Wikipedia:Peer review/Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control[edit]

Toolbox

* Further information

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… previously been a WP:DYK and WP:GA, looking for input to improve it further in quality.

Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be easier to say something definitive if I had actually read the book. As it is, I'd just like to express a bit of discomfort with the article. Being a behavioral neuroscientist myself, I don't feel that our current understanding of brain function sheds much light on how brainwashing would work or whether it is possible -- purely psychological experiments by people like Philip Zimbardo are more informative. The article conveys an impression that the book accomplishes more than it possibly could, in my opinion. I would like to see it be more restrained in its praise of the book. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
How so? Could you be more specific? Cirt (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Again it makes me nervous to comment without having read the book, but I have a sense that the criticisms in the Le Fanu review are probably accurate and could be explained at greater length and placed in a more prominent position. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay will do, thank you. :) Cirt (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Better? Cirt (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cirt. I am not an expert on the subject matter and I haven't read the book but I will give my input. Can the below techniques be expanded upon? Perhaps giving some examples.

Taylor asserts that the techniques used by cults to influence others are similar to those used by other social groups, and compares similar totalitarian aspects of cults and communist societies.[9] These techniques include isolating the individual and controlling their access to information, challenging their belief structure and creating doubt, and repeating messages in a pressurized environment.[14]

Is this only in relation to cults and communism? Does she talk about other groups or even individuals (eg psychopaths in relationships) doing this? Does she talk about withholding key facts or truths, telling half truths to confuse or convince the victim(s) of falsehoods etc? I would like to read more about what she says about psychological tactics and effects used by people who brainwash. Perhaps she does not elaborate and focuses on neurology.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a great article, a very good read and a fascinating albeit disturbing subject that the book covers. Good job on your work to this article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind comments on the article. I'd have to say that for Contents, when possible, I like to rely on secondary sources to makeup that subsection, so as to avoid WP:OR. In articles where there may not be an availability of secondary sources that describe that info, for example if there are no secondary sources that go into detail summarizing the entire plot of a fictional book, I generally summarize it myself or work with multiple editors to do so. But in this case, fortunately there were enough secondary sources to use. :) Cirt (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes you can't just summarise from the book, for FA ugh. :( I am not used to editing articles on books. :) Not to worry, it was only a suggestion and I don't think that it will get in the way of this article reaching FA status.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Will begin a lookthrough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

brings the point across - sound like she's already convinced the reader. I think "proposes" is a better verb here.
I am surprised there is no link somehow to Stockholm syndrome, either in the book or criticism.
In fact, it really needs some critique by a psychologist or psychiatrist in a peer-reviewed journal or other. The lay reviews are okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talkcontribs)
Okay, I will strive to find more reviews of this nature. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)