Law,social science and the “brainwashing” exception to the first amendment

Litigation in the “cult wars” has shifted from “deprograming” cases to civil suits by ex-converts based on “brainwashing” claims, and to criminal defenses claiming incapacity due to cultic brainwashing. Early cases were decided on the basis of first amendment derivations barring judicial inquiries into conversion processes and religious authenticity. In 1988 the California Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception to this doctrine to be applied to circumstances where “coercive persuasion” is combined with concealment of a group's identity. The Court's opinion entailed characterizations of the process and consequences of brainwashing which are problematic from the standpoint of social science. Several key questions must be resolved before brainwashing theories can make a constructive contribution to litigation involving religious groups. These questions relate to broader issues involving the nature, causes and indicators of involuntariness, and the closely related problem of drawing the line or identifying the exact point on a continuum beyond which the means or intensity of indoctrination becomes incapacitating. Although the 1988 California decision did not resolve these issues, they were considered from 1988-91 by several courts making procedural rulings on the admissibility of “expert” testimony on brainwashing/psychologicd coercion. A concluding section relates this legal to the duality of ‘soft’ vs. ‘hard’ determinism in social science.     

Rosser orderings and free variables

It is shown that for arithmetical interpretations that may include free variables it is not the Guaspari-Solovay system R that is arithmetically complete, but their system R ^–. This result is then applied to obtain the nonvalidity of some rules under arithmetical interpretations including free variables, and to show that some principles concerning Rosser orderings with free variables cannot be decided, even if one restricts oneself to usual proof predicates.     

Brainwashing and the persecution of “cults”

While the presence of authoritarian cults in our midst raises a number of social control and law and order issues, current controversies over cults contain substantial elements of mystification. Brainwashing is an inherently subjective metaphor that is used as a rationale for persecuting unpopular movements and defining religious converts as nonautonomous zombies who can be coerced for therapeutic purposes. While coercive persuasion models do have some heuristic value for the analysis of indoctrination in some authoritarian groups, assumptions regarding the alleged destruction of the free will of converts and the status of authoritarian religiosity as a medical pathology are not warranted.     

Comparison of culturally deprived school achievers and underachievers on memory function and perception.

To compare the memory function and perception of culturally deprived achievers with underachievers, 36 culturally deprived children were assigned to one of two groups according to their achievement level, in relation to their age and IQ. Underachievers were children achieving 6 mo. or more below expected level. Achievers were children achieving within at least 5 mo. of expected level. All subjects were between the ages of 8 and 12 yr. and were in Grades 4, 5, or 6. Four tests were administered, the Block Design and Digit Span subtests of the WISC, Memory-for-Designs, and the Minnesota Percepto-Diagnostic Test. The two groups did not differ on the first three tests, but the achievers performed significantly better on the last test than the underachievers. It was speculated that the differences were related to level of motor execution.     

The social epistemologist in search of a position from which to argue

The relevance of Fuller's version of social epistemology to argumentation theory is highlighted, in response to critics who claim that I am not sufficiently critical of the social grounds of knowledge production. Responding to Lyne, I first consider the strengths and weaknesses of relying on economic images to capture the social. Then, I tackle two contrary objections: Brian Baigrie claims social epistemology is not social enough, while Angelo Corlett wonders whether it may be too social. Finally, I counter Malcolm Ashmore, who argues that social epistemology is not sensitive to reflexive implications of its own doctrines. I conclude that a rhetoric needs to be forged that enables those wishing to transform knowledge production to make their case plausibly to those whose behavior needs to be changed most. At the moment, science critics preach to the converted, a fate that the social epistemologist should not wish to share.     

Investigating Relationships Among Distress Tolerance,PTSD Symptom Severity,and Alcohol Use

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment - Exposure to trauma (particularly interpersonal trauma), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and low distress tolerance (DT; the...