Talk:Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change

Old comments

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Snapping

---

I think the Bromley and Shupe quote would look better if their numbered clauses were formatted as bullet points. Also, a better place for that text is needed. Religious conversion or new religious movement? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's a rather long quote. Maybe it could be summarized?

More importantly, the article seems to have a very differenet definition than that used by the apparent coiner. From the referenced article:

"The first time I lay eyes on a person," he said, staring at us intently, "I can tell if his mind is working or not. Then, as I begin to question him, I can determine exactly how he has been programmed. From then on, it's all a matter of language. It's talking and knowing what to talk about. I start moving his mind, slowly, pushing it with questions, and I watch every move that mind makes. I know everything it is going to do, and when I hit on that one certain point that strikes home, I push it. I stay with that question whether it's about God, the Devil or that person's having rejected his parents. I keep pushing and pushing. I don't let him get around it with the lies he's been told. Then there'll be a minute, a second, when the mind snaps, when the person realizes he's been lied to by the cult and he just snaps out of it. It's like turning on the light in a dark room. They're in an almost unconscious state of mind, and then I switch the mind from unconsciousness to consciousness and it snaps, just like that." [1]

This article says that "snapping" occurs when someone joins a cult, while Ted Patrick also seems to use the word for the initial indoctrination but mostly uses it for the "snapping out of it" phase of deprogramming. Is there a different person who uses the term exclusively for indoctrination? -Willmcw 22:46, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I was thinking more in terms of a toggle switch. If your mind can snap and you are brainwashed into joining, then your mind can snap again and be deprogrammed from it. (I'm using 'brainwash' and 'deprogram' as synonymous metaphors; at work, we speak of "wiping" a computer disk, i.e., erasing all information from it.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right, but the definition in the article gives only half of that. -Willmcw 20:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I could be biased, but I personally don't see any difference between brainwashing someone INTO or OUT OF something. It seems unethical, either way. The pro-deprogramming folks seem to think what THEY do is okay, because it undoing previous damage (they're removing a "program" that was implanted via deception and/or emotional coercion).

So the questions are: (a) are brainwashing and deprogramming the same process (or not); and (b) is one ethically "better" than the other? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:18, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I can't answer those questions, and I don't think that the article needs to either. My point is that whatever the ethics of "brainwashing someone INTO or OUT OF something", this article leads with only one of those:

Snapping is a mental process by which, according to some in the anti-cult movement a recruit is psychologically captured by a "mind control cult". The term was coined in the book of the same name by Conway and Siegelman (see references).

The definition should include the "snapping out of it" definition that Williams gives. I'll go ahead and edit it and see if I can make it include both aspects. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing this article

This article needs serious cleanup and NPOVng.

Despite attempts to distinguish the generations of mind control development, there are no qualitative differences and what was once "brainwashing" became "snapping," which now is "mind control," "coercive persuasion," "menticide," "thought reform," etc. [2]

Either we merge this article with Mind Control or we need to do serious research work to have all voices represented. As written, this article is not NPOV. --Zappaz

The following one (from the same article) is a classic. --Zappaz 23:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geri-Ann Galanti and co-authors Philip Zimbardo and Susan Andersen reflect this change in the recent book, Recovery from Cults, edited by Michael Langone of the American Family Foundation.

Galanti says that mind control (which she equates with brainwashing) "refers to the use of manipulative techniques that are for the most part extremely effective in influencing the behavior of others." These influence techniques work to change our beliefs and attitudes as well; we encouter these pressures constantly "in advertising, in schools, in military basic training, in the media." They are a part of the socialization process, a part of life, Galanti maintains.

Yet when describing her own visit to a Moonie indoctrination center, where contrary to expectations, she was allowed plenty of sleep, food, and to observe horsing around among the Moonies (some even joking about brainwashing!), Galanti concludes: "What I found was completely contrary to my expectations and served to underscore both the power and the subtlety of mind control." While she was there, she felt much of the experience to be a positive one.

Later, Galanti decides that what she really experienced, despite all evidence to the contrary, was an even more seductive, subversive form of mind control than she'd previously imagined could exist. It nearly fooled even her. In short, the lack of evidence for mind control among the Moonies was really evidence for just how insidious their methods of mind control had become! Such argumentation points to the frustrating nature of the belief in mind control; so often evidence offered against the mind control model is mis-used to illustrate how true it must be.

Zappaz, I do not understand the NPOV warning. There are hundreds of theories to explain conversion, like brainwashing, mind control and snapping that differ from each other and should not be lumped together. I do not think that the book Snapping even mentions the unification Church but I have to check. Andries 08:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV warning is pretty obvious. All these theories are the inventions of anti-cultists and apostates, they keep changing the name once one of these theories gets torn to pieces by the scientific community. As it stands, this article refers only to the term as coined by authors in one book, and repeated ad nauseum since then by the anti-cult movement. It is NPOV because it does not say that these theories are not proven and does not present the huge body of critique against this theory. Take 10 minutes and read this: [3] and no, don't call these apologetics... these are actually devout Christians challenging this book and these terms. Thanks. --Zappaz 15:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, make a criticism section but do not lump the different concepts together and also do not treat the anti-cult movement as if they do not have differing opinions about this and other subjects. I think that the term snapping is mainly used in this book. I do not agree that with the authors of that article that the concept of snapping is the same as mind control. Andries 16:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know you don't agree, that does not mean that their critique (an the criticism of a myriad of others scolars that thing the same) cannot go in this article. Also: why did you delete the text that was there, exactly? Please put it back as it is relevant. Thanks .--Zappaz 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about Bronmley's theory. Bromley's theory should go into religious conversion. There is documented criticism of the Snapping theory that belongs here, not competing theories. Andries 17:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So did you delete the text or moved it to Religious conversion? I really hope it was the latter, otherwise please do so. Thanks. You will also need to remove the text that speaks about religion conversion, if this article does not deal with this subject. --Zappaz 20:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not true as you state that the article does not deal with religious conversion: this article treats a theory of religious conversion. I will also remove the NPOV tag, because the article describes the main criticisms of this theory. I forgot unfortunately where I have read these criticisms. Can somebody please help? Andries 17:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Lack of evidence, seen as "evidence"

They've hidden it so well that we're more convinced than ever of its existence:

the lack of evidence for mind control among the Moonies was really evidence for just how insidious their methods of mind control had become

I'm not sure whether this is a valid argument, but the anti-cultists regard it as valid.

Part of it has to do with the bewildering question of why anyone would join such a kooky group anyway. It can't be the doctrine (ridiculous!). It can't be a previous inclination to being religious (my child/friend was never that way, I swear!). Giving up school or career makes no sense. And surely you aren't saying we failed them somehow: we did the best we could. Oh, they were tricked? They're victims of mind control? (I can accept that.)

Any alternative to (a) my way wasn't good enough for the kid, and (b) he voluntarily and of his own free will opted for something better. (Bit of a face-saving strategy, one might say.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:46, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)#

The books has been criticized among others's in Eileen Barker's introduction to NRMs. Please help to expand it. Andries 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Cults template

If it is just a navigational template, and does not imply that the term 'Snapping' is solely related to "cults", then why does it sport the sentence "part of a series on cults"? THe template is misleading, and shouldn't be here. Sfacets 10:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Smee 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

The article about this book, which I have not read, says that it deals with cults as at least part of its major topics. Why is it inappropriate to label the article as having something to do with cults? The effect of removal of the tag is to make it more difficult for people who are looking for information about cults to find this page. Buddhipriya 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

All good points. Template restored. Smee 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Book and concept

Should this article be about the book, which promotes the concept? Or about the concept - which just happens to be described in a certain book? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The book. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice. I remember we worked together on the Tom Cruise book, and you were very patience with my pleas for neutrality and balance. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Incorrect, the article is both about the book and the concept. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Snapping. Besides, it seems difficult to separate the concept from the book. Andries (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, then. How about we call it Snapping (book), a book promoting the concept of sudden conversion or personality change called "snapping"?

I haven't finished reading the book, but the parts I've read are pretty sloppy. Basically, they just assert that snapping occurs. They do not explain how it occurs. The article refers to spiritual abuse and mind control, but is mind control a scientific concept?

Disclaimer: I am a member of a group criticized in the book, so please correct me if I lapse into a preachy defense of my church! :-)

Anyway, I suggest we write neutrally about whether snapping is a real phenomenon. I don't want to make Wikipedia endorse the view that snapping is pseudoscience. Let's just tally up all the experts (and, well non-expert authors) who say snapping is or is not real. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I had already proposed to insert sourced criticism of the book aka concept that can be found in Eileen Barker's book introduction to NRMs. I had inserted unsourced criticism but this was removed. Andries (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether snapping is related to mind control and I hereby request citations for that assertion. Andries (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like it's any more of a scientific concept than "mind control" is. More like a layman's explanation for young adults who make quick decision to change their life - without consulting their parents. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritual Abuse

Big cut:

The lack of documentation on what was and was not a cult is likely because solid data did not yet exist on signs of practices exclusive to spiritually abusive groups; only a few works by Robert Jay Lifton and Margaret Singer had been published, and it would not be until the 1990s that independent studies would show documentable evidence of harm due to practices exclusive to cults (such as later studies showing MBTI personality type changes in members of groups linked with the Shepherding Movement including International Church of Christ and Maranatha Campus Ministries; these studies showed that such practices, and the personality changes, did not occur in non-spiritually abusive groups). As it is, the book is one of the earliest documentations of specific tactics used in groups considered to be potentially abusive.

This is sheer speculation. Where is the evidence of harm due to cults? This paragraph repeatedly says that such evidence exists, but never gives a reference or citation - only links to Wikipedia articles. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, my take is feel free to remove anything that is not cited and seems like WP:OR violation. But please do other users a courtesy (as you just did now, thanks) of moving removed stuff to the talk page, that way others could potentially add stuff back in if/when they add sources/citations. Cirt (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Where is the evidence of harm due to cults?" -- Ed Poor'' . O.K. This is just for your info, as editors, not for inclusion in the article, as it would be OR there. . The "evidence of harm due to cults" varies from cult to cult. There is also a significant difference between the first and second editions of this book, and the definition of "cult" in this book is unique.

With some cults, there is significant documentation of damage done to members and others. The Rajneesh people put bacteria into food in restaurant salad bars to make people sick. The Scientologists stole stationary from Paulette Cooper and used it to mail themselves bomb threats, in an effort to get her convicted of a crime that never happened. Those facts can be found online with s simple "google." There were also mysterious unsolved deaths of Scientologists documented in "The Road to Total Freedom. Numerous cults have been involved with official child molestation. We all know about the people who put poorly concocted sarin nerve gas into the Tokyo subways and the guys in San Diego who castrated themselves to make themselves more acceptable to people in flying saucers. Cults are not necessarily nominal religions.

The problem is, that, in general, calling a group a "cult," by any of various generally accepted definitions, tends to make them seem guilty by (free) association of bad things done by other groups which are also labeled as "cults." Groups like Perfect Liberty Kyodan have never, as far as I know, harmed anyone in any way whatsoever, but could be defined as "cults."

For Dr. Flo Conway and Jim Sigelman, a "cult" is a sect which is in a kind of self-destruct/survival mode of operation. For them, the Branch Davidians became a cult from a combination of outrageous external pressure and leader paranoia. I think they might, very well, call the Moonies a "sect" at this point, rather than a cult.

The word "Snapping" was used by numerous ex-cult members they interviewed, in the sense that "something snapped" both during the conversion process and the deprogramming, if there was a deprogramming. There is no agreed-upon "scientific" explanation, any more than there is an agreed-upon scientific explanation of epistemic concepts in the poetry of Robert Frost. As, perhaps, the only editor on here who has experienced both processes, I was interviewed by the couple when they were working on the first edition of Snapping. I deliberately avoided using the term or describing the experience as I wanted to save it for myself, later. .. I have to go right now. I'll finish this later. Wowest (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Back. O.K. Damage done by cults. Several former followers of Prem Rawat, a/k/a Guru Maharaj Ji, have complained that upon attempting to stop the "meditation" they had been taught by the guru's agents, they found that it took some period of months before their ability to think was restored to normal. For this particular cult, they mention in the second edition that it had one of the most effective mind-control techniques of any cult because they had never met a former member who had not been deprogrammed. I've met several, now, but they were all in the cult for twenty or thirty years before they found their way out.

The way that worked is that the guru was advertising not one, but FOUR techniques of "meditation" completely free of charge. "Meditation" sounds like a good thing, and, in the case of the Quakers, was actually somewhat prestigious. However, to get initiated, you had to ask "sincerely," and the "mahatma" or, later, "initiator" determined when you were sincere enough. To become "sincere," you had to attend indoctrination meetings, called "sat sang." This included "mahatma stories," parables designed to undermine the listener's self-esteem. Once the aspirant was "mind fucked" enough from this process, he was admitted to a "Knowledge session." This frequently involved an experience of "something snapped," as described by the cult casualty.

In this session, he was shown four techniques for meditation upon his own bodily processes, but the way the "meditation" was taught was as concentration, as opposed to "paying bare attention," as in some of the Buddhist techniques. In some (but not all) of the Knowledge sessions, the initiates were told to concentrate on an aspect of their breathing during all waking hours. Subsequently, the new initiates were pressured into living in communal situations. Once in the communal situation, concentrating on their breathing 24/7, they were told to observe how their minds rebelled against this discipline and told that "the mind is Satan." With a certain amount of emotional abuse from other "premies," these new devotees developed a conditioned response of repressing any uncomfortable thoughts or emotions by meditating, and, if necessary, by breathing very deeply. This is, in effect, an unaware state of self-hypnosis. In the premie house or ashram environment, he/she would tend to believe anything he/she was told. In November, 1973, a number of us converged on the Houston Astrodome, expecting 144,000 devotees to show up and to be whisked off the planet (still inside the Astrodome) in a giant mothership while an earthquake destroyed New York City. Only about 20,000 of us showed up. This was disappointing, particularly as we had been told that this was the Second Coming of Jesus -- and, as far as I could tell, all 20,000 of us believed that. . To deprogram a 24/7 devotee of Prem Rawat, it is necessary to get him or her to stop this so-called meditation. This is a two-sided process. To think clearly, you must stop the meditation, and then it takes some time to recover. To see a reason to stop meditating, you need to see through some of the absurd beliefs you have accepted. That's all deprogramming is -- a somewhat confrontational conversation in which you are repeatedly given questions you cannot answer, although your belief system tells you that the guru will tell you what to say. Part of the belief system is that notion that you don't have any beliefs -- that everything you "know" about the Guru is based upon your own experience, which simply is not true. Most of what you "knew" about the Guru was what you heard from other premies or sang in songs while in a state in which you were unable to evaluate the information. . The only other cult I am very aware of is the Tony and Susan Alamo Christian Foundation. They had, essentially, the same racket, but the difference in the mind-control technique is that the converts were persuaded to constantly repeat the phrase "praise you, Jesus, thank you, Jesus" in their minds during all waking hours, and put in fear of what would happen to them if they stopped. This was accomplished by misuse of certain Bible verses. Each convert received a Bible -- King James Version, of course -- with some Hi-Lited passages on every page. Each convert was told that he was only spiritually mature enough to read these Hi-Lited passages, and that the rest of the Bible was for more mature Christians. . Again, to "deprogram" a member, you have to get him/her to stop this unaware "meditation," and think again. Again, the deprogramming technique would be to confront them with the unsanitary living conditions in which the members lived while eating expired food rescued from supermarkets, in contrast with the opulent lifestyle of Tony and Susan, in their brand new house, built by the free labor of their followers, as well as the absurdity of some of their "religious" beliefs, as that Susan was "The handmaiden of the Lord" and that Susan could read their minds (which, according to her daughter, was a lie deliberately propagated to keep the new members in line). . At some point in the deprogramming process, the cult casualty changes perspectives. The "meditation" or "prayer" or whatever the mind-control device is breaks down enough that (s)he can see that (s)he has been believing a lot of nonsense and would be better off without the practice. This tends to come along with a sudden burst of intellectual activity, emotion and, in some cases, sexual arousal. The now-former cultist is now free to think and evaluate his present and former beliefs. Once again, the former cultist tends to describe the process as "something snapped." . Other cults have more subtle "conversion" processes, but isolation, sleep deprivation and diet change are standard. Hare Krishnas and Moonies deliberately feed prospects food which is laced with incredible amounts of sugar to "sugar buzz" them into a mental state in which they cannot think clearly. . So, the term "Snapping" is used by cult casualties as a description of a change of mental state on the way in to the cult, and, again, on the way out (if deprogramming occurs). It very much reflects a change in world view in both situations. A mind-control cult is not necessarily a religion, but in our culture, there are certain survival benefits for such an organization if it calls itself a religion. . Dr. Conway describes the condition of the mind-controlled cult devotee as "information disease," and has done further research (in the second edition of the book), which indicates that the disease, spread by conversation alone, also produces physiological changes. . Questions? Wowest (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kilbourne

An editor added this under the heading "Reception", which I've moved here for discussion:

• A 1983 study by Brock K. Kilbourne, published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion examined Conway and Siegelman claims of deleterious influence from cult affiliation presented in the first edition of their book and concluded that using their reported data, there was no statistical support for their theory of "information disease". Brock found that the only significant correlation in their data, was one that supported a therapeutic view of some cult affiliation.
  • Kilbourne, Brock K., The Conway and Siegelman Claims against Religious Cults: An Assessment of Their Data, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 380-385 Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion

However the data that he is analyzing was published in Conway, Flo and Jim Siegelman 1982 "Information disease: Have cults created a new mental illness?" Science Digest 86-92. If we want to write an article about that article, then thismaterial would certainly be appropriate there. But I don't see how it's relevant to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no competent opinion about that, since I don't have access to the articles. Three related articles were mentioned in the end material of Snapping, second edition, second printing, all available at JSTOR.org, which I don't have access to right now.

However, there are some problems with the lede. "Snapping" comes from the very common ex-cultists' statements "Something snapped (inside me)" in describing both an epiphany/personal paradigm shift on the way into the cult, and again, on the way out again. It's not really a matter of getting "snapped" and "unsnapped." It's a line of demarcation in a process, and, in both directions, it comes with a sense of insight. As someone else said, it is rather like throwing a binary switch. You start out in a state in which the world sucks. You throw the switch and the world no longer sucks, because God is in charge, but you have to give his Messenger/prophet/handmaiden/Avatar or whatever all of your money and live in a commune. You throw the switch again, and you believe that you only held your previous beliefs because your head had been messed with, that the prophet or whatever isn't all that special and that he really SHOULD give your your money back.

The second edition takes the tack that it isn't all about cults, but sometimes occurs in other situations, and, as opposed to what this article states, Dr. Conway and Jim Siegelman DO distinguish "cults" in a unique way. They distinguish "sects" as small splinter groups and "cults" as "sects" which have gone toxic due to a two sided interaction with larger society in which neither the cult nor the larger society trusts the other. For this, they use computer models based upon chaos theory Wowest (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the material is highly relevant, as it addresses a review and critique of the author's main theories as described in the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's not about the book. This article is about the book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A book that expounds their theories, and thus highly relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the Conway-Sieglman paper that appeared in the Science Digest, is used as a source for the book (See footnote 118) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• If there's a source connecting the material in the paper to material in the book then there might be some relevance. Citing the paper once is not sufficient. Footnote 118 in the 2nd edition doesn't mention the paper. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Snapping (2nd ed.) has 357 footnotes and its "selected" bibliography lists 124 books and papers. The "Reviews of sources" section could grow very long. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Editions

The 1995 edition very clearly says "Second Edition" on the cover, on the title page, and on the copyright page. I've modified the text here to reflect that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Check Worldcat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you 100% sure that Dell's was a reprint? Source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the mention of the SPS in that section, as it expands on what content was added and it s pertinent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Dell book wasnt't the 2nd edition because the 2nd edition in 1995 says it's the 2nd edition. There's no need to say that the 2nd edition is self-published twice. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(a) RE: reprint. You are making an assertion of fact based on what information exactly? and (b) I have made a case for why to keep the information about SPS, and you have not provided any arguments resorting to reverting my edit twice. I would appreciate it if you walk the talk, and present arguments besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT, such as There's no need to say that the 2nd edition is self-published twice. My argument is that it is relevant information on that section and that the lead is a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The names of the authors are relevant to that seciton too, as is the title of the book. But we don't repeat those for every new section. This is a short article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Why was the material removed [4]? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the post above. I will respond there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)