background preloader

Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism

Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China is a non-fiction book by psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton on the psychology of brainwashing and mind control. Lifton's research for the book began in 1953 with a series of interviews with American servicemen who had been held captive during the Korean War. In addition to interviews with 25 Americans, Lifton also interviewed 15 Chinese who had fled their homeland after having been subjected to indoctrination in Chinese universities. From these interviews, which in some cases occurred regularly for over a year, Lifton identified the tactics used by Chinese communists to cause drastic shifts in one's opinions and personality and "brainwash" American soldiers into making demonstrably false assertions. Main points[edit] In the book, Lifton outlines the "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform": Milieu Control. Thought-terminating cliché[edit] Lifton said:[4][5] Examples[edit] General examples “Think of the children” Related:  Neurological Ticks

Social loafing Social loafing can be explained by the "free-rider" theory and the resulting "sucker effect", which is an individual’s reduction in effort in order to avoid pulling the weight of a fellow group member.[3][4] Research on social loafing began with rope pulling experiments by Ringelmann, who found that members of a group tended to exert less effort into pulling a rope than did individuals alone. In more recent research, studies involving modern technology, such as online and distributed groups, has also shown clear evidence of social loafing. Many of the causes of social loafing stem from an individual feeling that his or her effort will not matter to the group. History[edit] Rope-pulling experiments[edit] Results from Ringelmann's experiment The first known research on the social loafing effect began in 1913 with Max Ringelmann's study. Clapping and shouting experiments[edit] Meta-analysis study and the Collective Effort Model (CEM)[edit] Karau et al.' Dispersed versus collocated groups[edit]

What is the Monkeysphere? "There's that word again..." The Monkeysphere is the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are monkey right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number much larger than 150. Most of us do not have room in our Monkeysphere for our friendly neighborhood sanitation worker. So, we don't think of him as a person. We think of him as The Thing That Makes The Trash Go Away. And even if you happen to know and like your particular garbage man, at one point or another we all have limits to our sphere of monkey concern. Those who exist outside that core group of a few dozen people are not people to us. Remember the first time, as a kid, you met one of your school teachers outside the classroom? I mean, they're not people. "So? Oh, not much. It's like this: which would upset you more, your best friend dying, or a dozen kids across town getting killed because their bus collided with a truck hauling killer bees?

Bystander Effect - What is the Bystander Effect What is the Bystander Effect? The term bystander effect refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the number of people present, the less likely people are to help a person in distress. When an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there are few or no other witnesses. In a series of classic studies, researchers Bibb Latane and John Darley (1) found that the amount of time it takes the participant to take action and seek help varies depending on how many other observers are in the room. As the participants sat filling out questionnaires, smoke began to fill the room. Example of the Bystander Effect The most frequently cited example of the bystander effect in introductory psychology textbooks is the brutal murder of a young woman named Catherine "Kitty" Genovese. Despite Genovese’s repeated calls for help, none of the dozen or so people in the nearby apartment building who heard her cries called police to report the incident. Suggested Readings: Listen:

Stanley Millgram: Obedience to Authority Creating False Memories Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficul... [J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Guest Post: The psychology of anthropomorphism, or why I felt empathy towards a piece of trash In early January, the sidewalks in my neighborhood are lined with discarded Christmas trees. It’s the collective holiday hangover trash, and quite frankly it makes me sad; the trees mark the moment of winter where all that is left are several cheerless months of cold and drudgery. My dog, however, goes apeshit over them. On an early walk, as my dog lifted his leg on the eighth tree of the morning, I saw a tiny ornament clinging to its lowest branches. My first thought: “Oh, no no no. My second thought: “I will save you.” My next thought: “What the hell was that?” When I got home, I did what any procrastinating science writer with a pile of deadlines would do: I put everything aside to try to figure out why I felt empathy for a piece of trash. I had a hunch that my attraction to Freddie (yes, by this time my trash had a name) had to do with the fact that he (and a gender) was shaped like an animal. Brooke Borel is a science writer in Brooklyn, New York. Image Credits:

Eating popcorn in the cinema makes people immune to advertising | Science Eating popcorn in the cinema may be irritating not just for fellow movie goers, but for advertisers: a group of researchers from Cologne University has concluded that chewing makes us immune to film advertising. The reason why adverts manage to imprint brand names on our brains is that our lips and the tongue automatically simulate the pronunciation of a new name when we first hear it. Every time we re-encounter the name, our mouth subconsciously practises its pronunciation. However, according to the study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, this "inner speech" can be disturbed by chewing, rendering the repetition effect redundant. For their experiment, the researchers invited a group of 96 people to a cinema to watch a movie preceded by a series of adverts. "The mundane activity of eating popcorn made participants immune to the pervasive effects of advertising," said Sascha Topolinski, one of the researchers.

Attractive People Favored in Job Interviews over Non-Attractive Ones, Study Sep 12, 2013 08:59 AM EDT By Stephen Adkins, UniversityHerald Reporter It is a known fact that attractive women are more favored in interviews! A new study further adds to the evidence. Italian researchers from the University of Messina have found that attractive job applicants are more likely to proceed to the second round of job interviews. Good-looking ladies had 54 percent success rate when compared to the seven percent success rate for unattractive women. Like Us on Facebook Researchers arrived at the conclusion after sending out more than 11,000 fake resumes for 1,542 genuine job vacancies across Italy. They found that the average recall rate was 30 percent. Non-Italian applicants fared as badly as unattractive women. "We could say that if you want a job in Italy and you are not Italian, it will be difficult to find it, but it is always better to be a foreigner than to be an unattractive Italian woman," the researchers stated. © 2014 University Daily News, All rights reserved.

The scope of teleological thinking in preschool ch... [Cognition. 1999

Related: