I first heard about "deprogramming" around 1974 when I was a 15 year old member of what many considered to be a Christian "cult" (Coniah, San Diego), and we heard some of our members had suffered that process. I was never deprogrammed, but my parents did cut off my contact, and eventually learning physics ended my religious leanings. Here is how
problem aliens do not exist and the globe in the container the eatth is not a ball... i ------ ------ ------ ------ ____ ____ ------ ____------ ________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
At the charity where I volunteer, some researchers come over from the nearest university to offer $20 to my clients if they will give them 30 minutes being a subject in their efforts to improve their interactive computer program that aims to diagnose depression better than the established questionnaires do, in English or in Spanish. I believe these same researchers are involved in improving a computer program to do psychotherapy.
I'm sure it will take time to develop a computer program that could challenge anyone's faith or lack thereof, but why couldn't that be something in the future? Then one could just pay the subject for the subject's time rather than paying however many professional deprogrammers it might take to challenge someone, too. That might make it economically feasible. Maybe even subjects would pay to challenge their own faith or lack thereof.
Of course having watched how stubborn people are about their opinions on the internet, not just atheists and fundamentalists, but all sorts of islands of opinion in between, I'm not sure how effective it would be to deprogram a general population. There are studies of opinions about the death penalty in the US where people who favor the death penalty receive a convincing presentation on why their rationale for their opinion is false. Those subjects just switch to a different rationale, eventually relying on some gut feeling that's hard to prove false.
I've seen the same phenomenon myself in watching creationists dodge the weakness of arguments against evolution. Even when one can be pinned down that the science of their argument is wrong, they just switch to a different argument, equally flawed, but equally time-consuming to demonstrate that. It doesn't matter. I suppose it takes a mature faith to be able to do that in the face of the best non-coercive deprogramming. I'm sure that's true for both theists and atheists.
Maybe it's best just to go after each new generation and not worry about those set in their opinions, if one wants to change others.
The difference between the exit counselors and Ted Patrick seems to be one of commitment, much like what Pavlov worked on for the later years of his life. Pavlov is famous for his work with dogs, bells, and saliva, but his lesser known work with dogs and stress is applicable here. Pavlov spent the last part of his career testing the effects of stress on dogs. He started because one day a flood almost killed all of his dogs that were stuck in their cages. Pavlov found that after experiencing tremendous stress, the dogs stopped behaving like that previously had. Dogs that liked him before didn't anymore, and so on. From Poor Charlie's Almanack (2005):
"[He] spent the rest of his long life giving stress-induced nervous breakdowns to dogs, after which he would try to reverse the breakdowns, all the while keeping careful experimental records. He found (1) that he could classify dogs so as to predict how easily a particular dog would breakdown; (2) that the dogs hardest to break down were also the hardest to retrun to their prebreakdown state; (3) that any dog could be broken down; and (4) that he couldn't reverse a breakdown except by reimposing stress" (pp 435).
The fourth point is especially relevant.
Also, I strongly recommend Charlie Munger's book, especially his tenth talk on the Psychology of Human Misjudgement. Readers of this blog will find it extremely useful.
problem aliens do not exist and the globe in the container the eatth is not a ball... i ------ ------ ------ ------ ____ ____ ------ ____------ ________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
I nominate uploads and time direction for future deprogramming.
Looking at the "long shots", these seem to be the most dubious:
"Billions of years ago, intelligent aliens had a colony near here, but left in a big hurry."
"The growth of humanity and its descendants will stop forever within a thousand years or so."
The Most Interesting Blog Comment I've Ever Read
No offense, Econlog contributors, but it's a reaction to Robin's post on deprogramming at Overcoming Bias: The difference between the...
At the charity where I volunteer, some researchers come over from the nearest university to offer $20 to my clients if they will give them 30 minutes being a subject in their efforts to improve their interactive computer program that aims to diagnose depression better than the established questionnaires do, in English or in Spanish. I believe these same researchers are involved in improving a computer program to do psychotherapy.
I'm sure it will take time to develop a computer program that could challenge anyone's faith or lack thereof, but why couldn't that be something in the future? Then one could just pay the subject for the subject's time rather than paying however many professional deprogrammers it might take to challenge someone, too. That might make it economically feasible. Maybe even subjects would pay to challenge their own faith or lack thereof.
Of course having watched how stubborn people are about their opinions on the internet, not just atheists and fundamentalists, but all sorts of islands of opinion in between, I'm not sure how effective it would be to deprogram a general population. There are studies of opinions about the death penalty in the US where people who favor the death penalty receive a convincing presentation on why their rationale for their opinion is false. Those subjects just switch to a different rationale, eventually relying on some gut feeling that's hard to prove false.
I've seen the same phenomenon myself in watching creationists dodge the weakness of arguments against evolution. Even when one can be pinned down that the science of their argument is wrong, they just switch to a different argument, equally flawed, but equally time-consuming to demonstrate that. It doesn't matter. I suppose it takes a mature faith to be able to do that in the face of the best non-coercive deprogramming. I'm sure that's true for both theists and atheists.
Maybe it's best just to go after each new generation and not worry about those set in their opinions, if one wants to change others.
This is all very nice, but it's not really what I need. How do I deprogram my Orthodox Jewish parents?
Carl, as far as I can tell there are no IHS serminars meeting my criteria; do you know otherwise?
It seems like there's a convenient organization right next door:http://www.theihs.org/semin...
Rcriii, I'd consider one that seemed attractive enough, where my friends could go with me at the same time,
Why not sign up for a 'free' weekend at a retreat paid for by sellers of timeshares?
The difference between the exit counselors and Ted Patrick seems to be one of commitment, much like what Pavlov worked on for the later years of his life. Pavlov is famous for his work with dogs, bells, and saliva, but his lesser known work with dogs and stress is applicable here. Pavlov spent the last part of his career testing the effects of stress on dogs. He started because one day a flood almost killed all of his dogs that were stuck in their cages. Pavlov found that after experiencing tremendous stress, the dogs stopped behaving like that previously had. Dogs that liked him before didn't anymore, and so on. From Poor Charlie's Almanack (2005):
"[He] spent the rest of his long life giving stress-induced nervous breakdowns to dogs, after which he would try to reverse the breakdowns, all the while keeping careful experimental records. He found (1) that he could classify dogs so as to predict how easily a particular dog would breakdown; (2) that the dogs hardest to break down were also the hardest to retrun to their prebreakdown state; (3) that any dog could be broken down; and (4) that he couldn't reverse a breakdown except by reimposing stress" (pp 435).
The fourth point is especially relevant.
Also, I strongly recommend Charlie Munger's book, especially his tenth talk on the Psychology of Human Misjudgement. Readers of this blog will find it extremely useful.