Talk:Post-cult trauma/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Structure

Right now, neither the article nor the references are well structured. Symptoms, frequency and causes looks like a "all-sizes-fit" title for what follows. And what follows is a mix of theories, statistical evaluations, attributed causes, "does not exist" and opinion on the work of others relating to one, two or three points of the title. After finishing that part, Mr. Reader sure is confused.

I suggest to get a real structure to make the article readable:

  • Symptoms and what is meant by post cult trauma (no matter if you want to argue it exists or it doesn't - first you have to say what you are talking about)
  • Frequency - best in three parts:
    • happens to almost everyone who leaves a cult
    • depends on length and intensity of membership and manner of exit
    • does not happen
  • Causes - again in several parts
    • totalitarian environment
    • culture shock upon leaving the group
    • deprogramming
    • unreliable testimonies

The references should be sorted by name and referenced using Harvard Referencing - like this, references can also be checked when editing the article. --Irmgard 20:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal to improve the article. This article should be moved Post-cult trauma controversy, in which the polarized views of scholars on this subject are presented. The structure that you propose will give a false imprimatur to the position that such trauma exist, and that will not be NPOV. --ZappaZ 22:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Your suggestion to move the article strongly contradicts Wikipedia conventions. It would be like moving the article God to God controversy. Andries 19:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Organization of the article

It will be good to organize the article in such a way that authorative scholars are given more prominence and that less authorative ones.

Also, this article needs more work, in particular giving voice to these scholars that have done empirical research in this area. Their absence is quite revealing... I will work on this article in the weeks to come. --Zappaz 17:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that Derk and Jan van der Lans who are cited first after the "self-definition" did empirical research. Their work has been translated into English. I have seen his work is cited very often. Andries 18:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Derk and Van der Lans are less notable thaan the other scholars mentioned and maybe they are more cited in the Dutch literature you have consulted.That is obvious. In any case, and on second thoughts after reading the material, I think that it will be better to merge relevant and not already existing pieces onto Apostasy, Brainwashing and Cult and delete this article. Otherwise we will end up with repeating statements and arguments already made on both these articles. I would also argue that the title itself is POV, as it presents a controversial theory as a fact. --Zappaz 15:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Derk and van der Lans are quite notable both in English and Dutch and besides they are the only academics apart from Singer that I know who wrote an article about this specific subject. I do not understand how this can be merged with brainwashing, and cult. The first is a different subject and the latter is already quite big. Besides it is a notable subject and hence deserves its own article. Andries 19:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand how you can seriously doubt that there is indeed something like a trauma associated with disillusionment and disaffiliation from a cult. I know unfortunately from personal experience that it exists. One could ask whether this rare or whether it is different from disillusionment after intense involvement in mainstream religion but to doubt that there is something like a psychological trauma that is associated with disillusionment for some members, I think, ridiculous. Andries 19:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


There is trauma associated with many things in life such as death of a dear person, a divorce, a bankruptcy, etc. Any intense involvement can create disillusionment and some trauma. Religion, marriage, business partnership, politics, etc, etc. Anything that we do and invest our time, energy, passion, etc and then we separate from that for whatever reason, has the potential to be traumatic. But you will not find articles about these traumas, as separate articles from their respective main topics.
Back to this article, the fact that only two little cited Dutch scholars and Singer wrote about it, supports my position that this is a POV fork and non-notable. The Google test finds 67 hits for "Post-cult trauma" only, mostly from anticult and countercult websites trying to make a point. Nada from scholars, nothing from people that have the scientific authority to define something as "trauma". No empirical data. Also note that most if not all info is already in Leaving cults, empirical evidence, Brainwashing, Mind Control, and Apostasy in NMRs. This article needs to be merged. Otherwise, after I finish with it by adding the oppossing side of the coin, it will look like a copy of these sections/articles combined. Also, you have not responded to my concern that the title itself is POV, as it presents a controversial theory as it if was fact, when it is not. Let me know what you want to do. (I will also caution you, yet again, of trying to use this encyclopedia as a way to rationalize your own unfortunate experience. It does not work, Andries, it doesn't).--Zappaz 19:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To answer your original concern, Wikipedia treats innummerable subjects under their own name even if they are not facts, e.g. Ascended Master. Again, Derks and van der Lans are often cited. Mind control, apostasy, brainwashing are clearly different subjects. Some of the information in apostasy should be moved here to avoid duplication i.e. Melton's assertion on the lack of causes of psychological trauma. Of course, there should be an article on this notable subject. My personal opinion is that cults and NRMs are unpredictable and intense and this combination can easily cause psychological harm. Andries 20:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, Andries. Later on I will add a VfD to this article with my arguments. If the VfD fails, I intend to add substantial material from scholars against this theory that is grounded only flimsy empirical evidence and pushed by apostates and the countercult. The notability of an article is not based on an editor's opinion. --Zappaz 05:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, I really think that Melton's opinion is better placed here than in apostasy because it deals with the alleged trauma that disaffection causes. Another thing, you assert here that a post-cult trauma is based on flimsy evidence but elsewhere on Wikipedia you say that I suffer from a trauma due to my involvement with SSB and that I should go into therapy for that. So what do you believe? I would appreciate that you clarify your contradictory statements because they raise in me considerable doubts about your good faith when editing Wikipedia. Andries 10:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If I go through a traumatic experience of divorce, can I then write an article on Post-divorce trauma? Maybe, and only if there is a body of study about that type of trauma, substantiated by research by physcologists. I would argue that it will be better placed at Divorce, unless there is such notable research as to warrant its own article. I am not dismissing your traumatic experience, how can I? What I am challenging is this article raison d'ētre as a separate article. If the Cult article becomes too big, let us deal with that when that happens. Thanks. --Zappaz 10:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brainwashing and Post-cult trauma are hardly related

I reverted the edits by Zappaz because brainwashing and post cult trauma are hardly related. If they were related then why does David V. Barrett believe in it though he does not believe in brainwashing? 08:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will look at Zappaz' other edits later. Andries 08:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The references provided show that relationship. I will add more references as well. ~~----
I don't see this in the references. In contrast both Stuart Wright, David V. Barrett and Lonnie Kliever who are critics of the ACM and do not believe in brainwashing assert that a trauma due to disilusionnent and disaffection of NRMs does exist. Also one contributor to Gallanter's book says so, but I forgot his or her name and I brought the book back to the library. Reverted. Andries 17:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am just providing references by scholars that have study this subject and have come to interesting conclusions that challenge the countrecult movement position on this subhect. --Zappaz 20:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gallanter's study for happiness in the cult is irrelevant

This article is called post cult trauma so whatever people feel while in the cult is quite irrelevant. Hence the study by Gallanter does not belong here. Andries 18:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is actually one of the most relevant aspects. Reverted. --Zappaz 19:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, create an article, cults and mental health but it does not belong here. reverted. Andries 19:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. It is highly relevant. --Zappaz 06:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contributing to this article

Andries: I am and continue contributing to this article in an attempt to balance it. I would appreciate if you allow me and others to contribute as well rather than revert massively and without merit. This is not your private article. --Zappaz 19:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After my last mass revert that had a lot of merits I re-inserted some of your edits. The article started with such proven nonsense (see talk page) that a quick revert was fully justified. I did not have time to sift your good from your bad edits at that moment. Andries 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your revert is just an attempt to monopolize this article and that is not acceptable.

  1. Added substantial research by Galanter that is highly relevant. Just read the text;
  2. Reorganized the article so that notable scholars are at the top and lesser known ones at the bottom;
  3. Added bibliography;
  4. Reduced the extended quote by the AFF so that each spokeperson/scholar has same weighiting in the article.

--Zappaz 19:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


ad 1. I have read Galanter and I think it is irrelavant here. Andries 20:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ad 3. Again Jan van der Lans is very notable and besides the subject is his specialization as a psychologist of religion. How can sociologists recognize a psychological trauma as you yourself asked quite astutely? Andries
ad 3. I maintained the biblography Andries 20:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ad. 4. The extensive quote is important because it accurately describes the reasons for the trauma. Besides this article for a big deal about the ACM so it should describe their views in first place Andries 20:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. Galanter's study is highly relevant. Just read this study.
  2. Van der lans is notable only because of your efforts in Wikipedia. Do a Google search. He is hardly cited.
  3. If this article is about the ACM, then summarize it and move the text there, as I suggested before.

--Zappaz 06:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ad 1. I have read the study several times that deals with the mental health of cult members, not with a post cult trauma and I continue to disagree. Andries 10:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ad. 2. A google search is not a good way to determine if somebody is a good source. Check the cite sources article. Andries 10:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ad 3. This article is about a concept used in the ACM so their views should be described in the first place. To merge this article with ACM would be similar to merging the article NRM with aricle cult apologist or to move all of Melton's views to the article cult apologist. Andries 10:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I continue to disagree in all points.

  1. The concept is forwarded by the ACM, but is widely challenged, for obvious reasons (i.e. yet-another-scare tactic by the ACM. The empirical research shows that disassociating from an NRM is no different than any religious disassociation, or disasociation from other human endeavors)
  2. Galanter's study is highly relevant in this context

I have found additional material that further challenges the theory of post-cult trauma or syndrome, that I intend to add once I complete my reseach (I need to pay a visit to my local library). I am also suggesting changing the title to Post-cult trauma theories, or Post-cult trauma controversies, as "post-cult trauma" is not listed anywere as a phsycological term (beyond the ACM literature), and the controversy is quite obvious. Let me know what you think. --Zappaz 14:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the question whether Jan van der Lans and Derks are good sources, an article by Derks, van der Lans, and Richardson is cited two times by two different authors in the book edited by David G. Bromley The politics of religious apostasy Andries 20:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So who says that brainwashing and the concept of the trauma of leaving a cult are inextricably connected? I do not read that in Melton's long article. Please provide referfences. Melton writes elsewhere that leaving a cult for some members is like a bad divorce. I guess everybody realizes that a bad divorce can be traumatic.Andries 07:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just read the many references provided. It is all there. Regarding the "APOLOGIST' VERSUS 'ALARMIST" link, would it not be better at Gordon Melton than in here? What Melton says about divorce is that [accepting apostate's testimony is] "like trying to get a picture of marriage from someone who has gone through a bad divorce."--Zappaz 20:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What Lonnie Kliever and Melton say is that you cannot trust hostile ex-members because they went through a traumatic experience of disaffection and disaffiliation but at the same time say that cults are not harmful and do not cause trauma. They cannot have it both ways and their inconsistency should be shown here and elsewhere. Andries 20:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If Kliever and Melton say the above, find citations and add them. No problems. We are making good progress in describing the controversy so far, so let's stick with describing the controversy and we will end up with a good WP article. --Zappaz 20:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could you please tell me in what article or book scholars say that there is an inetrixably link between brainwashing and a post cult trauma? I could not find it. Thanks. Andries 20:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are, I think, two references to one study by Wright. One by Wright himself and one by Hadden and Bromley referring to Wright's study, they should be merged. Andries 21:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What NRM scholar denies the existence of a trauma?

What NRM scholar denies that disaffection and disaffiliation can be a traumatic experience and where can I find this in the references? Thanks in advance for your answer. Andries 18:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is all in the article. --Zappaz 12:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not. I cannot find one single NRM scholar who clearly denies the existence of a trauma. Andries 12:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the article:

  • According to Hadden and Bromley, proponents of the brainwashing model such as Singer and others, lack empirical evidence to support their theory of brainwashing. They also affirm that there is lack of empirical support for alleged consequences of having been a member of a cult or sect, and that their accounts of what happens to ex-members is contradicted by substantial empirical evidence such as, the fact that the overwhelming proportion of people who get involved in NRMs do leave, most short of two years, and the overwhelming proportion of people leave of their own volition. They refer to a survey conducted by Stuart A. Wright in 1987, about people who voluntarily left new religions, showing that the majority of all defectors or ex-members (67%) look back on their experience as something that made them wiser for the experience, rather than feeling angry, duped or showing other ill effects
  • Gordon Melton, quoting studies by Lewis Carter and David G. Bromley, argues that the onus of pathology experienced by former members of new religions movements shifted from these groups to the coercive activities of the anti-cult movement. As a result of this study, the treatment (coerced or voluntary) of former members as people in need of psychological assistance largely ceased. These studies also claim that a lack of any widespread need for psychological help by former members of new religions has in itself become the strongest evidence refuting early sweeping condemnations of new religions as causes of psychological trauma.6,7,8 In a 1997 interview with Time Magazine Melton, asserts that anti-cult figures give too much credibility to the horror stories forwarded by "hostile" former cult members, which he says is "like trying to get a picture of marriage from someone who has gone through a bad divorce".
  • Galanter further notes that the process of joining, being a member, and leaving a new religious group is best described not as a matter of personal pathology but of social adaptation. For example, experiences that in a secular setting might be considered pathological are, within some religious setting may be considered normal. While psychological categories were created to discuss dysfunctional behavior by an individual, the behavior of group members must be seen in light of group norms, meaning that what may be considered disturbed behavior in a secular setting may be perfectly functional and normal within a group context. Galanter's analysis had the effect of reducing the significance of the abnormal behavior reported among ex-members. He also suggested an alternative means of understanding otherwise inexplicable behavior in members and ex-members without considering them as suffering from psychopathology.
  • A study by Cheryl R. Taslimi in 1991 about former members of the Shiloh Community, a fundamentalist Jesus community, indicated that the former members experienced no ill effects of past membership, had integrated well on return to the larger community, and did not differ from the general population on a symptom checklist to assess psychological pathologies.
  • In an article published in 1986, L. DuPertius asserts that many of the people that left the Divine Light Mission "... drifted away not in disillusionment but in fulfillment."
We are talking about the existence of a post-cult trauma, not about the fact that some members do not experience a trauma upon leaving. So all these references do not deny the existence of the trauma for some members. Please provide better reference or I will change the article accordingly. Andries 21:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you serious? These scholars have made a clear case. If you are unable to accept it, that is your problem, not this article's. --Zappaz 07:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am serious, even Melton accepts that leaving a cult can be truamatic and compares it to a "bad divorce". Andries 08:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, it did not say that. His quote: In a 1997 interview with Time Magazine Melton, asserts that anti-cult figures give too much credibility to the horror stories forwarded by "hostile" former cult members, which he says is "like trying to get a picture of marriage from someone who has gone through a bad divorce". Maybe your English is not good enough to see the difference? What Melton talks about is that you cannot take them seriously, as they will have very antagonist bias against their former spouse. It has nothing to do with trauma, but a lot to do with human nature. --Zappaz 11:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, he did say it. Are you saying that a bad divorce is not traumatic? Andries 11:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I am OK with ytour edit to the intro, witthe some exceptions thatr I corrected. Note thatr "traumnatic experience" is very different than "psychological trauma".If you want to assert that some speak about psychological trauma, you need to provide references. --Zappaz 28 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)

I have not seen one scholar who clearly challenges the existence of a trauma upon voluntariy leaving. Who? Andries 28 June 2005 17:25 (UTC)
Read the article again. Andries, this is becoming tedious. --Zappaz 29 June 2005 05:06 (UTC)
There is not one single NRM scholar who clearly denies the existence of a trauma upon leaving. Andries 29 June 2005 05:11 (UTC)
What I mean to say is that Bromley, Melton and others criticize Singer's study on three points
  1. not taking into account that deprogramming may in itself be traumatic
  2. with regards to the rest (25% who were not deprogrammed), they were not reprensentative of the people who come out of cults: they came to her for help
  3. generalizations made by Singer about her study about people who leave cults and even cults in general.
But these criticisms in itself do not contain a denial of the existence of a trauma upon voluntary leaving. If they do think otherwise please tell where and why or if you have other information that contain a clear denial of the existence of a trauma upon voluntary leaving then let me know. Thanks. Andries 29 June 2005 08:35 (UTC)


Barrett wrote " a lot of trauma". He did not write traumatic experience. Andries 28 June 2005 17:26 (UTC)
Then we can say "trauma" and not "psychological trauma". Webster's definition for "trauma": an injury (as a wound) to living tissue caused by an extrinsic agent / a disordered psychic or behavioral state resulting from mental or emotional stress or physical injury --Zappaz 29 June 2005 05:06 (UTC)
So that means psychological trauma, not a physical wound. Andries 29 June 2005 05:09 (UTC)

Zappaz, could you also please provide references for the assertion that the term "post-cult trauma" is controversial? Thanks. Andries 30 June 2005 08:48 (UTC)

Just read the articles.... clearly there is a controversy between anticultist and apologists. --Zappaz 30 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)
Could you please be more specific? I cannot find it. In general, I have a problem the way you answer my questions, please try to be more specific than "just read the article" or "see the references". Thanks. Andries 30 June 2005 14:58 (UTC)

Self-promotion

  • 'Calumny' Confirmed by Andries Krugers Dagneaux, 8 April 2002, ex-Sathya Sai Baba after 9 years

I think that is fair to ask that you add a disclaimer stating that you are an editor in WP and that you have contributed to this article and added the above link. Thanks. --Zappaz 12:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that a disclaimer is necessary or even appropriate because it would break the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references guideline. Andries 18:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that it is needed for NPOV. Can you ask other editors what is the policy regarding this? --Zappaz 15:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The way to resolve this would be for Andries (or someone else) to remove this. Someone else can add it back if they think it's needed, and Andries should feel free to make arguments on this talk page for its inclusion. I understand that Andries added it in good faith, and on the face of it that testimonial belongs on this article as part of a balanced and neutral article on this subject, but if Andries adds it, it amounts to original research and possibly self-promotion. If I went to the Perl programming language article and added a link to a post I made on a website about Perl, the same would apply. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tony, thanks for your time to respond to the policy question. I do not think that including my testimony is Wikipedia:original research as long as it is used only as an external link in the section personal testimonies. Andries 12:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It still is a self-promotion and that is against WP guidelines. --Zappaz 14:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I do not think that including my testimony breaks the Wikipedia policy against self-promotion. See Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not Andries 16:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is funny, you ask other editors, they tell you you are off, but you don't want to listen. Again: I am putting you on my ignore list for a while. --Zappaz 18:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you do not reply to my questions, complaints and arguments and give reasons for your changes if I ask them then I will change the article in ways that I think are best. Andries 18:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Look Zappaz, how can an external link with my testimony that is sorted under personal testimonies be classified as orginal research as Tony Sidaway wrote? That is just very strange and deserves to be challenged. Besides that was not your complaint. You complained about self-promotion without stating it so, not about original research. Andries 18:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Len Oakes

  1. Why is what Len Oakes writes about cult leaders relevant for this subject? Andries 3 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
  2. if you write that he is widely quoted by the anti-cult movement then please provide references Andries 3 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
  1. Because it contextualizes his POV
  2. Duh! Just check who cites his work, and how often...
--Zappaz 7 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)
And how do you know whether somebody belong to the anti-cult movement, except for the obvious cases, such as Steven Hassan and Rick Ross? The ACM is not an organization, like CESNUR, but is distinguished by certain beliefs of its "members". It is certainly a very vague, diverse movement if we use the definition of Wikipedia and it is not clear who belongs to it and who not. Andries 14:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Lonnie Kliever

The following is already written about the reliablity of apostates at apostasy and it neither belong here nor does it have to be repeated here

He [Kliever] claims that the reason for the lack of reliability of apostates is due to the traumatic nature of disaffiliation that he compares to a divorce and also due the influence of the anti-cult movement even on those apostates who were not deprogrammed or received exit counseling.

Andries 14:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If this article is discussing the assertion that there is such a think as a "post cult trauma", and some of these assertions are based on apostate's claiming such trauma, the above text is 100% relevant. the lack of reliability of apostates is due to the traumatic nature of disaffiliation. Sorry, mate... it stays. --Zappaz 14:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I guess you are right, but could you please try to summarize the long quote? Thanks Now it is too long and unwieldy. Wright writes too that one of reasons why ex-members become critics due to "role primacy": the greater the role primacy the greater the personal trauma associated with leaving and the greater the chance that ex-members become critics. The other reasons that he sees in his 1998 article is due to exit-couseling/deprogramming, which I think is very rare. As if there is a regional office of the ACM to which people go. I think that his opinion borders on a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, I am too young and too European to know much about what has been going on in the USA during the 1970 and 1980s. Andries 15:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - POV

Anti-cult movement is too general to be a real attribution - even if some scholars use it. It is always someone who said it or used it first. I attributed post-cult trauma now to Singer - if you find an earlier reference, you are free to use it. I also corrected Martins recovery center description to the official version.

When referring to a person, please omit anti-cultist etc. Just imagine, I would write designate Melton or Barker everywhere they are mentioned as "cult defence activists" or "cult apologists" -- you would say this is POV -- and you'd be right with it. Such qualification of a person are ok, where the reason of the qualification and the source for it are given - e.g. quoting a newspaper in the Rick Ross article. Same for AFF - explain and reference in the AFF article and link there. In the other case, you would have to call INFORM a pro-cult organization to treat both sides equally. --Irmgard 20:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Former cult members is a neutral expression - ex-cultist is a slightly disparaging expression which should only be used in direct quotations, but avoided in the general text of an encyclopedia. --Irmgard 20:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)