until recently many people had no idea western China has a lot of Muslims. I knew 20 years ago because I worked with a Muslim guy from there. He always said “I’m from China but I am not Chinese” He was able to get out with his family to get his PhD here in the states. If he was there now he might end up in those camps.
How could you NOT know that someone would want a cite for this?
Yeah, it seems that in reality, that part is missing a word…
“Induce someone to give up [professing] basic beliefs.”
As probably the main culprit in derailing this thread into a debate about brainwashing, I’d just like to say thank you for directly addressing the OP with factual information.
(Of course, this reply is itself a bit of a derail with no factual response, for which I apologize.)
I tried the search function, but could only find this thread, and another where the OP asserted something similar.
Aha! Here’s exactly the cite that @gdave will appreciate! Skepdic, the Skeptics Dictionary, has a lengthy article on “mind control”, which he seems to consider synonymous with “brainwashing”, in which he discusses and analyzes a variety of definitions, styles, and techniques of “mind control”, systematically rejecting every one.
http://skepdic.com/mindcont.html
His most basic thesis seems to be that “mind control” must occur without the knowledge or consent of the target. In one of his more extreme cases, he discusses the battered spouse who chooses to stay with that spouse:
A little bit of victim-blaming there, eh?
Well, I mean, yes, I do appreciate it.
Note that Robert Carroll, the author, was a professor of philosophy, so he’s approaching the idea of “mind control” more from a philosophical perspective than a psychological one.
I don’t necessarily agree with every specific assertion and argument in that article, but in the main, yeah, it seems like a pretty fair assessment.
By the way, for those who don’t want to follow the link, here’s the full paragraph where he discusses the battered spouse:
As a whole, it’s a bit more nuanced than the extract Senegoid posted, but, yeah, it does seem to engage in a bit of victim blaming.
Again, though, while I do not agree with all the specific assertions and arguments Carroll makes, I do agree that a battered spouse that stays with their abuser hasn’t been “brainwashed”, at least not by the definition I posted above, or by the definition Carroll is using. Just to be clear, I do not think that victims of domestic abuse are to blame for the abuse, or that they somehow deserve it, or that leaving an abusive relationship is easy. It’s an awful, awful situation.
It should be noted that people are generally all too susceptible to simple suasion, for example, via bullshit they read in the newspaper or hear on teevee. It is not necessary to beat it into them to do a bit of reprogramming; take advertising for example.
Always happy to pitch in!
Did you notice why she was in that camp? Because her grandfather tried to escape to South Korea. Hmm… I think it was Rodney Dangerfield who said that his football team was so rough, after they sacked the quarterback they went after his family.
Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and other tricks would test a person. But I could imagine the grandfather playing right along with whatever the autorities want after seeing several of his family horribly abused. He could pretend they’d broken his spirit, controlled his mind—if that’s what it took to get them to stop torturing and killing his loved ones. There’s the “proof” you can brainwash someone, no matter how mentally strong they are or how much physical pain they can tolerate, etc.
Don’t have a link handy, but I have read about the “5 percent rule”, which is basically that if you remove the 5 percent of the population who have true leadership/alpha male or female capabilities, the remaining 95% barely need supervision.