Should allegations of abuse made by active cult members be dismissed out of hand?

Some people seem to think so. I have been accused of being some kind of monster by people on alt.religion.scientology for believing that there was something to the allegation being made by Rosa Erlich that her ex-husband had physically abused her, even though her ex-husband freely admitted that he had. This is anti-cult fanaticism at its very worst. If someone fights a cult, they are automatically innocent and anyone who dares challenge them gets trashed.

Why is it that people who fight Scientology, in the eyes of certain anti-Scientologists, are automatically given a free pass of being exempt from being held accountable and anyone who does gets called "the lowest of the low".

Where does this leave people when they actually are being abused by anti-cultists and are not believed? If we look back at history, we can see that there were people who allege they were abused by deprogrammers, as Ginger Z reported in a presentation she was finally allowed to do at ICSA a few years ago. Before that, she reports, no one would listen to her and she was dismissed as a cultist. This kind of black and white thinking that cultists always lie and anti-cultists are always good and tell the truth is very dangerous and can give abusive personalities carte blanch to do whatever they please.

Even if an anti-cult star admits to spousal abuse, as Dennis has, they are given a pass that oh well, nobody's perfect and we all make mistakes. Yes, I would be the first to admit that we all make mistakes but we do not all batter our partners. Not even most Scientologists do that. The recent allegations of violence reported by Marty Rathbun involved men beating up on other men, not their spouses.

Monica

Dennis Erlich and the Freedom of Mind List Serv

Until last week, I considered the deletion of the now-defunct Freedom of Mind (FOM) list serv a dead issue and was more than happy to let it go and move on. However, Dennis Erlich's recent postings containing misinformation to alt.religion.scientology have changed all that and so, hopefully just this one more time, as the year 2009 begins to draw to a close, I am going to post here, for the record, what actually occurred where Dennis was concerned, as it was his behavior that was the "last straw" for the list getting deleted. Some of Dennis' most loyal followers are now erecting straw man arguments, saying I am doing this because I cannot tolerate disagreement, when nothing could be further from the truth. This is not about Dennis' disagreeing with me. I am fine with that. What I am not fine with is his abusive behavior towards me. I am also going to demonstrate how Dennis has a long-standing pattern of abusive behavior. I do this, not to be vindictive, but rather, to set the record straight about the behavior of a person who is claiming to have a spiritual calling and help people. He may very well be helping some people, but I think people seeking his help have the right to know these things. His abusive behavior towards me is yet another illustration of his continuing pattern of blaming the target of abuse, rather than recognizing that there are times when innocent people do get abused that did nothing to deserve it.

When Dennis came barging onto the ARS thread, resurrecting this issue, he chose to broach this topic at the worst possible time. Just provide the background, the original posting on the thread was one where a cultist had falsely claimed that I had invented and was promoting a quack device, and used Florida State University's name in connection with it. I pointed out to the individual that he had now libeled not only, me, but FSU. Dennis then jumped in on a discussion where an anonymous member (or perhaps leader) of a therapy cult I have been exposing for practicing dangerous, abusive therapies with children that have no evidence for safety and efficacy, was attacking me. Behaving as he did while he was in the Sea Org, the Reverend Dennis Erlich jumped in on the thread and not only brought up the whole FOM issue, but also stated that I had "pulled in" the attacks from the therapy cultist. Way to go, Reverend Erlich (his Reverend by his own admission, is still registered as a Scientology minister and has been since 1969).

Even though Dennis claims he has disavowed all of Scientology's teachings his behavior and statements about his beliefs that people who are activists against abusive therapies "pulling in" the attacks, show us otherwise. In Scientology, there is no such thing as a victim, not ever. People who have bad things happen to them, it is believed, had them happen because they had done something bad to other people. Scientology calls this the overt-motivator sequence and it is similar to the law of karma, as he later tried to rephrase it. However, both, from my point of view, are magical thinking and quite cruel when applied to situations such as starving children in Africa born into poverty and people who were victimized by crimes who in no way were responsible -- or, people who are activists going up against abusive pseudoscientific therapies who get libeled and attacked for doing so. This, however, is the magical belief system Dennis still subscribes to when he wrote, regarding the attacks on me. He asserted that my motive was craving attention and then proceeded to misrepresent what happened on the now defunct FOM list:

So for her lame defense, first she threatened the moderator of the board that if I was allowed to post there, the moderator was going to get into serious legal trouble because I was under a gag order.

However, that is not what actually occurred and in rebuttal, I posted a statement from the FOM list owner and moderator to set the record straight [see below]. Dennis also went on, in true Scientology Sea Org style, profanity and all, to assert that I "pulled in" my attackers

I bet she has done the same kind of disinfo campaigns to others who are less able to defend themselves. Now she complains that it is being done to her. Boofuckinghoo. If there ever were a use for scieno-babble, it's pretty obvious she "pulled in" her current flea-brained tormenters. She loves seeing her name in the topic, and claiming to be the victim of bullying.

Observe the subtle twist Erlich engages in here, along with the Scientology language. I was not claiming to be the "victim" of his bullying. I was the target, but he does not have that kind of power to victimize me. I was calling him out on his bullying behavior. Later, he attempted to backpedal and say it was the law of karma, but either way this is magical thinking. Some people just seem to be natural personality fits for the Sea Org, and Dennis, 25+ years after leaving it shows this attitude, in my opinion. He posted nothing for months about the FOM fiasco and apparently waited until the most opportune time to come on and attack me.

In my opinion, Dennis Erlich was a bully in the Sea Org and continues to be one to this very day with the same patterns of behavior. Then, if I object and stand up for myself, he attempts to portray me as some kind of whining victim who "pulled it in". This is classic behavior, not only for an abusive cultist but also for batterers who try to turn the tables on the partners they batter. To anticipate another objection I'm likely to get, I'm not saying that Dennis' verbal abuse on list servs and on ARS is as bad as his physically violent behavior towards Rosa. However, it is known that most batterers of his ilk are not only physically abusive, there is verbal abuse that goes along with it and that is what I am pointing out here.While fortunately, I have never been in that situation with Dennis, his ex-wife attested in an affidavit that Dennis himself posted, that he had hit her and he admitted that he indeed had, in a point by point response to the Declartion of Rosa Erlich at this link, a posting made by Erlich in March, 1995 his ex-wife, Rosa stated:

27. There were several instances when Dennis abused me, one time in 1977, we were in our bedroom and something made him mad and while I was laying on our bed he sat on me and hit me in the face. Another time in 1982, I asked him a question and he got very upset at me, grabbed me by the hair, he threw me across the room, I flew across the room and while I was cowering, he grabbed me by the hair again, threw me in the bathroom, I was cornered in the shower, he hit me across the face and I felt like he broke my jaw. I was in my first trimester of pregnancy with his child at the time and he knew I was pregnant. Shortly thereafter we moved to Colorado and he convinced me to get an abortion.

To be fair, I include Dennis' response to Rosa's serious allegations where he admits he did hit her [note again, that this is from a document publicly posted at the above link, so I am not revealing anything not already made public by Dennis himself]. He wrote:

Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and get sent to the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about wanting to leave Flag. I was another person back then. I am truely ashamed of what I did. Not mostly because I hit you. Certainly that. But mainly because I did it in front of Holly and Bethy. I'm sorry. Can you forgive me?

He says he was "another person" then, when he allegedly hit her after she was talking about wanting to leave Flag (Scientology's headquarters) but his continued verbal abuse right up the present really makes me wonder. It sounds to me as if he is claiming to have been a victim of Scientology, but I have to say that the entire time I was in Scientology I never saw or heard of anyone battering their spouse, so if Scientology did not have that kind of impact on most people who were in it, we have to wonder what people like Dennis brought to the situation in terms of his own personality traits. I am making no claim that Rosa Erlich is the "font of truth" but one thing she was telling the truth about, by Dennis' own admission, is the fact that he was physically violent with her at least one of the times was while she was pregnant.

To set the record straight, here is Cathleen Mann's statement that she gave me permission to post, about what occurred with Dennis Erlich on the FOM list serv. I also want to note, before posting this, that Steve Hassan, in our reconciliation session, sincerely apologized to me for his behavior in bringing Dennis onto the list, which in retrospect, he realized was a major mistake. He said he had no idea Dennis would behave so badly and we both agreed that he had taken on his Scientology SO personality (although unlike some ex-SO members who became decent people after leaving, Dennis has remained abusive). Here is Dr. Mann's statement:

Dennis's behavior on the FOM list, at the behest and encouragement of Steve Hassan, was one of the last straws that prompted me, the real owner of the listserv, to delete the whole listserv, which I did in January, 2009. Steve Hassan liked to claim it was "his" list, but in reality he did nothing to contribute to the list other than occasionally use it as an advertising venue or to appropriate posts without permission. I no longer associate with or support Steve Hassan, and this is one of the many reasons. He asked Dennis to come on the list specifically to attack Monica, and Steve was a coward in not representing himself. Dennis was the perfect bulldog -- attacking, ad hominen all the time, arrogant, and very vulgar and sexist. I was glad to be rid of him. I am sorry Steve Hassan has such a person as a friend, which shows me he has very poor judgment in this area. Monica attempted to defend herself and Dennis was the epitome of an angry, hateful person. I am so glad I don't have to deal with him or Steve Hassan ever again.

Cathleen Mann

Again, I note that Steve Hassan has had the decency to apologize to me for bringing Dennis onto the FOM list serv and I have forgiven him. I post this, not as an attack on Steve, but rather, to set the record straight about Dennis' misrepresentations. Dennis himself later posted an e-mail from Cathleen Mann as what he considered the "proof" that I had threatened her, but nowhere in her statement did she ever mention any kind of threat. All she wrote to him is that I was the one who made her aware of Dennis' legal situation. I had simply pointed out to her that he had a settlement with the CofS, I did not know what it was and that would need to ask him about it if she wanted to know whether it involved any restrictions on discussing Scientology. I said I did not know, but Dennis somehow took this as a threat. The letter also shows that I am not the only one who perceives his behavior as that of a bully.

And finally, here is Dennis Erlich's statement made in a posting to the FOM list serv in January, 2009, where he admits that he is still registered with the State of California as a Scientology minister and has been since 1969 [this was after a member of the FOM list serv politely noted that he was confused and asked him to clarify his status and state what sort of seminary and religious tradition he came from]. I admit that I don't know what the legal ramifications are of someone who remains registered with the state as a minister in a religion they long ago disavowed. For all I know it might be perfectly legal, but in my opinion, it is deceptive and unethical. An honest person would have contacted the state and withdrawn their minister's registration or replaced it with another that more accurately represented their current religious beliefs, but not Dennis. Here is his statement:
I'm sorry, you are confused. I thought it was clear that I was
originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology.
As far as the "sanctioning agency" back in those days ministers were required to register with the State of California, which I did. After I walked away I didn't withdrawn my registration, so I am still on file in Sacramento that way.

Please be advised that I will welcome constructive comments on this post, whether they are in agreement with me or not. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. What I will not welcome and do have a problem with are ad hominem attacks and gratuitous personal smears. Dennis Erlich is somewhat of a sacred cow with some people, so I am not surprised that I have already received hate mail about this posting for daring to challenge him. Note that I have posted his own words here, so if you have a problem with this, take it up with him.

Update: December 13, 2009
Here is how Erlich has responded regarding hitting Rosa, showing he appears to have little, if any remorse [no further comments are necessary, these words speak for themselves]

There's plenty I've already admitted.
Speaking of which, striking my wife when she was preggers ... this was her big secret from me at the time. She had stopped taking birth control and gotten pregnant against my explicit wishes. I certainly didn't know at the time. But she was displaying serious "mistwithold" manifestations, "dramatizing heavily" and a bunch of other phenomena confirming our mutual, and exclusive insanities at that time.

The Dark Side of Milton Erickson

Milton Erickson has become a highly revered figure among certain anti-cult activists.

I wonder if such activists are aware of the following method, recommended by Erickson in a journal article in 1962:

Erickson, M. H. (1962). The identification of a secure reality. Family Process, 1(2), 294-303.

Erickson’s methods had no research in the form of well designed controlled studies, to support them. His typical style of presentation was telling detailed clinical anecdotes, and being the great story teller he was makes this one all the more horrifying. In this article, he presents a case of an 8 year old boy who was combative, defiant and having serious behavior problems in spite of his mother’s repeated attempts to discipline. Finally, the exasperated mother took the boy to see Erickson and followed his advice. The following weekend, the boy was engaging in his usual oppositional behavior, demanding breakfast from his mother. The mother carried out the following, as instructed by Erickson [later in the article he makes it crystal clear that these were his instructions she was following – he emphasized how she needed to put her full weight on the boy]:

Erickson, 1962, p. 296-297 [Please note that I am properly citing and quoting this because some true AT believers have tried to have things removed from other websites with bogus charges of copyright violations. This is fair use.]:

His mother merely smiled at him, seized him, and threw him quickly to the floor on his stomach and sat her full weight upon him. When he yelled at her to get off, she replied mildly that she had already eaten breakfast and she had nothing to do except try to think about ways to change his behavior. However, she pointed out that she was certain she did not know any way, therefore it would all be up to him.

The boy struggled furiously against the odds of his mother’s weight, strength, and watchful dexterity. He yelled, screamed, shouted profanity and obscenities, sobbed and finally promised piteously always to be a good boy. His mother answered that the promise did not mean anything because she had not yet figured out how to change his behavior. This evoked yet another fit of rage from him which finally ceased and was followed by his urgent plea to go to the bathroom. His mother explained gently that she had not finished her thinking; she offered him a towel to mop up so he would not get too wet. This elicited another wild bit of struggling which soon exhausted him.

He goes on to describe how the mom, while sitting on the boy, chatted on the phone, ate fruit and drank coffee. She allowed the boy to get up and go to the bathroom once during the torture (p. 297):

Shortly before noon the boy politely told her he really did need to go to the bathroom. She confessed a similar need. She explained that it would be possible if he would agree to return, resume his position on the floor, and let her sit down comfortably upon him. After some tears, he consented. . . .After over five hours, Joe surrendered by stating simply and abjectly that he would do anything and everything she told him to do. Her mother replied just as simply and earnestly that her thinking had been in vain; she just did not know what to tell him to do. He burst into tears at this but shortly, sobbing, he told her he knew what to do. She replied mildly that she was very glad of this but she did not think he had had enough time to think long enough about it. Perhaps another hour or so of thinking about it might help.

After another hour, the mom finally let him go, after she finished reading her book chapter, but the sadistic behavior of the mom, as advised by Erickson, continued and she deprived him of all his meals for an entire day (p. 297).

With the chapter finally finished, the mother got up and so did Joe. He timidly asked for something to eat. His mother explained in laborious detail that it was too late for lunch, that breakfast was always eaten before lunch, and that it was too late to serve breakfast. She suggested instead that he have a drink of ice water and a comfortable rest in bed for the remainder of the afternoon.

Erickson then goes on to describe how Joe awakened to odors of dinner being served, but his mother would not allow him to have dinner because “it was customary first to eat breakfast and then lunch and then dinner.” He had missed breakfast and lunch, so now he would have to miss dinner. He was not allowed to eat until the next day. The next morning. The whole family had pancakes and sausages the next morning except for Joe, who was made to eat only oatmeal. Later for lunch, he was only given “cold, thick sliced oatmeal” and for the evening meal was only allowed leftovers.

Erickson described how he “educated” the mother: p. 298-299:

The education of Joe’s mother to enable her to deal with her son’s problem by following out the instructions was a rather difficult task. She was a college graduate, a highly intelligent woman with a background of social and community interests and responsibilities. . . The mother’s apparently justified statement that her weight of one hundred and fifty pounds was much to great to permit putting it fully on the body of an eight your old child was a major factor in winning the mother’s full cooperation. At first this argument was carefully evaded [I assume he means that he, Erickson evaded it].”

He finally managed to manipulate the mom into agreeing to carry out his instructions, against her common sense objection about her weight on the boy. At the end of the article, Erickson brags about how Joe became unquestioning about whatever he wanted.

He also noted: p. 303:

Joe is not the only patient on whom this type of therapy has been employed. Over the years, there have been a number of comparable instances, some almost identical.

Erickson’s work had no controlled studies to support it and this rather chilling anecdote makes me wonder just what his goal was. It looks to me like it was to have been a boy who would be unquestioningly obedient. This “cure” may have been worse than the problem itself if it produced a mindlessly obedient child. What sort of message does this send? Is this what people fighting cults want to endorse? How ironic.

The article is eerily reminiscent of the writings of many AT proponents who had very similar advice about parenting children with behavior problems and alleged “attachment disorders”.
For instance, there is this quote from AT parenting "coach" Nancy Thomas quoted on a website exposing AT abuse:

I have had instances where a kid is so out of control that they refuse to stay. When that happens, I will sit on the child. I have had to do this with dogs as well, and they are generally more dangerous with their teeth and claws than children. … I pick a good book and read while I sit on a child and that really seems to upset them because they feel that I should be miserable like they are. ---Bonding & Attachment Workshop (Chatsworth, CA: Foster Care & Adoptive Community,Online Training Program, nd, 2 parts) [material currently available for CEUs]

I wonder if Nancy got this idea from Milton.

I found out about this 1962 article through Jean Mercer who had mentioned Erickson on her blog. I asked her for the reference, she gave it to me and I was able to obtain a hard copy of the article, which I reference above. Although I have read worse in commercially published books on AT, this is by far the most horrendous article in a professional journal I have ever read. Google Milton Erickson and you’ll find pretty much all positive accounts. I have to wonder how many people actually read his writings and were aware of what he actually did. This shows how far abuse of children in the name of mental health practices dates back. I regret that abuse and torture are about the only words I can think of to describe this published work. Knowing now what happened to Candace Newmaker in 2000, who was smothered to death when several adults put their full weight on her while she was wrapped a blanket, I have to wonder if Erickson's influence may have played a role although of course they took this procedure to much more of an extreme. Some mental health professionals today would like to turn a blind eye to all of this and say it is in the past, and to mention it is mere "sensationalism" but is it realistic to believe that all this would just suddenly go away? While hopefully there is now more awareness about such abusive practices, I hardly think that is a realistic point of view to think that and to slam anyone who tries to mention it as being "sensationalistic". No, some of us are not so willing to sweep all this under the rug.

Is Scientology Really the Worst Cult Ever? A myth Resurfaces

The myth that Scientology is the worst cult ever has recently resurfaced in the form of an interview given by one of the people who was instrumental in starting this myth in the first place. In an interview with Rush PR News, one of the authors of the book, Snapping, Jim Siegelman, made the pronouncement that:

Siegelman and his wife have studied cults for over 20 years. He contends that Scientology has the worst long term effects. “People who come out of this group report to us very high levels of amnesia, memory loss, of insomnia, of disorientation, of hallucinations and delusions, of perceptions of bewildering psychic experiences that will plague them…for up to 12 years after they leave the group.”

In the way of background, Conway has a PhD in Communications and Siegelman has an undergraduate degree in Philosophy from Harvard. Neither have mental health degrees. But I am not contesting this with an argument from authority. Here are the substantive problems I have with their assertions:

Just what is this assertion based on? Conway & Siegelman conducted a study nearly 30 years ago, using a convenience sample of former cult members. This study was never published in any peer reviewed journal; it was published in a popular science magazine Science Digest and later in their book Snapping. Besides being nearly 30 years old, the sampling methods of this study, as well as the author's lack of valid assessment measures for mental health problems claimed, precludes any such conclusion being made.

Although they describe the survey study as "sweeping" in their book, the study actually consisted of 353 (out of 1000 invited to participate) participants who were all former members of cults, recruited into the study mostly from anti-cult organizations, deprogrammers, therapists and the like. The sample consisted of ex-members from 48 different cults. Only 33 were Ex-Scientologists. They report they got more detailed information from 98 participants, so the number of ex-Scns in that group would have been even smaller.

But there are even more fundamental problems with this study. The sample was drawn from people who had been in contact with organizations that fought cults or people who were in therapy for their cult experience, who would likely be more dissatisfied and perhaps suffering more than those who did not contact such organizations or seek help.

73% of the participants were deprogrammed out of their cults, but 75% of the sample of ex-Scientologists had walked out on their own and later contacted anti-cult organizations.
How were the symptoms assessed for? By the self-report of the respondents. That is not to discount self-reports entirely, but the fact is that we do not know if any of the symptoms reported reached diagnosable levels. For instance, many people might describe themselves as feeling "depressed" but that doesn't mean that they suffer from clinical depression. A recognized assessment such as the Beck Depression Inventory would need to be used in order to determine that.

Perhaps the most ludicrous assertion is that people who were in Scientology suffered from "amnesia". Tell that to people like Margery Wakefield, John Duignan, and the many other ex-Scientologists who have written and videoed very detailed accounts of their time in Scientology and those details were often being told of events that had transpired 20-30 years ago. Here is a 16 part YouTube series of Duignan's detailed recollections over the past 22 years and he is not unusual at all. Duignan's account is particularly interesting, though, because in his book he reports that he had a history of problems with dissociation before he ever got involved in Scientology and he reported classic symptoms of dissociation while he was in. If anyone would be amnestic, according to dissociative disorders theories, he would, and yet this did not seem to impact his ability to recall with great detail his experience, as the YouTube videos and his book illustrate.

While nobody's memory is perfect and all such accounts are fallible, one thing the many people who have come forward with detailed accounts (many more than were in the aforementioned study) are not is amnestic. Apparently, Conway and Siegelman are not aware of all the literature that has accumulated throughout the 90s and 2000s, that discredits the myth that people who suffer from trauma have amnesia. Trauma is usually very well remembered, although another problem with this is that not everyone in cults suffered from events that could be classified as "trauma" per the DSM definition of PTSD. People in cults might very well be like what has been discovered in recent studies about people who suffered the milder forms of sexual abuse as children: at the time they experienced the events, they did not feel upset or traumatized. It was only after the experiences when they came to have a different understanding of them, that they then, in retrospect felt traumatized. Some children do not understand that they were being subject to abuse at the time it happened, but later come to fully realize the horror of what was done to them. Many people in groups considered to be cults, might actually feel euphoric at the time they are having the experiences but later after they get out, view the experiences as abusive. But that's another topic.

What was the basis for their conclusion that ex-Scientologists suffer from amnesia? Here is a quote from Snapping that gives us some clue as to how they came to this:

A woman emerged from the Church of Scientology with near-total amnesia: "I woke up in horror and realized that I had been shut off, sleeping mentally, for six and a half years, since the first day of doing the cult exercises." (p. 192)

Near total amnesia? There is no way to know if this person had been speaking metaphorically and there is no report that her memory was ever tested. This is a rather typical report of an ex-member who has read about certain symptoms ex-cult members reportedly suffer from and then describes the experience as being "mentally asleep". Does that mean she couldn't remember if asked to tell about her experiences? This is highly doubtful given that this same person supposedly just responded to their detailed survey about her experiences in the group. If she really blanked out 6 and a half years, that would be highly unusual if not unheard of and would fly in the face of all we now now about memory and trauma. I have known literally thousands of people who have been in Scientology and not once have I ever met anyone with "near total" or even partial amnesia for their experiences (amnesia being the inability to recall experiences, even when cued -- it does not mean the normal kinds of gaps we all have in our experiences or forgetting of details). Was there normal forgetting? Of course. Nobody has perfect recall of everything that goes on in any experience because the mind is not a video recorder.

Another point to keep in mind is that at that time (early 80s), ex-cult members in contact with anti-cult organizations seemed to be feeding off one another, each one telling a horror story that was worse than the next. The social demand characteristics were high, to say the least.
Also, with regard to ex-Scientologists self-reporting the most symptoms that is not surprising. When Scientologists have Scientology/Dianetic auditing, they are trained to report symptoms (pains, sensations, emotions, and attitudes) in detail to their auditor so perhaps the ex-Scientologists were trained to be more acutely aware of symptoms and reporting them than people from other groups.

They then go on to report the results of several later studies. None showed Scientology as being the worst, but they had similar reports of a variety of symptoms. However what they neglect to mention is that this studies were also done on samples of people who had been in contact with anti-cult organizations, a disproportionate number who had been deprogrammed. The studies of Marc Galanter, Eileen Barker, and others which did not use such samples, did not have all these symptoms. Galanter's studies did report negative symptoms but they reported that they had these symptoms before getting involved in the UC, so we cannot say that the symptoms were caused by the UC. Ditto for Eileen Barker's studies, where only a minority of leavers reported any kind of severe symptoms after leaving.

On the Neuroskeptic blog, on another topic, an excellent analogy is provided:

Suppose that I have some eggs. I want to know whether any of the eggs are rotten. So I put all the eggs in some water, because I know that rotten eggs float. Some of the eggs do float, so I suspect that they're rotten. But then I decide that I also want to know the average weight of my eggs . So I take a handful of eggs within easy reach - the ones that happen to be floating - and weigh them.

Obviously, I've made a mistake. I've selected the eggs that weigh the least (the rotten ones) and then weighed them. They're not representative of all my eggs. Obviously, they will be lighter than the average. Obviously.

The "rotten" eggs are the easiest to grab for samples. But in this case, it is even worse than that because Conway and Siegelman did not even have the bowl (namely, a sampling frame) from which to draw the eggs. There is, of course, no "bowl" of ex-cult members and that is one of the limitations that anyone studying ex-cult members has to deal with. This is a limitation that needs to be kept in mind, even with studies that did use larger samples and standardized assessment methods, but with this study, there is no basis whatsoever to say that Scientology is the worst cult, much less proclaim it to the media, nearly 30 years later.

I am NOT being sued for defamation or anything else

To anyone Googling "Monica Pignotti" please read this first. Digg.com has a false story about me that they are refusing to have removed because they seem to feel they have the right to "free speech" even when the so-called "free speech" is incorrect and potentially damaging to my reputation. To set the record straight, I, Monica Pignotti an NOT and have never been sued for defamation and I am NOT under investigation. I and 30 other people were once part of a so-called "racketeering" law suit but that was thrown out of court in 2002 before it ever got started. Someone posted on digg.com that I was being sued for "defamation" and "investigated" in three states and these lies are coming up on Google searches of my name so I am setting the record straight that this is false. All that has happened is that I have received idle threats from people who I criticized on my other blog who had no case against me and knew it. There are no law suits against me and there are no "investigations" because people do not get investigated for expressing opinions, skepticism and asking for evidence. If being a skeptic and asking for evidence was legally actionable, the court rooms would be filled with frivolous law suits.

Inviting versus Effecting Change

Here are some thoughts I have had on Steve Hassan’s Strategic Interaction (SIA) approach. This was taken from another list serv I just posted to, so I have edited it somewhat so I don’t include the other person’s postings in it. Here is what I wrote:

The chapter on Exit Counseling in the book Recovery from Cults written by the Giambalvos, Kevin Garvey and Michael Langone is more than 15 years old, but many of the issues they bring up are still relevant today. They make the distinction between “inviting” vs. “effecting” change. Their model “invites” change whereas Hassan’s model (in his own words that they quoted and criticized) “effects” change.It comes down to how much we think the precondition for the exit counseling to work (the cult member being ready, able and willing to critically evaluate the cult) can and/or should be intentionally influenced by the exit counselor or the family. This also applies to mental health professionals who might very well end up with an active cult member coming to see them. It wouldn’t happen with a Scientologist, but there are other cults that don’t necessarily forbid therapy. The real question is can or should we try to change a person’s readiness to hear what we have to say? If so, what methods is it ethical to use and where should we draw the line? These are difficult questions.

Since that chapter was written, as we’re all aware, Steve Hassan has published a second book, Releasing the Bonds that appears to take this even further and is much more specific on what he sees can be done, often via family members, to influence the person, both before and during an intervention, if an intervention is done. The book is all about how family members and counselors can effect change (whether he uses that word or not, that’s what is being described). He proposes many different ways of doing this, some more questionable than others. The person being intervened on in this way who is an active cult member, of course, has no idea that the family, friends, and others in the person’s life (the “team”) are working with a counselor on a very specific plan to get him out of the cult so there is a complete lack of informed consent on the person’s part. What it comes down to is the belief that the team knows better what is best for the person than the cult member does. The rationale for this is that the cult member has taken on a “cult” personality, but that the real person, deep down really does want out, but again, this is not such an easy rationale to swallow since it is presumptuous to assume that, and what it comes down to is that the team knows better than the person does what the “real person” wants. Does the fact that the family members are doing this rather than the counselor directly resolve the ethical dilemma? I really don’t think so since it is the counselor that is directing things and thus does have a responsibility for what goes on.

The whole theory of dissociation into separate personalities is questionable to begin with and the social psychology concept of role identity is the more parsimonious (simpler -- see Occam’s Razor principle that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually best) explanation. Whether we’re in a cult or not, we all take on different roles in our life and we might seem like very different people in those roles. For example, someone who is both a CEO and a father might look like a very different person in the tough, demanding CEO role than he might be as a gentle, caring father. Is this dissociation? No, it is a normal function of social role identity. However, by Hassan’s model (and others as well), the cult experience is medicalized and the person is basically given a diagnosis of a dissociative “disorder” by virtue of the fact he/she is in a group that is considered a cult. That kind of diagnosis is difficult enough under normal circumstances where the person can be directly interviewed, but it is even more problematic in the case of a cult member who usually is not being directly interviewed/examined by the SIA counselor who is working with the team members instead.

The assumption here is that because the person is in a cult, he/she automatically has this so-called “cult” personality, so the usual structured interview that is considered the “gold standard” for diagnosing this disorder is not done and cannot be done. The DD diagnosis is a big generalization and assumption to be making, based on a theory and second-hand reports of the person’s behavior. This is especially problematic since even the “gold standard” and the diagnosis itself has been called into question by some highly respected psychologists, even if everything is done properly. When it is done Hassan’s way with his assumptions, it becomes even more problematic. The implicit premise here is that because the person is involved in a cult, the person is mentally incompetent to make good decisions for him/herself and thus the team must decide what is best, and that means covert tactics to lead the person into “change and growth”, and of course the assumption is that positive change and growth leads to leaving the cult. Even though Hassan insists that is not the goal, let’s get real, it is what the family members want or they would not have paid Hassan all that money for consultation. According to Hassan, the “cult personality” has taken over and is in control, limiting the person’s free will.

Getting back to the SIA approach and the techniques used, these can vary from simple things like having family members talk about other cults or parallel experiences to the cult to more controversial tactics such as using techniques Hassan learned in the Moonies to match their thinking, feeling, doing or believing personality style (see p. 289 – it is not explicitly mentioned on that page that this is a Moonie technique, but there is a footnote that leads to p. 355 where he explains he first learned this in the Moonies). So again, we have the question of whether it works and is it ethical. It appears to work for some people, although the Moonies have a very high failure rate since the overwhelming majority of people they attempt to recruit do turn them down (see Barker’s study – even though there are people who disagree with her, few would dispute that cult recruiters have a high failure rate, especially at that initial stage). Still, one could argue that the team members know the person much better than a recruiter stranger would and thus might have more of a chance of success. But then, that raises the question of whether it is ethical to do the same thing cultists are doing to influence the person without his/her consent?

Also, when looking at these two models for exit counseling (the Giambalvo’s and their colleagues educational vs. Hassan’s mental health) we’re talking about whether it is a good idea to medicalize the cult issue. Hassan (and some others) operate on the assumption that cult members have a mental disorder induced by the cult. Is that a helpful assumption? That (the issue of medicalization of cult issues – both during and post cult) is going to be one of the issues my co-author and I plan to discuss in the presentation we have planned for the Denver ICSA conference.

Response from an Anti-Scientologist

On my other blog, I just received an irate response from an anti-Scientologist. I repost it here because it is a good example of some of the fallacies engaged in. I'm not suggesting that all anti-Scientologists are this way but I have seen more than one instance where this sort of attitude is displayed by over-zealous anti-Scientology activists, eager to pounce at the first sign anyone in Scientology has died. She writes:

The only thing you are apparently professional about, Ms. Pignotti, is lying. There are plenty of documented cases that illustrate how the scientology cult works to withhold medical care from its parishioners. Here are just a few examples: http://www.tampabay.com/news/article976561.ece
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cultxpt
Why you continue to alter the facts about scientology is beyond me. When real people die, such as Lisa McPherson, Kyle Brennan and Jett Travolta, these are not "anecdotal stories", but actual cases of neglect and abuse. In the end when the cult of scientology is exposed and punished for lives damaged, abused and even lost, you will be exposed for what you really are, an ignorant debunker of the truth.

My response:

Ms. Zell appears to have missed my point, which is that generalizations from cases such as Lisa McPherson are not necessarily warranted because we do not have nearly enough information about Jett Travolta's death to jump to the kinds of conclusions she jumps to.
Ms. Zell apparently has the lay use of the word "anecdote" confused with the way the word is used by social scientists. An anecdote, in the way I am using the term, doesn't mean that the incident did not happen. Have a look at the Wikipedia article on "anecdotal evidence" for a better understanding, Elizabeth. There are two definitions of the term and I am using the second one:
"(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence."
Ms. Zell and other overly-zealous anti-Scientologists are deducing unwarranted conclusions in this manner.
What happened to Lisa McPherson is not necessarily comparable to what happened to Jett Travolta. Her posting is a prime example of how anti-cult activists quickly jump to unwarranted conclusions in the face of very little evidence. I have not denied that there are any "documented cases". My point is that what happened with Lisa McPherson is a completely different situation from what happened with Jett Travolta.
On the contrary, Elizabeth, I am not "altering facts". I am awaiting facts, noting what facts we simply do not have and may never have and refraining from jumping to unfounded conclusions, something you apparently, in your zeal for a cause, are incapable of doing.

Observe how Ms. Zell has already made up her mind what the truth is about Jett Travolta, thus I am a "liar" from her perspective. At the end of the day, I agree with Harvard Psychology Professor Richard McNally who wrote that the best form of advocacy is to discover the facts about an issue, rather than attempting to turn an "ought" into an "is". We do not know the facts about what happened with Jett Travolta.

"Symptom Lists can be Powerful Things"

As one self-proclaimed cult expert's website states, "symptom lists can be powerful things". Indeed they can, although not in the sense that particular website author means it. Symptom checklists such as the one presented on that website are notorious for leading people into believing they have syndromes that lack good research support. A well-known example of this were the checklists published that supposedly indicated people had repressed memories of sexual abuse, which were laundry lists of symptoms that just about anybody could be experiencing for a variety of reasons. For example, people with weight problems were told that this meant they had repressed memories of sexual abuse, ignoring the many other reasons a person might have a weight problem. People who had such symptoms were then subjected to years and years of therapy that may have ended up doing them more harm than good.

Something similar is occurring with the alleged "post-cult syndrome" where a wide variety of symptoms that could have a number of possible causes are attributed to an ex-cult member's past cult experience. There is no solid evidence for such a "syndrome" and I would highly recommend that the therapy consumer beware of websites claiming such and posting lists of symptoms, repeatedly offering an icon for people to click on, claiming that help starts by contacting the therapist.

There is no good evidence that most people who have been in cults need specialized "post cult" therapy which has become a cottage industry for certain ex-cult members. First of all, such symptoms can be the product of suggestion. As someone who walked out of Scientology, I never had some of the symptoms such as "floating" because I walked out on my own and didn't go anywhere near any anti-cult organization for 12 years and thus never knew I was supposed to "float". Later when I participated in research and took the Dissociative Experiences Scale, I scored very low on it meaning I do not have dissociative symptoms (although even a high score on the DES does not necessarily mean the person has a clinical problem with dissociation). Granted, this is an anecdote, but so are the reported experiences of people who claim to be suffering from this "syndrome". There are anecdotes of people who have suffered greatly and anecdotes of people who have done just fine without therapy and have not had such symptoms. However, the studies done have all too often focused on the people who were exposed to descriptions of post cult "syndrome" and were seeking help -- a very biased sample that did not include people who did not know about the "syndrome".

The claims therapists make about so many people having these symptoms are based mainly on people who seek out their help for their cult experience. How about the many people who did not seek therapy, who felt no need to do so and are doing just fine? We don't hear about those people because therapists never see them. The problem now is that people who are walking out of groups on their own and surfing the web could be influenced by the websites suggesting all these symptoms and I am concerned that these checklists could become self-fulfilling prophecies, just as the checklists for repressed memories of sexual abuse were for so many people in the 1990s.

The other possibility is that people could be actually experiencing those symptoms for reasons that have nothing to do with the cult experience. The average age of onset for a number of disorders is late teens, early 20s, which is the same time many people get involved in cults (although of course there are others who get involved at a much older age). If the person's cult experience coincides with the onset of symptoms, we cannot say that the cult caused it. The person may have developed the symptoms anyway. The only way for people to know is to be assessed by a skilled mental professional who bases his or her practice on actual evidence rather than being mainly focused on unsubstantiated "syndromes". Also beware of people claiming their practice is "evidence-based" who then refer to studies that are published by organizations with a vested interest in the form of therapy, rather than an independent peer-reviewed journal (the blooming cottage industry of "e-therapy" appears to be doing this, hyping benefits that have yet to be independently established by researchers who have nothing to gain financially).

Debunking Hypnosis Myths

Certain anti-cultists buy into some long-debunked myths about hypnosis. Compare this recent posting to this Scientific American article that debunks some of these myths, especially the myth that there is some kind of "trance" state people can be put in where they can be "mind controlled".

Arnie Lerma claims:

Dianetics used MANY covert Hypnosis techniques including The Confusion technique - links on Lermanet.com Exposing the CON index page
And advanced technique for deep trance induction that merely requires that you cause another person to repetitively imagine something (anything) that IS NOT REALLY THERE.

The state of being in a hypnotic trance may also be characterized as extreme relaxation, it is very pleasant, 'floaty' and pain-free... in TR0 we were TRICKED into going into a hypnotic trance while we practiced for hours staying awake and looking alert... what Hubbard told us was "anaten" and "somatics" are all the items listed as the symptoms and/or milestone markers for deepness of trance state.. Ill post the list in a few days...

Consider while reading this the promises AND if they were JUST promises why were they repeated so many times.. Consider Hubbard's choice and use of the word "CLEAR" as a noun, as a future condition promised AND consider its' COMMAND value to the subconscious.....!!

All this is debunked in the recent Scientific American article. A large body of literature on hypnosis has been unable to document any kind of special "trance" state and there is no evidence that hypnosis has this sort of power over people and their so-called "subconscious".

However, instead of looking at current data, Lerma chooses to refer to an outdated 1956 handbook by a science fiction writer, A E Van Vogt that makes all kinds of arbitrary, unsupported assertions, stating them as if they were facts that Lerma appears to uncritically swallow whole. Sounds like someone needs to come up to present time and look at current research. It doesn't require hypnosis or any kind of special "trance" state for the placebo effect to have an impact on someone. In fact, what the much more recent actual research (as opposed to the proclamations of a sci fi writer) have shown is that people respond just as well to suggestions outside of hypnosis as they do under hypnosis. Of course, one trick of the pseudoscientists is to expand the definition of hypnosis so it includes just about everything in life, to it can then be invoked any time they want to show someone was under undue influence of hypnosis.

Although I never brought into some of the more extreme versions Lerma appears to buy into, I once bought into the theory that people are put into a "trance" state during Scientology's TR-0 that makes them more suggestible to whatever else goes on. This was before I became aware of the large body of literature on hypnosis that thankfully, one of the researchers on hypnosis cited in the Scientific American Article, Steven Jay Lynn, made me aware of. I had the opportunity to have a chat with Lynn on this topic and I later read, wrote and published a review of his excellent book on the empirical evidence on hypnosis, entitled Essentials of Clinical Hypnosis: An Evidence-Based Approach. I highly recommend people read this book, along with the Scientific American article to get a more accurate picture of what hypnosis can do and not do.

People might want to take me to task for citing someone such as Lerma who is so easy to refute. However, if one looks at the writings of other self proclaimed cult experts such as Steve Hassan, the claims are not much different. In his books, Hassan has cited the writings of famous proponents of hypnosis such as Milton Erikson, who's work, although it has far more acceptance among certain therapists, really has no more scientific validity than Scientology. Again, Lynn's book refutes much of what is claimed by such "cult experts".

Sanctified Snake Oil

The following passage is from an article entitled "Sanctified Snake Oil": Ideology, Junk Science and Social Work Practice by Susan Sarnoff, published 1999, in the journal Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services. She mentioned nothing whatsoever about cults or "anti-cults in the article, but people can read it and see if it might fit at least some behavior we witness. Quote from p. 397:

THE SNAKE OIL PARADIGM
1. Frame the subject so that it cannot be opposed.
2. Once the issue is defined, stretch the concept as broadly as possible in order to:
a.) Increase the size of the “target” group;
b.) Make the problem appear to be universal;
c.) Make the problem appear to be of crisis proportions.
3. Consider anyone who resists identification with the target group to be “in denial,” in order to:
a.) Define all “sufferers” as in need of “treatment;”
b.) Make treatment seem more effective because many of the treated will not suffer from the problem or will have a mild, easily treatable degree of the problem, and non-improvement can be blamed on denial.
4. Identify “poster children” who “suffer” from the problem but are appealing to the public (e.g., completely innocent and in no way responsible for their circumstances).
5. Use anecdotal evidence (preferably about “poster children”) and single, dramatic cases to publicize the problem.
6. Use biased or “cooked” data — if forced to present any statistical proof of the problem.
7. Confuse goals and processes.
8. Confuse satisfaction with effectiveness.
9. Ignore unintended consequences and never admit that they might emanate from the “solution.”
10. If criticized for any of the above, attack the opponents instead of their positions.
THE SANCTIFICATION PARADIGM MEDIA
1. Write “human interest” stories on single, extreme cases, suggesting that they are “typical” of the problem.
2. Publish statistics without consulting source data or confirming accuracy.
3. Oversimplify complex issues and policies.
4. Publish the results of research studies without discussing the methodology of the research (e.g., samples, controls).
5. “Bury” corrections and retractions in back pages and small print. (Sarnoff, 1997, p. 397)

[there is more about government funding that does not apply to the topic discussed in this blog, as there has been little of that, at least thus far]

There is also a book of the same title. These are points that people who get wrapped up in causes would do well to pay attention to.
Here's another quote from the same article:

Academic Analysis follows where the argument leads, but activism wants only support for a predetermined direction. Academic researchers are intrigued by the structure of arguments whereas activists only want to win them. (J.M. Ellis, 1997, Literature Lost, quoted in the above-article on p. 407)

More food for thought that could explain some of the ongoing differences between academic scholars and anti-cult activists. But the question remains, are anti-cult activists "winning" their arguments in the long run? We also have a statement by Harvard Psychology Professor Richard J. McNally, at the conclusion of his book, Remembering Trauma where he was discussing some of the politics and controversies in the trauma field (p. 285):

Ultimately, the best form of advocacy is a commitment to pursuing the truth about trauma, wherever it may lead us.

That is my motto when it comes to studying the groups known as "cults" or whatever is being advocated for. Reading Professor McNally's book was one of my catalysts for re-thinking this entire issue.

New List Serv: Anti-Cult Controversies

I have just begun a new list serv you are all invited to join called Anti-Cult Controversies. To join, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AntiCultControversies

The Cult Mind Control Narrative: Is it Helpful?

My history on this topic is available for all to see on the Internet, as doing a Google search on my name will reveal. I had an extraordinary experience severing my ties with Scientology, which I have written about elsewhere. Twelve years after leaving, I discovered Steve Hassan’s book, Combatting Cult Mind Control (CCMC). Although I had moved on with my life, I still was unable to find a satisfying explanation for what I went through. I was also still searching for a satisfying career in life and at the time was doing some soul-searching as to what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I happened upon Steve Hassan’s book, CCMC, one day in the bookstore and was so fascinated, I could not put it down. It seemed to explain everything I had gone through, 12 years before in Scientology.

I ended up getting in touch with Steve and we worked together on a number of interventions -- nonforcible ones where the person voluntarily agreed to speak with us.Eventually, I ended up going to graduate school and getting my Masters Degree in Social Work in 1996. The year after receiving my MSW, I ended up getting very involved with Thought Field Therapy (TFT) and became one of its top practitioners. I have written about this at length on my blog and in articles I have published in professional journals, so I will not repeat the details here.

In 2004, I ended up realizing that I had made some serious errors in accepting TFT, that resulted in my discontinuing its practice. At that time I phoned Steve Hassan and told him about this. He immediately responded that I had been under Roger Callahan’s “mind control” and that TFT had been hypnotic. He advised me to get intensive post-cult therapy to deal with my experience with TFT, including going to a residential facility called Wellspring to recover. His concern was very genuine and his intentions were good.

However, I decided not to take his advice. I did not go to Wellspring and did not seek therapy but instead chose to educate myself on evidence-based practice and critical thinking about unfounded therapeutic claims. That is one of the best decisions I have ever made. I thought things through very carefully. I also, through introspection, observed that when I thought about my experience through the lens of Steve's narrative of being a victim of Callahan's alleged "mind control" I felt very upset, anxious and confused, even panicky. Had I gone that way, I'm sure I would have displayed all kinds of "post-cult" symptoms. For all I know, I may have been in "post-cult therapy" for years dealing with those suggested "symptoms". That would have been good for the pocket book of someone promoting such therapy, but probably not so good for my emotional well-being. In contrast, when I looked at the situation from an educational perspective of analyzing where I went wrong and what I needed to know more about, I felt much calmer, empowered and on the road to healing from the entire situation because I learned what my errors were and what I might have done differently. I took responsibility for my mistakes rather than playing the victim of "mind control" role. This might not apply to everyone who has gotten involved with a cult, since in some cases there was deception and nothing the person could have done differently, but it was definitely the case with my experience in TFT. Even in those cases where there was deception, though, I think we need to remain open to the possibility that developing good critical thinking skills might prevent being lured in, at least for some people

It was then that I began to doubt universality of Steve’s theories and explanations of “cult mind control” which to me just did not seem to fit my experience with TFT. Note that there is no evidence that hypnosis even has this kind of power over people and even the idea of a "trance" state is highly controversial, let alone the idea that Roger Callahan was doing anything like that. He most certainly was not. TFT is not “hypnotic”. Although I had plenty of criticism for Roger Callahan, I really could not honestly accuse him of “mind control”.

At the same time I had been reading about narratives people put to symptoms and experiences they found puzzling (for example, people who believe they were abducted by aliens or had multiple personalities, as an explanation for symptoms and other troubles they were having in their life). It dawned on me that the “cult mind control” narrative seems to work that way for people who have had experiences in groups such as Scientology that they could not explain. However, using that narrative to explain my experiences with TFT seemed a real stretch, so I rejected it and even stated that I did not consider it a “cult” and that I took full responsibility for my mistakes. While the "mind control" model, especially if it is defined in terms of undue influence does fit some people's experience with some cults, it is far from as universal as is commonly believed in the anti-cult movement.

I also began to notice how Steve used “cult mind control” and “post-cult syndrome” to explain troubles ex-“cult” members were having in life as well as putting a wide variety of experiences (e.g. my experience with TFT) under the wide umbrella of cult mind control. On his website, he uses a symptom checklist of difficulties ex-cult members may have. I don't mean to single Steve out, as he is not the only one who uses this sort of checklist, which is not unlike the kind of checklists used for repressed memories of sexual abuse, alien abduction, being electronically harassed, and many other claimed explanations for difficulties people have in life. The problem with these kinds of checklists is that the symptoms could have many alternative explanations, yet when someone is caught up in the cult mind control and post-cult syndrome narrative, that person uses it to explain any trouble they are having.

Someone could be away from a “cult” for 30 years, and yet in anti-cult circles, if they exhibit any behavior that anti-cult activists don’t like, it is attribute to their being un-recovered ex-cult members, a label I have had slapped on me whenever I questioned some anti-cult dogma. Recently, one person who had been out of Scientology for 27 years referred to him self as a “recovering ex-cult member.” It seems there is no end to the “recovery’ process for some people and I have to seriously question how healthy that is. I have been called an un-recovered ex-cultist who needs years of intensive therapy by some supporters of Hassan because I dared to challenge some recent statements Steve has made to the press about the death of Jett Travolta.

One point of clarification -- I am not saying that people are never traumatized by their experiences in cults, nor am I saying it is easy to leave cults and adjust to life in the outside world. However, there is a philosophical principle called Occam’s Razor, that the most parsimonious (simplest) explanation for something that fits the facts is usually the correct one.

If people have spent many years in a group that was isolated from society, of course they are going to have culture shock returning to mainstream society, as well as other difficulties, especially if they experienced abuse and trauma. That is very real and I do not mean to minimize anyone’s pain. People in need of therapy after such an experience should by all means seek it out with a competent professional. Rather, my point is that many people leave these groups and begin to attribute every difficulty they are having in life, being told they will need years of therapy to recover, (as Steve Hassan and others have been known to tell people). That is what needs to be challenged and questioned. The studies showing high rates of post-cult symptoms were done with samples of people who had been exposed to anti-cult narratives or people who were having difficulties and sought professional help. Not included in these samples are people who left these groups and did not have such difficulties. Not everyone needs to be in therapy for this. With any kind of trauma, research shows that only a minority go on to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and there is no reason for this to be any different with cults. Moreover, not everyone in cults even experienced trauma.

What concerns me is that people leaving these groups are often confused and seeking explanations for what they just went through and the cult mind control narrative can look very inviting. I just have to question if it is helpful in all cases or if for some people, more harm than good is being done. When people are labeled as having “post-cult syndrome” and needing years of therapy, this could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as it has been for people who have had other sorts of narratives imposed on them. As Richard J. McNally and Susan Clancy found in their research, people who believe they were abducted by aliens, manifested the same physiological signs as Vietnam veterans who had been traumatized in combat. They bought into that narrative (explanation for their troubles) and along with that, came all the very measurable physiological symptoms.

My concern is that, although not as exotic as being abducted by aliens, something similar could be happening with people who are being told they have “post-cult syndrome” and need years of expensive therapy to deal with it. Thus, I would say caveat emptor (buyer beware) when looking at websites of people who advertise so-called post-cult therapy. There is no evidence that this kind of therapy is superior to conventional therapy or even that it does no harm. At this point there is no research on it and we just don't know. It may be very helpful for some individuals, but not for others.

I'm not saying everyone should necessarily stay away from this sort of therapy. It may well be helpful for some people. I am not dismissing it out of hand. What I am saying is be wary of therapists who make unsupported claims of superiority and if you are in this sort of therapy with a self-proclaimed "expert" and you don't seem to be benefiting, you might want to reconsider. There are no good studies on this sort of "therapy," so listen to your gut. If you feel worse after week after week of such therapy, pay attention to that. In general, be very skeptical of therapists who tell you that you have to get/feel worse before you get better. All too often, that is nothing more than a line to keep people in endless therapy they will not benefit from. Undoubtedly there are some who say they have benefited and offer testimonials but we don't usually hear from the ones who did not or perhaps felt worse after the therapy. The same principles that apply to any form of therapy without support apply here. If you have had a troubling experience you cannot explain, it is very tempting to latch onto these kinds of explanations but they can sometimes come at a very high price, both literally in terms of dollars spent, and emotionally.

Purpose of this Blog

Over the past 30+ years, a counter-movement has developed to fight groups classified as destructive cults. A number of people have noted that certain key individuals and others involved in anti-cult activities, have, themselves become quite cult-like in their behaviors. One example would be shouting down anyone who even remotely challenges the cherished beliefs of this movement or in any way attempts to bring balance to discussions on cults. I have been the target of this in recent years when I have challenged certain notions put forth by anti-Scientologists. While I am not a supporter or fan of Scientology, it is my opinion that statements made by anti-Scientologists are often made without any kind of support and deserve to be challenged. I began to write about this topic on another blog I have that explores unsubstantiated claims being made in the mental health profession. As I found myself posting on the topic of certain claims being made by anti-cultists, I began to realize that a new blog exclusively devoted to that topic would be a good idea. Thu, this blog will explore issues surrounding the anti-cult movement, particularly claims being made and their evidence or lack, thereof.