If most people succumbed when exposed to such techniques we’d see a lot more explosive growth.
This caused me to modify my priors:
“Most cult converts were children of privilege raised by educated parents in suburban homes. Young, healthy, intelligent, and college educated, they could look forward to solid careers and comfortable incomes. Psychologists searched in vain for a prevalence of “authoritarian personalities,” neurotic fears, repressed anger, high anxiety, religious obsession, personality disorders, deviant needs, and other mental pathologies. They likewise failed to find alienation, strained relationships, and poor social skills. In nearly all respects – economically, socially, psychologically – the typical cult converts tested out normal.”
I expected those at risk to be more easily identifiable. If they are not identifiable than the risk of conversion of most people is much higher than I thought.
On the other hand
“Moreover, nearly all those who left cults after weeks, months, or even years of membership showed no sign of physical, mental, or social harm.”
Supports the view that the supposed danger of cults is overblown.
And..
“Stated somewhat more abstractly, the fundamental sociological “law” of conversion asserts that conversion to religious groups almost never occurs unless the recruit develops stronger attachments to members of the group than to non-members. Among other things, the law explains why the establishment of a new religion, cult, or sect almost always begins with the conversion of the founder’s own family members and close friends.11 The law likewise predicts that as long as people remain deeply attached to the social networks of one faith, they rarely ever switch to another faith.”
...does seem to provide some criteria by which you could assess risk to yourself or another individual.
“Most cult converts were children of privilege raised by educated parents in suburban homes. Young, healthy, intelligent, and college educated, they could look forward to solid careers and comfortable incomes. [...] In nearly all respects – economically, socially, psychologically – the typical cult converts tested out normal.”
“Stated somewhat more abstractly, the fundamental sociological “law” of conversion asserts that conversion to religious groups almost never occurs unless the recruit develops stronger attachments to members of the group than to non-members.”
This seems to imply that children of privilege raised by educated parents in suburban homes may tend to be deficient of strong attachments; and that economic, social, and psychological definitions of “normal” are not capable of detecting this?
For example, if some other group G (perhaps children not of privilege not raised by educated parents in suburban homes) has stronger attachments, resulting in members of G having a lower chance of being converted, then we can say they are deficient relative to G. This theory is testable, at least in principle.
OTOH, if no such group G exists, but we want to alter our economic, social, and psychological evaluation such that children we evaluate as normal don’t become cult converts, then this sounds more like a matter of how we define the word “normal” than any kind of statement about the world.
I wonder if there’s a test for how easily people are influenced. If an easily influenced person is in a benign environment, then such a person might do well in life (perhaps better than someone who’s more generally resistant) until they run afoul of a group or an individual that isn’t benign.
If most people succumbed when exposed to such techniques we’d see a lot more explosive growth.
This caused me to modify my priors:
I expected those at risk to be more easily identifiable. If they are not identifiable than the risk of conversion of most people is much higher than I thought.
On the other hand
Supports the view that the supposed danger of cults is overblown.
And..
...does seem to provide some criteria by which you could assess risk to yourself or another individual.
This seems to imply that children of privilege raised by educated parents in suburban homes may tend to be deficient of strong attachments; and that economic, social, and psychological definitions of “normal” are not capable of detecting this?
Deficient relative to what?
For example, if some other group G (perhaps children not of privilege not raised by educated parents in suburban homes) has stronger attachments, resulting in members of G having a lower chance of being converted, then we can say they are deficient relative to G. This theory is testable, at least in principle.
OTOH, if no such group G exists, but we want to alter our economic, social, and psychological evaluation such that children we evaluate as normal don’t become cult converts, then this sounds more like a matter of how we define the word “normal” than any kind of statement about the world.
I wonder if there’s a test for how easily people are influenced. If an easily influenced person is in a benign environment, then such a person might do well in life (perhaps better than someone who’s more generally resistant) until they run afoul of a group or an individual that isn’t benign.