"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).