the development of the atomic bomb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann


Norbert Weiner- Co-wrote the influential 1943 paper first presented at the ‘Cerebral Inhibition Meeting’ entitled ‘Behavior, purpose and teleology’, Along with other works like ‘1948, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Paris, (Hermann & Cie) & Camb. Mass. (MIT Press)’, and ‘1950, The Human Use of Human Beings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Weiner

… some notable attendees that were not part of the ‘core group’ were:


Erik Erikson- Prominent psychologist who developed theories of psychosocial development and identity formation in children, attended the original WHO study group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Erikson


Leon Festinger- Social psychologist who studied under Kurt Lewin, Famous for advancing studies in Group Dynamics with his theory of Cognitive Dissonance and Social Comparison Theory, professor at group dynamic departments of MIT and University of Michigan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Festinger



THE MACY CONFERENCES AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO)

The reader will notice the organization of the first meetings of the World Health Organization (WHO) coincided precisely with the Macy Conferences and were founded by the same people. Frank Fremont –Smith and Margaret Mead.



The Meetings of the World Health Organization Study Group on the Psychobiological Development of the Child began in 1953. They were chaired by Frank Fremont-Smith, based on his work as part of the Josiah Macy Junior Foundation. According the history reported on the website of the American Society for Cybernetics (http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundati ... tm#MacySum), Freemont-Smith’s mentor at the Macy Foundation was Lawrence K. Frank, considered to be “the godfather of the American child development field.” Frank had been intrigued since the 1930s with the concept of homeostasis, based on a 1929 paper by Walter Cannon, and was close friends with Margaret Mead.


In 1942, Freemont-Smith had organized a meeting on the topic of cerebral inhibition. The invited attendees included Lawrence Frank, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, Warren McCulloch, Arturo Rosenblueth and Lawrence Kubie. These formed the core group of what became the first of the Macy Conferences.


The first Macy Foundation conference, which Fremont-Smith also organized, was called Feedback Mechanisms and Circular Causal Systems in Biological and Social Systems. Between 1946 and 1953, ten meetings were held. In addition to the participants noted above, participants included Ross Ashby, Julian Bigelow, Heinz von Foerster, Ralph Gerard, Molly Harrower, Paul Lazarsfeld, Kurt Lewin, John von Neumann, Walter Pitts, Leonard Savage and Norbert Wiener, and guests including Erik Erikson, Claude Shannon and Talcott Parsons.

These conferences are usually considered to have created the origins of cybernetics, and included a number of people who became part of the general systems theorists
(to be described later.) The influence of these meetings was not restricted to the US, though….


The WHO Study Group


When the WHO Study Group began in 1953, there was a tremendous background of knowledge and prior relations being brought in, which is not noted in the proceedings or other writings. The members for the first meeting, including areas of specialty, were:


• John Bowlby, Psychoanalysis
• Frank Fremont-Smith, Research Promotion
• G. R. Hargreaves, Psychiatry
• Bärbel Inhelder, Psychology
• Konrad Lorenz, Ethology
• Margaret Mead, Cultural Anthropology
• K. A. Melin, Electrophysiology
• Marcel Monnier, Electrophysiology
• Jean Piaget, Psychology
• A. Rémond, Electrophysiology
• R. R. Struthers, Research Promotion
• J. M. Tanner, Human Biology
• William Grey Walter, Electrophysiology
• René Zazzo, Psychology



In addition, three guests were included in this first meeting: J. C. Carothers, Psychiatry; E. E. Krapf, Psychiatry; and, Charles Odier, Psychoanalysis. In the third and fourth meetings, Erik Erikson was included, and in the fourth meeting only, Ludwig von Bertalanffy (Tanner & Inhelder, 1971).


Freemont-Smith acted as the chairman for the meetings, based on his previous work with the Macy Foundation in hosting interdisciplinary conferences. Mead, Grey Walter, and Erikson had all been involved to various degrees with similar meetings and conferences before this, as noted above.



Despite the fact that Bowlby’s report, Maternal Care and Mental Health (1952), was one of two papers which helped to instigate the WHO Study Group (and the other paper, interestingly, being on psychiatric aspects of juvenile delinquency), the meetings in the end were very broadly about child development.
Each meeting was preceded by papers being sent between all participants, and each meeting begun with presentations of papers to introduce ideas for discussion. The first meeting, for instance, included presentations on physical and physiological development of children, the behavior of newborn anencephalics, electroencephalographic development of children, and cross-cultural approaches to child development.” - http://www.isss.org/John_Bowlby_-_Redis ... entist.pdf (interesting doc on Bowlby).........



!!!……. Due to the scope of this project I am going to have to leave this a tad open ended for the time being and finish with some general conclusions…….!!!!!


GENERAL CONCLUSIONS


To examine The Macy Conferences without also analyzing the work done outside of it by the members of the ‘Core Group’ would be in disrespect of the enormous impact it had throughout countless discliplines.  The paper “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology” http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Books/Wiener-teleology.pdf is, without a doubt, a revelation. And there are so many influential figures in their own right, such as Milton Erickson (the most famous hypnotherapist) or Leon Festinger or Von Neumann, who have produced endless volumes held in reverence. But as it concerns the original concept of control of the human mind I find there are two people whos  continued work represent the fundamental scientific core behind what has been progressively called ‘brainwashing, thought reform, and eventually mind control’ as they came from various perspectives. These people are Gregory Bateson and Kurt Lewin.


Ultimately my conclusions are contained in the following links. I hope that What has been presented here on the Macy Conferences sheds light on the importance of Kurt Lewin and Sensitivity Training and Gregory Bateson’s work on the Double Bind in understanding the progression of Mind Control, with particular focus on the Troubled Teen Industry.


Double Bind: Mind control in the TTI – viewtopic.php?f=81&t=30423

Training, Therapy, or Thought reform in the TTI? – viewtopic.php?f=81&t=31447


Thanks to the patient reader –  Awake



65
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Where did "the game" come from ?
« on: January 03, 2011, 08:29:04 PM »
I wouldn’t be surprised if the name ‘the game’ was inspired by Game Theory and it’s classically referred to game The Prisoner’s Dilemma.

...
GAME THEORY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

‘Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is used in the social sciences, most notably in economics, as well as in biology (particularly evolutionary biology and ecology), engineering, political science, international relations, computer science, social psychology, and philosophy. Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, or games, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others (Myerson, 1991).’

‘Von Neumann's work in game theory culminated in the 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. This foundational work contains the method for finding mutually consistent solutions for two-person zero-sum games. During this time period, work on game theory was primarily focused on cooperative game theory, which analyzes optimal strategies for groups of individuals, presuming that they can enforce agreements between them about proper strategies.’

‘In 1950, the first discussion of the prisoner's dilemma appeared, and an experiment was undertaken on this game at the RAND corporation.’

...

THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

‘The prisoner's dilemma is a fundamental problem in game theory that demonstrates why two people might not cooperate even if it is in both their best interests to do so. It was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence payoffs and gave it the "prisoner's dilemma" name (Poundstone, 1992).

A classic example of the prisoner's dilemma (PD) is presented as follows:

“Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?”

If we assume that each player cares only about minimizing his or her own time in jail, then the prisoner's dilemma forms a non-zero-sum game in which two players may each either cooperate with or defect from (betray) the other player. In this game, as in most game theory, the only concern of each individual player (prisoner) is maximizing his or her own payoff, without any concern for the other player's payoff.’…



Anyways there’s quite a lot on the subject, but that’s my hunch, as far as where the name derived from.  As far as the application of this setting goes I believe that many influences had been developing for some time previously, and I doubt Deiderich himself played much part in the overall creation of ‘the game’. I think he was important simply because he was running the perfect model of the type of organization, Synanon, in which to experiment with group dynamics in ways unfeasible in other areas of society. Synanon was relatively miniscule when compared to many larger interests concerned with sociology, social psychology, which were developing exponentially prior to Synanon. My guess is Deiderich did not find inspiration, inspiration found him.

66
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: THE NARCOTIC FARM
« on: January 02, 2011, 01:18:16 PM »
Well this is all pretty interesting. And Lane and Stallone came to Cedu out of this setting.  Well I have also found several sources that connect the Lexington Narcotic Farm, and the Addiction Research Center, with the mind control program MK-ULTRA. I believe this first article is the most relevant and reputable and is a great companion to the article you posted here Inculcated http://sitemaker.umich.edu/substance.ab ... ID=2487230  coming from the same site. Well worth a full review, just making a particular connection here.


All Roads Lead to Lexington:  The Consolidation of Addiction Research in the U.S. Public Health Service

“The U.S. Congress mandated that research on drug addiction take place in the Porter Bill (1929). That mandate was pursued in the U.S. Public Health Service Narcotics Hospital, also called “The Narcotic Farm” or “Narco,” which was built six miles outside of Lexington, Kentucky (Acker 2002; Campbell 2007; Campbell, et al. 2008). In 1948 when it became one of the first research laboratories in the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the laboratory at Lexington was named the Addiction Research Center (ARC). Research director Harris Isbell and associate director Abraham Wikler were the second generation scientists at the ARC.”

“By 1972 the ARC was the only place where federal prisoners were used as research subjects—although many programs still used state-level prisoners. The ARC had been moved out of the Division of Narcotic Addiction and Drug Abuse (NIMH) and had become part of ADAMHA, the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. Then came two pivotal events on prisoner rights and human subjects research: publicity of the PHS syphilis studies at the Tuskegee Institute in the summer of 1972 and congressional investigation of a CIA-sponsored MK-ULTRA drug research program, in which the ARC participated from 1953-1962.”

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/substance.ab ... /pathway_2



‘Here is a section , from the US Congressional Church Committee Report published in 1975 into MKULTRA, the secret programme run by the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s. It is a stark reminder to those who say ‘ our government would never do that .’

DOCUMENT : FROM THE CHURCH COMMITTEE REPORT
94TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION SENATE REPORT NO 94-755
FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

MK Ultra


MKULTRA was the principal CIA program involving the research and development of chemical and biological agents . It was concerned with the research and development of chemical, biological and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behaviour .’

’ The next phase of the MKULTRA program involved physicians, toxicologists and other specialists in mental, narcotics, and general hospitals and in prisons . Utilizing the products  and findings of the basic human research phase, they conducted intensive tests on human subjects .
One of the first studies was conducted by the National Institue of Mental Health . This study was intended to test various drugs, including hallucinogenics at the NIMH Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky . The “ Lexington Rehabilitation Center ” as it was then called was a prison for drug addicts serving sentences for drug violations .
The test subjects were volunteer prisoners who, after taking a brief physical examination and signing a general consent form were administered hallucinogenic drugs . As a reward for participation in the program, the addicts were provided with the drugs of their addiction .

http://merovee.wordpress.com/2010/09/02 ... ee-report/



The CIA: Covert Action Around the World
excerpted from the book
The Lawless State The crimes of the U.S. Inteligence Agencies
by Morton Halperin, Jerry Berman, Robert Borosage, Christine Marwick Penguin Books, 1976

“The major drug-testing program, known as MKULTRA, began to test volunteers at the Lexington Rehabilitation Center in Kentucky, a hospital for drug addicts.”

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/NSA/C ... ld_LS.html



“One of the first MK-ULTRA funded studies was carried out at the National Institute for Mental Health-Lexington Rehabilitation Center in Kentucky[1]. Addicts were injected with hallucinogenic drugs including LSD, and as a reward were then supplied with their drug of addiction[1]. Dr. Harris Isbell a member of the FDA's Advisory Committee on the Abuse of Depressant and Stimulant Drugs was on the CIA payroll. He carried out extensive CIA funded studies without consent on inmates at the Addiction Research Center of the US Public Health Service Hospital in Lexington[1][1]. CIA documents describe experiments conducted by Isbell in patients (nearly all black) who were given LSD for more than seventy-five consecutive days[1].”

http://www.thejabberwock.org/wiki/index ... ming_Names


67
Open Free for All / Re: What Gifts are you giving this year fornits?
« on: December 17, 2010, 09:14:36 PM »
So this is probably the craziest present I will ever give. I am giving someone an electronic cigarette/ vapor cigarette this year. I quit smoking a few years ago, but I tried one and thought it really was very close to the real thing. I really thought it was better in alot of ways, (not just healthier) that's the only reason I went for it. Anyone else tried these things?


.

68
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Kids in Program Credible?
« on: December 08, 2010, 08:02:18 PM »
@ Whooter. I found myself feeling interested in some comments of yours saying  that today’s programs don’t contain the same kind of ‘brainwashing’ tactics (I prefer the term thought reform for certain reasons) and abuses that they did 30 yrs ago in programs like Seed and Straight.

But along with abusive programs like the Seed and Straight you have included Cedu in your list of program models you think have been sufficiently removed from the program mainstream, yet Cedu closed in 2005. 5 yrs ago is not a long time. May I ask what it is about Cedu that makes you personally consider it abusive?


.

69
Open Free for All / Re: What Gifts are you giving this year fornits?
« on: December 08, 2010, 07:56:26 PM »
Flange oil, I do that every year. Any other good suggestions floating around out there? How bout a gift certificate to skip the holidays NEXT year! ...eh?


.

70
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Kids in Program Credible?
« on: December 01, 2010, 10:08:06 PM »
@ Whooter. I found myself feeling interested in some comments of yours saying  that today’s programs don’t contain the same kind of ‘brainwashing’ tactics (I prefer the term thought reform for certain reasons) and abuses that they did 30 yrs ago in programs like Seed and Straight.

But along with abusive programs like the Seed and Straight you have included Cedu in your list of program models you think have been sufficiently removed from the program mainstream, yet Cedu closed in 2005. 5 yrs ago is not a long time. May I ask what it is about Cedu that makes you personally consider it abusive?

.

71
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Kids in Program Credible?
« on: December 01, 2010, 12:34:02 PM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Awake"
Quote from: "Awake"
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Awake"
I’m not sure I understand. You were in the middle of insinuating someone might not be open minded enough and ‘lack the bandwidth’ to understand how individual techniques of thought reform and mind control could be abusive. Then you make a specific example out of hypnosis in that regard. Now you are saying not only do you not have any idea whether you believe using hypnosis can be abusive, but you don’t know what it is?

I didnt insinuate that anyone lacked the bandwidth to understand mind control techniques.  At least I dont think I did.

Speaking to Heretik I stated:
Quote
..... you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.


Why did you cut your own single sentence quote short? This is what you really said.

Quote from: "Whooter"
I think that it is possible it is because you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.  



.



Have you had enough time to think of what your answer is here? You're not trying to avoid it are you?


.
Wow, you are picky here Awake.  I went back to look at our conversation and you asked why I stated someone lacked the bandwidth to understand techniques of mindcontrol and thought reform.  As I reviewed my comments I found that I did not insinuate that, I was stating Heretik may lack the bandwidth to follow Awakes and my conversation.  To point this out to you I segmented the part where I stated this specifically without pasting the rest.  I find it easier to read if I cut and paste just the comment itself.  Another approach is to cut and paste the entire post and then hi-light the area in question.  I just chose the earlier one.

Here is another way I could have communicated the same thing:

Quote
Heretik, Why just step in and attack me like that? I think that it is possible it is because you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation. I have made an honest effort in answering Awakes question and I think she has responded well to my requests without resorting to attacking me. I have noticed that you struggle with conversations which involve critical thinking and as a result you resort to attacking and labeling people which is apparent in this post to me and that is why I have rarely engaged you in conversation here on fornits.

Do you see what I mean?  They both accomplish the same thing but the first one is easier to follow in my opinion and gets my point across with less words.
.


Actually I asked why you Insinuated someone didn’t have the bandwidth to understand techniques of mind control and thought reform and then went on to example hypnosis and scare tactics, and then said you only have a laymans knowledge concerning hypnosis.

You may mistake being picky for being diligent in this case, I could understand if this is uncomfortable for you though. I want to get to the truth about abuse in programs and I think those kinds of inconsistencies get overlooked all too often. And, I still don’t understand. You aren’t insinuating anything by your statement above?

Do you think you are making insinuations with these comments you made to Heretik in the very same post?  I don’t know the history you and Heretik have together, but just because emotional arguments arise doesn’t mean someone is closed minded or lacks knowledge.  Sometimes emotions are valid Whooter. I know you don’t like to show yours, but it wouldn’t be a bad thing if you did.


Quote from: "Whooter"
If you could step back and open your mind a little what you will see that I am saying is that submerging an individual into brainwashing or mind control (as they are defined by the use of them on POW’s in North Korea) is in my opinion abusive. Using individual techniques which were developed during this process may not necessarily be abusive whatever they are. For example Hypnosis is not abusive if the person chooses it. If a person is removed from a harmful environment then this isolation from these people would not be considered abusive either. Scare tactics is another technique that could be used and not be abusive. So just to name a few it seems clear that there is room for discussion in an area in which you have closed your mind off to (too bad for you).

Heretik if you look at your input in this thread you will notice that you have avoided any discussion and as a result of your lack of knowledge you resort to an emotional argument among other strategies to protect your closed mind. If this works for you then that is fine you can leave the discussion up to myself and Awake and if at any point you feel threatened again or feel the need to purge then feel free to jump in and attack me anytime you like, I can take it because I care much more for the truth than I do about what people, like yourself, think about me.



Well, I guess hypnosis appears to be too unfamiliar a subject to be commenting on at this point, so we’ll leave it for later. But how about scare tactics? When does the use of scare tactics become abusive in the TTI to you Whooter?

.

72
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Kids in Program Credible?
« on: December 01, 2010, 10:43:57 AM »
Quote from: "Awake"
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Awake"
I’m not sure I understand. You were in the middle of insinuating someone might not be open minded enough and ‘lack the bandwidth’ to understand how individual techniques of thought reform and mind control could be abusive. Then you make a specific example out of hypnosis in that regard. Now you are saying not only do you not have any idea whether you believe using hypnosis can be abusive, but you don’t know what it is?

I didnt insinuate that anyone lacked the bandwidth to understand mind control techniques.  At least I dont think I did.

Speaking to Heretik I stated:
Quote
..... you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.


Why did you cut your own single sentence quote short? This is what you really said.

Quote from: "Whooter"
I think that it is possible it is because you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.  



.



Have you had enough time to think of what your answer is here? You're not trying to avoid it are you?


.

73
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Education about forced therapy
« on: November 30, 2010, 06:43:22 PM »
Whooter, you want to talk about everyone and everything but YOURSELF. I understand  that is a good way to hide from yourself, but this is a place for you to work on your issues.  Step out of your square! What’s the harm in that? What would happen if you were to open up a little bit and let us know what kind of person Whooter really is?

.

74
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Kids in Program Credible?
« on: November 30, 2010, 05:29:10 PM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Awake"
I’m not sure I understand. You were in the middle of insinuating someone might not be open minded enough and ‘lack the bandwidth’ to understand how individual techniques of thought reform and mind control could be abusive. Then you make a specific example out of hypnosis in that regard. Now you are saying not only do you not have any idea whether you believe using hypnosis can be abusive, but you don’t know what it is?

I didnt insinuate that anyone lacked the bandwidth to understand mind control techniques.  At least I dont think I did.

Speaking to Heretik I stated:
Quote
..... you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.


Why did you cut your own single sentence quote short? This is what you really said.

Quote from: "Whooter"
I think that it is possible it is because you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.  


.

75
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Kids in Program Credible?
« on: November 30, 2010, 04:33:25 PM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Awake"
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Awake"
Quote from: "Whooter"
For example Hypnosis is not abusive if the person chooses it.


Interesting that you would focus in on that. Is hypnosis abusive if the person doesn't choose it?

.

Hmmm.  That would be an interesting discussion.  I brought that up originally because it is part of the mind control / brainwashing process.



...

Yes, I believe that’s what you were elaborating on.  How were you defining hypnosis as you were referring to it there?

.

I didnt intend to define it, awake, I was just indicating that it was part of the whole brainwashing process.


I’m not sure I understand. You were in the middle of insinuating someone might not be open minded enough and ‘lack the bandwidth’ to understand how individual techniques of thought reform and mind control could be abusive. Then you make a specific example out of hypnosis in that regard. Now you are saying not only do you not have any idea whether you believe using hypnosis can be abusive, but you don’t know what it is?

.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 28