Understanding Cognitive Dissonance Part IV: Likely Denial Unless the Spiritual Abuse Becomes Personal

As noted in the previous post, people experiencing cognitive dissonance in response to challenging information can respond in a whole host of ways, but primarily they reduce to three basic categories: (1) denial, (2) filtering/rationalizing the information to limit cognitive dissonance or (3) actually receiving the information, making no effort to escape the cognitive dissonance.

The first two options demonstrate the thought squelching processes necessary for manipulative groups to maintain milieu control, and the third option stimulate critical thinking which will ultimately guide a person away from the group influence. This post will deal primarily with denial but will also discuss why some people might be more predisposed to denial than others.

Denial, a form of isolation or withdrawal is fairly self-explanatory. (It is also employed as a result of confirmation bias which I will discuss in a later post, but I included denial here as an independent factor.) The most obvious way that people can compensate is to avoid the information through isolation, though eventually one does encounter dissonance, even when immersed in the neotribal subculture. When messages do penetrate the group’s barriers, one can esteem the messages as lies so that they do not have to be weighed and evaluated. All veracity of the information is denied and rejected because the pain of the truth becomes too great for the person to easily process. It is easier to abandon the new information.

Tweet

Understanding Cognitive Dissonance Part II: Establishing Milieu Control

In any manipulative group that practices surreptitious techniques to influence members, one of the primary means of establishing and maintaining control of the community and environment comes through what Robert Lifton called “Milieu Control.”

For most groups, this involves not only control of the flow of information into / within a group but also the generation of information to keep those within the group from engaging critical thought. Any information from outside this closed system (or sometimes from a disgruntled member) that challenges the group must be silenced, because people will then begin to think for themselves and will question the veracity of the information that the group has communicated to them. The outside information will magnify the flaws in the group’s dogma. Most groups communicate the idea that only information from certain sources may be considered, and other sources will be portrayed as false or evil.

For this reason Steven Hassan includes information along with the three elements of the self (thought, emotion and behavior) as a means of dominating a person for the purposes of surreptitious manipulation. When the group can gain control of one aspect of the self, it is highly likely that the other aspects of the person will follow the path of least resistance to reduce psychological stress by causing a change in the other unaffected aspects (cognitive dissonance). Personally, I like to consider information as a separate factor because, though it can be manipulated in order to convert a person, it is external to the person themselves. However in terms of influence, it is just as powerful a means of establishing control.

Tweet

Theological Name Calling?

When Spiritwatch Ministries notified me that they had revised my Video Lecture on Patriarchy, I checked to see if the tag at the end of the video had also been altered. Scanning to the end of the video, I stopped at a point where a gentlemen (the president of the unnamed apologetics organization) makes a comment that caught my attention in a way that it had not previously.


When the organization became "concerned" about the video and the ramifications of the material contained therein, the term "name calling" entered the discussion at two specific points. Though I have strong opinions about the nature of these teachings, and especially in that forum, I assume that people perceive that I have called certain teachers and organizations "heretics" as this term was a major point of discussion in the Question and Answer Session following the lecture.

Tweet

What is "Damage Control" within a Spiritually Abusive System?

Damage Control is a term that was originally coined and used by maritime industries, probably originating in the Merchant Marines or navy, describing emergency measures to prevent the sinking of a ship. The language and theory of management borrowed the term to describe measures that can be taken to contain problems that might threaten a particular project.

Tweet

Beware the Love Bomb!

In “thatmom’s” latest Podcast, Part III of our discussion of Spiritual Abuse, Karen and I mentioned the term “love bombing,” and discussion of this one element of Thought Reform could encompass an entire Podcast itself. So I’d like to explain additional details and information about “love bombing” as a concept that can help you be much more objective when you encounter this technique.

…and you will.

Tweet

Mind Wars and Ethics

Moreno, JD. From the dust jacket of Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense (a book investigating military applications of brain neural interface): Moreno takes us on an exciting journey exploring the fascinating, formidable and frightening questions for social ethics and public policy.

Page 176: 

[I]n dealing with emerging neuroethical dilemmas in the national security context we can learn from previous ethical quandaries, especially in terms of the conditions under which we have those discussions. I also agree that in many cases, the ethically acceptable course of action will be a matter of weighing and balancing rather than appeal to an overarching moral doctrine, although basic guidance from some principles is going to be needed. 

For instance, a number of the scientists, lawyers, ethicists, and advocates with whom I spoke in writing this book agreed that there had to be vigorous protection of at least one nonnegotiable premise when considering the appropriate security applications of neuroscience. In the law, this principle might be expressed in terms of the protection afforded in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution regarding self-incrimination: “to be a witness against himself.” Philosophically, this can be expressed as the proposition that no one else should be able to decide what goes into my brain or who “reads” it.

Those who exact milieu control within Christian groups by vilification of their critics and concealment of fact seem to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to decide what goes into the brains of their followers.

The secular world demands a high ethical standard in these matters.

How can such an ethical standard of accountability be expected from the secular world

if Christ’s Church cannot model it for secular society

within the context and realm of our own Christian subgroup?

Tweet

Milieu Control (Lifton 101)

Most simply stated, “Milieu Control” is the control of an environment by controlling the information and activities within the environment. 

Pertaining to manipulative and closed groups, this involves control of communication and generation of acceptable information to be disseminated among the membership. Ultimately, the group seeks to control the thought environment of individual members, and it is this internal milieu control that produces the isolation from society at large. 

The cognitive dissonance produced by the incongruent messages received from the outside creates the natural desire to withdraw or filter information that does not coincide with information within the group. It’s too draining and stressful to constantly try to reckon conflicting worldviews, so isolationism seen in closed systems of thought is often a necessary adaptation. 

Healthy people do filter information, but in closed systems, the group dictates what sources of information are restricted in an effort to maintain compliance and limit dissent. “Love bombing” is a most effective means of recruiting new membership and falls under the category of milieu control. Groups thrive and grow, primarily by their ability to create an ideal environment that members tend to associate with pleasant, safe and nurturing feelings. A utopia can be defined as an ideally perfect place, generally in a social and moral sense. The creation of the idealistic world of rest and special bliss without the cumbersome burdens of life is very seductive. 

Most people who have participated in such a group and left, despite the heartaches of their experiences, long for a return to the “feeling” that the manipulative group appeared to create for them. Often, leadership will tell members that their group is the only place where one can find this type of comfort which makes those who enjoy the environment less likely to leave the group. Free exchange of information is tightly controlled by threats of accusation of gossip or "touching not the anointed" leadership in manipulative groups. 

Another popular phrase that is often used to discourage critical evaluation of legitimate information within Christian churches is the admonishment to refrain from “sewing discord among the brethren.” This is not a blanket command however and would be an inappropriate response to false teaching and error. Perhaps the most dangerous harm to the milieu of a group occurs as a result of drawing leadership into question. This is a taboo in spiritually abusive groups in particular. 

Stories concocted for the purpose of "damage control" (prevent membership from thinking critically about events or arguments that might draw the ideology or leadership into question) also fall under this category so that members are fearful or reluctant to fairly consider information produced by dissidents. Information from outside sources is often criticized and discounted to discourage acceptance by group members. Connotation is a powerful tool in the maintenance of milieu control, often aimed at creating the perception that certain types of information are tainted or dangerous. (See “Biblical Modifiers.”) 

Maintenance of group milieu within a closed system, religious or otherwise, is perhaps the most demanding aspects of thought reform and manipulative systems, but it is a profoundly effective one.

Tweet