Talk:Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism

Criteria
I would like to know if the book states how much each Thought Reform cult adhere to the Eight Criteria to be regarded as a destructive cult. Is one or two sufficient, or should it be more than 4 points? Anyone who knows? Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 19:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness
This article accurately describes the 8 methods, but it fails to address the key issue. How effective are these methods? How many people have been mind controlled with them? Are there "zombies" or "remote control killers" walking around in our midst? Do cults use these methods?

Are governments better at mind control than cults? If so, why? How important is imprisonment as a factor? Can you control someone's mind, and yet avoid capturing or kidnapping them?

Can a volunteer at a seminar be hypnotized, brainwashed, etc. - without even knowing it?

What is the difference between mind control, brainwashing, etc. - and indoctrination, conversion, education, etc.? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

1956 edition
I marked the 1956 edition as dubious, because it does not appear in LOC catalog, and the notice for 1961 edition states this is the 1st one. Herr Satz (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No article on Thought reform in the PRC?
There is a wealth of information on this topic, it's unclear why it hasn't been made into an article? I'll remedy this in a moment. --Asdfg12345 09:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Like this google book search showing a stack. --Asdfg12345 09:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought terminating cliche
Note that the article on this phrase, popularized by this article's subject book, has been merged, essentially en toto, as a section of the article. There are no references cited; one might think refs unnecessary, as the book itself is the source, but the subsequent "popular" use of the phrase deserves its own treatment and context. Dovid (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I merged it so...imo it doesn't. The old article basically had one reference other than Lifton's book (this).  Looking through the Google Books results, I couldn't find much evidence that the phrase was in widespread popular usage or that it had attracted enough attention as a distinct topic from Lifton's book to warrant its own article.Prezbo (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the most complete example of the deleted/merged article. All of the examples have been elided in the merge; any reason not to put them back? --Sstrader (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Is "[t]he Bible says it, I believe it, so that settles it" a good example of a thought terminating cliche? Michaeljpruitt (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rothorpe (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The explanation of the thought-terminating cliche is somewhat hard to follow, I believe an example or two might be rather helpful. The above link to the old merged page has good examples that help readers understand what a thought-terminating cliche is, so at least one or two should be added for extra clarification.--ɱ	 16:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

12-Step Groups
Could someone make a section on how these techniques are used are by 12-step programs, especially AA, please? I don't know how to find sources. Thanks :) jrun (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Read this article by two California Sociologists. They joined AA (pretending to be alcoholics) to answer the question does AA use the same methods outlined by Lifton. "AA The Unseen Cult" http://aacultwatch.co.uk/Documents/AA%20THE%20UNSEEN%20CULT%20Soc63OCR.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt
Regarding the sentence: Hannah Arendt, in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem, describes Adolf Eichmann as an intelligent man using many of these thought-terminating clichés to justify his actions and the role he played in the Holocaust. There are two huge problems with this sentence.

First, there are factual problems that suggest that the author of this sentence has never read Eichmann in Jerusalem. In EiJ, Arendt is quite voluble about, and contemptuous of, Eichmann's lack of intellect, talent, learning, judgement, and perceptiveness, as well as his general ineffectuality in life. This is, to say the least, somewhat at odds with the claim that she portrays him as an intelligent man. Furthermore, nowhere in EiJ does Arendt justify Eichmann's actions as a whole, though she does assert at certain points that he could not possibly have been involved in or responsible for certain specific acts attributed to him, for example because he was known to be elsewhere at the time and/or the actors involved were completely outside his scope of authority. (In at least one case, responsibility would have required Eichmann to be giving orders to Heinrich Himmler[‽‽‽]). She repeatedly makes this point clear; at no time does she feel that Eichmann committed no crime for which he deserved punishment, and at several points she explicitly says that Eichmann deserved to hang.

Second, there is a serious POV problem as well, as the sentence is clearly pushing an Arendt-hostile POV. There are reasons why EiJ is a troubling and disturbing book, and reasons, whatever their worth, why it and Arendt herself have earned opprobrium among Jews, but alleged "thought-terminating clichés", if there even are such (for that we will need a cited source, not a bare assertion) are not large among them. Since this is a page about thought-terminating clichés and not Hannah Arendt, I am tempted to simply edit it out; but I will hold out the possibility that a reputable source may be found for the claim that she employs thought-terminating clichés. We can and should probably find a better example, though. Getheren (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't read the passage in question as saying that Arendt employs thought temrinating cliche's but that she described Eichmann as using them to quell the thought of the larger implications of his actions. "I was just obeyng orders" would be considered a thought terminating cliche for example.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia requires not that we have facts but that we have sources to support those facts...right now we have an assertion of fact, but no source explaining it (is this because the article needs research and improvement or because such a source doesn't exist). Orwell's 1984 is a troubling and disturbing book, too, but it does depict thought-terminating cliché's (TTC) and there are several academic papers discussing the various psychological techniques of dictatorship and propaganda in 1984 and of Newspeak. Are there any reliable sources we can use to expand a discussion on Arendt to establish the usage of TTC's in Arendt, EiJ, and/or historically Eichmann himself? (I do remember histories that discuss Goebbel's and Eichmann's psychological techniques as they did their work).  I have an A.B. in political science and studying a lot of critical theory I don't know any monographs that discuss or analyze a connection between Arendt and TTCs...though it's been a while since I read the literature on Arendt or read EiJ). As for EiJ and Arendt, they're very well regarded in the political science field--despite controversy because polisci is a field filled with controversial voices.  Controversy and inconsistency isn't a grounds for removing material...Freud was inconsistent and controversial, so was Goethe and a thousand others...However, it is, in the interest of WP:NPOV, an invitation to analyze that material and offer competing or critical views (which requires reliable sources). I would prefer not removing the discussion of Arendt because of this. However, if we offer analysis or use Arendt an EiJ as an example without sources, this would smack of original research or synthesis.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, Lifton mentions neither Eichmann nor Arendt, and the best would probably be to remove that example as OR.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If it can be developed as an example without violating OR, I'd be all for keeping it, but the more I reflect on this, it seems discussing a legacy of taking Lifton's theory and applying it to historical (i.e. pre-Lifton) examples would be OR. This, in my estimation, is akin to speculating about famous historical figures having certain medical conditions or ascribing their deaths to one disease or another...like claiming Julius Caesar was a temporal lobe epileptic just because Shakespeare and Suetonius mentioned that he had seizures and "shaking sickness."--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Arend't does say this about Eichmann: "When confronted with situations for which such routine procedures did not exist, he [Eichmann] was helpless, and his cliché-ridden language produced on the stand, as it had evidently done in his official life, a kind of macabre comedy. Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention that all events and facts make by virtue of their existence." Seems probable that they have shared thoughts somehow, either by reading eachother's work or by personal communication.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This book "James Dawes. 2013. Evil Men. Harvard University Press" makes the connection betwen Eichmann, Arendt and Lifton together but does not say outrihgt that Eichmann's cliche ridden language was "thought-terminating cliches".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is some sort of connexion...it is almost obvious--even if indirect or independent of one another. Does Dawes draw a direct connection or is he simply grouping them together because of their similar ideas? I hope there is third-party sources where we can establish a direct connection, a familiarity either of one knowing the others work or a specific correspondence. There is a quandary on how to present this...is it OR if we make those associations in this article without a direct link? or do we summarize it here, and start an article Thought-terminating cliché where perhaps we can cast this as a combination of psychological/sociological theories (Lifton, Arendt and others) on cliché's and modes of utterance in a social context...now, would that be OR?  It is a tricky territory given Wikipedia's policies.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the sentence again, a see that it was sort of a Schrödinger sentence, and I saw the wavefunction collapse differently from some others – there was some ambiguity in the subject of the phrase "using thought-terminating clichés". (Mea culpa.) I see now that a slight alteration of grammar (from "… intelligent man using …" to "… intelligent man who used …") would obviate my objections to the original sentence – I still have doubts, as above, about the claim that Arendt thought he was an intelligent man, but I don't think it's necessarily tagworthy. If the sentence is reverted to the original form, and edited in the manner I just suggested to remove ambiguity, the matter is no longer a POV issue (now that I see that my POV claim was not justified, I'd rather withdraw it), and we're down to a simple issue of the factual claim that Eichmann used thought-terminating clichés. This could readily be sourced from EiJ as Maunus suggests above; the quote he (I assume, from the masculine form of "Maunus") cites describes thought-terminating clichés about as well as possible without actually using the explicit term. If the citation is referenced after the following sentence (For her, these phrases are symptomatic of an absence of thought.), it's clear that we are making reference to Arendt's views, spelled out in her writing, which should obviate ColonelHenry's concern about skating the edge of OR. Getheren (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Agenda
What makes the author such an authority? Maybe this book is the ultimate thought-terminating cliché? He even admits to being influenced by his father's atheism, so that tells me the author has an agenda. https://www.google.com/#q=robert+jay+lifton+atheism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.186.58.36 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Textbook example of a thought-terminating cliché by IP? Face-smile.svg — Paleo Neonate  – 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Examples are needed
I think most of those examples are not OR, and it is far better to trim those that are, than make wholesale deletion of content. While you might understand TTC not everyone does, examples are needed vital if we are to illustrate these kinds of topics. "Each to his own" is not original research. "Do not judge" is not. And no, not everything is a TTC, if it is I would like a ref to that statement. interesting]--Inayity (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just about anything can be used as a thought-terminating cliché, especially by the apparent inclusion criteria in use on this article. However, there is no need for so many examples, especially ones without sources. It's OR because anyone can come to the conclusion that X phrase is a TTC and could be posted here. We need sources to demonstrate that these are commonly used as TTCs, without which it's OR and I'm tempted to simply remove it all again. We should just have a few paragraphs demonstrating TTCs in context, e.g. everyday, religious, political...  Lazy  Bastard  Guy  23:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, but i disagree with wholesale deletion because at least leave something to trim down and get rid of the nonsense. I went across Google quickly and did not find any RS on what constitutes quality TTC. If you have a source do share. --Inayity (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I do not have a source myself. I only know that few (if any) are used at present. We have to get rid of the temptation to add junk; if one is trying to get rid of flies, one does not leave an open jar of honey in the vicinity because it serves other purposes. That is one of Wikipedia's most pressing concerns.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  16:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your recent edit: "Some are good examples" - see WP:ILIKEIT. Them being good examples does not justify their lack of a source thought-terminating clichés.  Lazy  Bastard  Guy  16:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the whole thing should be a section in Cliche. After all the main purpose of any cliche is to terminate a line of thought, isn't it? BayShrimp (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)