Disclaimer: The purpose of this Blog
“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do bad things, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” – Albert Einstein
This blog expresses my (Monica Pignotti) opinions and analysis based upon evidence and facts, as I understand them. See my other blog, Monica Pignotti: The Truth for rebuttals to the internet smear and disinformation campaign about me initiated by people who are obviously upset by my evaluation of certain mental health practices. Go here to read a Statement of Support from social work, psychology and other mental health professionals.
The intent and purpose of this blog is to provide the readers with information and points of view that they might not otherwise be provided with by proponents of the therapies I am discussing who may sincerely believe they are helping people. It is not the purpose of this blog to give any specific advice on specific professionals and it is not the purpose of this blog to dissuade anyone from seeing any particular professional or to recommend any particular professional and my positive or negative views ought not to be interpreted in that manner. My purpose is to provide the reader with accurate information so that the reader can make more informed choices, should they or anyone in their family need help from a mental health professional, but the choices are yours and yours alone to make. The opinions I express on this blog are solely my own and ought not to be interpreted as advice. I would urge people to consult a wide variety of sources of information before consulting any mental health professional. The decision you make is yours and yours alone.
Please note that contrary to misinformation that has been posted about me where I am falsely accused of being a “paid shill”, I am not paid, nor have I ever been paid for any positive reviews I give with regard to any mental health professional on this or any other blog or internet forum, or anywhere else and such positive reviews are not intended to be specific recommendations for any specific reader. I have no business relationship whatsoever with any mental health professional and I provide information, simply as an expression of my constitutional rights to express my opinions and as a public service.
Straw man argument alert!
To correct misinformation about me that is on the internet, nothing that I do or write about here had any basis whatsoever in Scientology. I am a very strong critic of Scientology, a group I left and completely repudiated over 35 years ago, 20 years before I ever became a mental health professional in 1996. Scientology has nothing whatsoever to do with the work and writing I presently do. One person whose intervention I expressed concerns over used the straw man argument that I use Scientology as the basis for my credentials. Obviously I do not. Scientology was a mistake I made as a teenager and after spending only two and a half years of my adult life in it, have long since repudiated. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my professional credentials. My credentials include an MSW, a PhD from a Research One university and extensive training, publications and experience in evaluating mental health interventions. This makes me very well qualified to critique certain therapies for lack of evidence to support them and raise questions about them.
And in response to the argument I have to have internationally adopted children with serious behavior problems to critique interventions aimed at this population, no, I do not have to have raised an adopted child to know it is not a good idea for parents to use prone restraint on their children at home, any more than I would have to have a sleep problem to know that it is not a good idea to ingest the surgical anesthetic propofol at home and if an MD told me it was okay, I would challenge that, just as I challenge the use of prone restraint on a child at home, even if self proclaimed experts chastise me for challenging them.
Additionally, nothing in this blog is intended to be legal advice in any way, shape or form. I am simply expressing my opinions on certain cases. As a human being, I make no claims of being infallible. If any reader believes that I have made any factually incorrect statements, I welcome feedback and correction, as long as adequate evidence is provided.
Facilitated Communication Rears Its Pseudoscientific Head Once Again: When will they ever learn?
Last Friday’s 20/20 featured a 2007 case involving an autistic teen in Michigan, Aislinn Wendrow, who was subjected to a thoroughly discredited intervention, Facilitated Communication which resulted in bogus charges of sexual abuse against her father and even though he was eventually cleared of all charges, irreparable damage to this vulnerable child and her family has been done.
This is a heartbreaking reminder of why what those of us do who are exposing pseudoscience and potentially harmful therapies, is so vital. It is cases such as this that make me all the more determined to continue what I am doing, regardless of push back and resistance from certain mental health professionals who are doing everything they can to silence the voices of those who dare to blow the whistle.
For those unfamiliar with Facilitated Communication (FC), what it is and its background, an earlier Frontline documentary is available online, which gives the background on FC and shows how it was completely discredited by double-blind controlled studies which provided irrefutable evidence that it was the facilitator, not the autistic person, who was doing the typing. Not only did FC result in bogus charges of sexual abuse being filed, but more commonly, it gave parents false hopes that their child was actually communicating with them when in fact, they were not.
Whether intentional or not, I cannot imagine a crueler hoax, to lead a parent to believe that their child is communicating with them when really it is the doings of some stranger who was guiding their hands. It appears that most FC proponents are not intentionally perpetrating a hoax and they really believe in what they are doing, but nevertheless, it is highly irresponsible to be using a method that has been so thoroughly discredited.
It was bad enough when FC was being used in the 1990s when it was untested rather than discredited but now that double blind controlled studies have been done, anyone who uses it now, in my opinion is committing a gross deviation from any proper standard of care I can think of. What happened with FC in the 1990s is an illustration of why it is so important to thoroughly test interventions before they are released to the public because without such testing we have no idea whether the intervention will help, do nothing or harm. When FC first came out, positive anecdotes and success stories abounded and it was said to be a miracle that gave autistic children, for the very first time, a voice. Sadly, it was nothing of the sort.
While it is no surprise that true believers in pseudoscientific practices will explain away any studies that falsify their claims (that is a hallmark indicator of a pseudoscience) and conduct poorly designed studies of their own, what is shocking to me is that in the year 2007, more than 15 years after the practice was so thoroughly discredited, police and prosecutors accepted it so uncritically. Additionally, the school paid to have an FC facilitator accompany the child to classes and apparently the school never questioned its validity. The father spent 80 days in jail and the parents had both of their children removed from the home and placed in foster care, based solely on the results of a Facilitated Communication session where accusations of abuse were typed out. Additionally, her brother was subjected to a grueling interrogation by police where they did everything they could to try to pressure him into saying the charges were true. It took some doing to get those charges dropped and the children returned to their loving home with their parents.
Thankfully, the “facilitator” Cynthia Scarsella, according to the 20/20 report, currently makes her living as a clerk at a clothing store in a mall. She refused to talk to reporters. Let’s hope Ms. Scarsella is never allowed to go near another child again in the role of any kind of a therapist or “facilitator”. However she was ever given any credibility in a court of law, remains a mystery.
This case serves as a heartbreaking reminder of the kind of damage that can be done through the use of untested or in this case, thoroughly discredited interventions. This practice ought to have ended in the 1990s when similar false accusations were made and the practice was falsified via double blind studies. When will they ever learn?
Blog Statistics for 2011: Thanks to all my readers and Happy New Year!
I just got my blog statistics for 2011. WordPress reported:
The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 18,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 7 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
I thank all my readers for reading this blog, which I hope you have found educational and beneficial and thank you for caring about its topic. This has been a productive year for me with several new publications and other blessings for which I am grateful.
For those who have asked about my upcoming book on pseudoscience, thank you for your interest! This is a peer reviewed book and these kinds of publications take time to produce, but my co-author (Bruce Thyer) and I have made excellent progress on it during 2011 and are planning on submitting our final draft in early 2012, meaning that it is indeed possible, depending on our publisher, that the book could be published by the end of 2012. I will keep you all posted.
My best wishes to all for a Happy and Prosperous 2012!
Brown Recovered Memory Project: Questionable Criteria
Since it is common for recovered memory proponents to raise the straw man issue and falsely accuse anyone who challenges them as being in favor of sexual abuse or protecting child abusers, that is not the case, so let me be perfectly clear from the outset. Child sexual abuse is horrible and devastating to victims. People who come forward with false accusations based on being subjected to suggestive therapy techniques (and no, these are not limited to hypnosis) do a disservice to all victims of child sexual abuse and most victims do have continuous memories that they wish they could forget, but cannot. Some who experienced acts of abuse that did not involve penetration or physical pain, as the research of Richard J. McNally and Elke Gerarets and Susan Clancy has shown, were too young to understand what happened to them at the time of the abuse and did not experience it as a trauma at the time. Many of these people did not think about the abuse for a period of time, not because they repressed it, but because they didn’t understand what it meant. As adults, when these people came to realize the horror of what was done to them, it is then that they experienced devastating emotional aftereffects.
That does not, however, preclude the fact that there are a number of cases where false memories of abuse were recovered in therapy, where the therapist used hypnosis or other suggestive techniques. Note that denial of the use of hypnosis does not preclude recovery of false memories, as there are many other techniques that do not use formal hypnotic induction, yet are suggestive (e.g. guided visualization, the authority and certainty of the therapist that the person must have been abused and forgotten about it, group influence and many others).
The Brown University Recovered Memory Project claims to have 110 cases of recovered memory of trauma. However, there are some serious problems with their criteria that need to be considered. The problems fall into two categories 1) The criteria for corroboration and 2) There do not appear to be any criteria for what constitutes repression or traumatic amnesia, as opposed to other reasons for not remembering (e.g. the events in question happened at a very early age, physical brain damage, ordinary forgetting).
First, let’s look at their inclusion criteria and possible problems. They state that at least one of these criteria being met is a basis for inclusion.
a. confession, guilty plea, or self-incriminatory statement
This is highly problematic. It is well known and solidly substantiated that interrogation techniques can produce false confessions. Guilty pleas can be part of plea bargains and do not necessarily mean that the person is actually guilty. If someone is faced with a life prison sentence, they might well be motivated to pleading guilty as part of a plea bargain to a lesser crime that would still involve abuse, so they can have a lighter sentence, if they don’t want to risk a guilty verdict that could produce a life sentence. “Self-incriminatory statement” is vague. How is this defined? There is no indication. People can say all kinds of things under pressure, even when innocent, that may sound “self-incriminatory”. Just look at the case of Amanda Knox, who was pressured into a false confession and later acquitted.
b. testimony from other victims (or from an eyewitness to the abuse), or corroborative documentary evidence that is vitally relevant to the charges at issue
Again, this is vague. What is meant by “corroborative documentary evidence” and testimonies from other victims may or may not be evidence. What if the alleged victims were all treated by the same therapist or by the same facility? There have been cases where a number of patients in a particular treatment facility recovered highly improbable recovered memories of Satanic Ritual abuse. Such cases would fit Brown’s criteria, since they would have multiple “witnesses”.
c. corroboration of significant circumstantial evidence
Again, this is very vague. What is meant by “significant circumstantial evidence”?
Nevertheless, some of the cases presented do appear to have compelling corroborative evidence, but there is another problem that has not been addressed. What are the criteria for establishing a memory was “repressed” or that there was actually amnesia induced by the trauma, rather than ordinary forgetting?
For example, in the study by sociologist Linda Williams and her colleagues is a famous study frequently cited and cited in this project as well as support for corroborated recovered memories. The study interviewed 129 women between the ages of 18 and 31 about sexual abuse that was documented to have occurred 17 years earlier by hospital records and found that 38% (46 women) interviewed did not remember the particular incident of abuse that had been documented. Although 33 of the women remembered other incidents of abuse, 16 women reported they had no memories whatsoever of any abuse. However, of the 129 women, 42 had experienced the abuse from ages 0 to 6 years old and 25 of those were in the group that could not remember the event. Their failure to remember is better explained by the fact that they were too young at the time of the abuse to remember. It is normal not to remember an event, traumatic or not, that happened in early childhood or infancy. Also, not all of the hospital documentation was based on physical evidence. Although 60% did have such evidence, 40% did not. Some were based on disclosures by young children of events that happened at earlier ages, which even Williams acknowledged that they “may be attributable to information they received later in life.” So is this study solid documentation that repression exists? Hardly.
As Richard J. McNally pointed out, for traumatic amnesia to exist, it would have to mean that the person failed to remember an event, when presented with cues. It is not uncommon for the person not to think about a trauma for a period of time, but that doesn’t necessarily qualify as repression. For example, someone might have been sexually abused as a child, not thought about it for a period of time and then suddenly had memories come flooding back when the victim herself gave birth to a child. In that case, having a child of ones own was the cue to the memories coming back. Or visiting an old childhood location could bring back memories. Or someone was abused by a priest, didn’t think about it for a period of time, but the memories came back when they heard on the news that someone else had been abused by the same priest. If the memories were truly repressed, the person would be unable to remember, even when presented with such cues. This can even happen with non-traumatic events. I don’t see that this was ruled out in the cases that are presented.
Other possibilities not ruled out in cases presented as evidence for repression in the Brown archives and also in the very frequently cited book, Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law (Brown, Scheflin and Hammond, 1998, Norton) would include:
- Some children or even adults, when interviewed, may remember the abuse but just be too uncomfortable to talk about it.
- Physical brain damage that could be responsible for memory loss not being ruled out (especially the case where traumatic amnesia was claimed for studies on Holocaust survivors or combat veterans, most of whom have vivid memories but some who were said to have amnesia).
- Trauma victim reported forgetting of everyday current things in life, but not the trauma itself, yet this was incorrectly labeled as traumatic amnesia.
- Some of the studies were based on the self-reports of the person who had the trauma saying that he or she had spoken to others and corroborated the abuse, but the investigators did not independently corroborate the events by speaking to the witnesses themselves. They took the person’s word for it.
- Details of the traumatic event were not encoded in the first place. For example, a crime victim was looking at the attackers weapon, rather than his face, and hence is not able to identify the attacker, not because of repression, but because the victim was not looking at the face in the first place.
- Suppression, not repression. There is a big difference. People who suppressed memories (deliberately decided not to think about them) admitted in interviews that if asked, they could have easily remembered. People who repress memories and have traumatic amnesia, would not have the ability to do that.
- And last but not least, people who were too young to understand the significance of sexual abuse that did not involve penetration and was not physically painful and hence, did not encode the memory of abuse as a trauma at the time it happened and did not think about it for a period of time, only to later remember it as an adult when reminded of it and come to the painful realization of the violation that had occurred. This was not repression or traumatic amnesia, but rather, cases of young children who did not understand the significance of what happened to them.
For a very thorough review of all the problems with the studies cited in the book, Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law, see Chapter 7 of Richard J. McNally’s, Remembering Trauma. The “corroborated” cases of the Recovered Memory Project suffer from some of the same deficiencies.
The problems with this archive are important to consider, in light of recent discussions and myths about trauma and memory that are being spread by impassioned proponents of recovered memory and DID following the publication of Debbie Nathan’s book, Sybil Exposed and the recent malpractice lawsuit brought against Castlewood Treatment Center and psychologist Mark Schwartz, by a former patient. Although some had thought these myths went away in the 1990s after more research emerged, recent people subjected to such therapy are now coming forward, showing that unfortunately, it is still being practiced and has passionate devotees repeating discredited myths about trauma and memory.
To sum things up, here is an excerpt from an Amicus Brief for Taus v Loftus filed by a number of “nationally and internationally prominent psychiatrists, psychologists and behavioral scientists, Federal grant recipients, private foundation grant recipients, members of professional journal editorial boards, journal reviewers, recipients of national research awards, collectively publishers of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, and/or licensed clinical health care practitioners” . Go here to view their names and affiliations (note this is not an argument from authority because they provided extensive scientific evidence to back up their position):
As we examine these issues in greater detail throughout this brief, it is important for the court to remember that it is the consensus opinion of the relevant scientific community that there is no credible,
methodologically sound scientific evidence whatsoever for the theory that trauma survivors truly “repress” and then later “recover” memories of events that were experienced as traumatic at the time. Although a vocal subset of clinicians (therapists) believe in the “repression” hypothesis, research conducted over many years involving thousands of trauma-abuse victims demonstrates and emphasizes the persistence of trauma memories. “Repressed and recovered memory of trauma” is thus best described as a dangerous, piece of psychiatric folklore devoid of convincing scientific evidence.3 In our collective opinion, this unsupported theory has caused incalculable harm to the fields of psychology and psychiatry, damaged tens if not hundreds of thousands of families, severely harmed the credibility of mental health professionals, and also misled the legislative, civil, criminal and family legal systems into many miscarriages of justice. (Taus v Loftus, Amicus Curiae Brief of the National Committee of Scientists for Academic Liberty in support of Defendants and Appellants, Elizabeth Loftus, et al. p. 8 )
ISST-D members have implied, at various times, that those who challenge their views are part of some kind of lunatic fringe group and that they (the ISST-D) are the scientific mainstream. Examination of the names on this list conclusively demonstrates that precisely the opposite appears to be the case. It is also important to recognize that contrary to unfounded assertions by proponents of recovered memory type therapies that this is all just some conspiracy by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), that is not the case with this Amicus. In fact, most were never members of the FMSF and the brief states that:
Prior to the litigation at issue, they were not organized in any formal way, and many, if not most, of them have never met the individual defendants in this case (p. 6).
Steve Hassan Applies his Model to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“Mormons”): Based on “Scientific Research” as he claims or Pseudoscience?
The topic of this article is a discussion and closer look at Steve Hassan’s recent blog article entitled: An Expert Responds to the Cult Controversy Re Mormonism and the unsubstantiated claims he makes about his model being “scientific”. Although Steve Hassan has been described by some of his supporters as a “researcher” this label is inaccurate, as he has not actually conducted any research studies, nor has he published any studies in journals, which is what legitimate researchers do. This can be easily verified by doing a search on PsychInfo or Medline on his name as author. The only material that will come up are non-peer reviewed books. As someone who is actually a researcher and unlike Mr. Hassan, has had direct experience with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the “Mormons”) and who has a strong background in scientific research, here is my response.
Before addressing this topic, in the interest of full disclosure, although I have not been active or practicing since high school, I am still listed on official church records as LDS/Mormon. Even though I am inactive, unless a member explicitly requests to have his or her name removed from the membership records or is excommunicated, that person is still considered LDS and I have no intention of requesting such a removal, nor have I done anything that would have warranted excommunication (contrary to popular belief, people are not excommunicated for doing things like breaking the Word of Wisdom or failure to tithe and even when people are excommunicated they have the opportunity to repent and come back). Even though as people can see from reading my blogs, I am very sensitive to issues of abuse within groups, I have no complaints whatsoever about the way I was treated by anyone in the LDS religion.
In my personal experience with the LDS religion, which couldn’t have been more different from my later experience in Scientology, no one was ever anything less than kind, loving and respectful to me and no one has ever pressured me to come back to church or tried to frighten me about what would happen. Hardly “cult” behavior. On the contrary, very likely, I have my Mormon roots to thank for my resilience in the face of adversity, my perseverance in standing on principle and my ability to keep my focus on gratitude for what I do have (a practice which in recent times in the resilience literature, has even come to have scientific support) as opposed to what I have lost or don’t have.
Go here for a good website (by a Mormon, Jeff Lindsay) that debunks some of the allegations against LDS that are based on ignorance and an intelligent discussion of some of the theological as well as behavioral issues commonly discussed by critics. As Jeff Lindsay points out, unlike cultists, Mormons do not claim to have “all the answers” or a “monopoly on truth”. He writes:
As a member of the Church, I honestly believe that we have something wonderful and divine that can bless the lives of all people who choose to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Please note that we do not have a monopoly on truth. We recognize that there is truth and goodness in virtually all religions, and many things that we can learn from the truths, wisdom, and experiences of those in other faiths. We do not have all the answers!! In fact, one of our basic Articles of Faith teaches us that we believe that there are yet many great things to be revealed – meaning, of course, that there is plenty that we just don’t know and understand yet. We are commanded to keep learning, to seek knowledge out of “the best books” and to learn as much as we can on our own. At the same time, we believe we have been given some precious truths and principles in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. We believe that the Church is of divine origin, in spite of all the flaws of its human members and human leaders over the years. And we think what we have can be added to the truths you may already know and cherish to bless your life in many ways and bring you close to our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.
Now to the topic at hand. Steve Hassan has posted an article to his blog entitled An Expert Responds to the Cult Controversy Re Mormonism. Although the definition of what constitutes an “expert” is questionable, since my qualifications to be an expert on cults are as least as strong as his although we have different strengths (he has done more exit counseling interventions and media appearances than I have and is a better, more persuasive salesperson than I am, while I have more research experience and education along with my experience with cult-involved individuals and families. Although I have done fewer interventions than he has, I do have about 15 years of experience, but I understand the limitations on making claims based on such experience. Here is my own opinion on the topic.
Before I begin, I want to note that this article is in no way intended to be a criticism of Margaret Singer, who was indeed a pioneer in the study of cults and thought reform and honestly represented her work as being research on cults as its very earliest stages of development. Although there were times I disagreed with some of the actions she took, Singer can be honorably remembered as a pioneer and later in her life, as an outspoken critic of pseudoscientific and unscientific therapies and therapists. I have no doubt she would be rolling over in her grave to see the kind of “parts” work being offered by some self-proclaimed “cult experts” today and in her book, Crazy Therapies, she was an outspoken critic of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), upon which the work of one “cult expert” is at least partially based. The problem is not with Singer, but with those who are now attempting to overstate claims about her work and then believe they can offer untested models of their own, based on overstated claims.
It is also worth noting that although Steve Hassan invokes her name, there was never any indication that Margaret Singer considered the Mormon religion a cult. On the contrary, she was a adviser and mentor to someone who is a highly active LDS bishop who is also a bona fide expert in scientific mental health practice and never once, did she ever express concerns that this person was involved in a cult. Clearly, she would disagree with Steve Hassan on this topic and I find it disingenuous that he would invoke her name, following her death when she is not able to respond. Thankfully, however, there are people who knew her well who know her views on this topic.
Steve Hassan is now making the claim that:
To help those affected by cults, I built on scientific research conducted by Robert Jay Lifton and Margaret Singer– both pioneers in the field of mind control– to develop what I call the BITE model.
Go here for Steve Hassan’s full description of his BITE model. This claim is questionable on a number of levels. In the first place, even if a model is proposed based on earlier rigorous scientific research, it does not mean that the developer does not himself need to do research to support and validate. Steve Hassan has published no such research. Please note that I am not accusing him of deliberate misrepresentation; it is quite possible that with his Masters in Counseling, not a research-oriented type of degree, he lacks the background in research to know what is involved in testing models for reliability and validity, which takes a great deal of hard work. One does not just write up a model, cite references upon which it is based and then go out and apply it, as Hassan has done. Demonstrating what it is based on, is only the very first step. It must then be subject to expert review panels, revised refined, based on those results and then subjected to testing with large samples by procedures such as exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, determining whether the dimensions hang together (in this case B, I, T and E) and other tests to see how well it correlates with existing measures and what they are predicted to be related to. Actually, to their credit, Michael Langone and his colleagues have done some factor analysis on a Group Psychological Abuse (GPA) scale and come up with an empirically based definition of cults, which is at least a good start to the kind of empirical validation that is necessary to gain some credibility in the field. Langone’s team came up with the “three Ds” , Debility, Dread and Dependence that characterize cultic groups and published their factor analysis in the Cultic Studies Journal and a more recent article summarizes subsequent development including research conducted by a Carmen Alamendros and her colleagues in Spain. This is the kind of research we need to see more of. Even though this is far more rigorous research than anyone else has done, Langone is honest enough to admit, “The research conducted with the GPA is but the first phase in what ought to be a long-range program of research. ” Yes, exactly.
Back to the BITE model, second, the research Hassan cites is far from rigorous. Margaret Singer, although she did some research early in her career, she, herself states that the conclusions she came to and the six characteristics of cults she came up with did not, come from research. Note that this is not meant as a criticism of Singer, as she was very honest and transparent about her sources. In an article, published in Psychiatric Annals in 1990, she and Richard Ofshe stated:
The analysis presented here is based on observations made since 1972 with over 3,000 people who have been exposed to thought reform programs in three types of closed restrictive groups: certain cults, some therapeutic communities, and certain large-group awareness trainings. At a surface level, these groups seem to be a varied lot. From the descriptions we have secured from people who participated in groups carrying out programs that met criteria for a thought reform program, we have begun to identify types of psychological responses. This work is in progress, and the following is an overview of our results to date.
In other words, her work is based on her clinical observations, which, extensive as they were, do not constitute scientific research and nothing more rigorous has been published since with regard to her model. Although very early in her career, Margaret Singer did publish research (mainly on schizophrenia, not on cults), she was primarily a clinician and her writings were based on her clinical observations. These observations can legitimately be considered as a starting point, but in no way should they be used to claim that a later developed model “based on” them is scientific. In fact, when an APA Task Force was convened on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control, chaired by Margaret Singer and the work of Singer, Lifton and the very best evidence available was attempted to be presented as evidence, the Task Force rejected it, the final report stating that:
BSERP thanks the Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control for its service but is unable to accept the report of the Task Force. In general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur.
The reviews were scathing and perhaps unnecessarily harsh. They could have said it in a nicer way, but they did have a point when it came to claims based on insufficient evidence. Singer attempted to sue the APA for “defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy” but the case was dismissed, due to the fact that the US constitution protects the right to free speech on such issues.
So much for Steve Hassan’s claims that his BITE model is based on “scientific research”, but even if it were, it would not absolve him of the responsibility to scientifically test the model itself and unless he does this, it cannot be considered scientific. If he wants to make a more modest claim, as Margaret Singer did for her own model being a work in progress, then fine, but when he over-represents it as he has on his recent blog article, he needs to be challenged.
One of the biggest problems with the BITE model is that although it may accurately identify groups of concern, it may also, as I discussed in an earlier article, produce false positives. That is, groups that are not cults might be identified as such.
Steve Hassan’s latest blog article is on the topic of whether the mainstream Mormon religion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should be considered a cult. He offers one ex-Mormon’s application of his BITE model as evidence that it should be. Note that he does not explicitly state in the blog article that he considers it to be a cult. He offers his BITE criteria and asks people to think for themselves (using his BITE article premises, though!). Hassan has, however, made his views quite clear on Mormonism in a 2008 talk he gave at an ex-Mormon conference, still available on YouTube where he makes his views on Mormonism and cults quite explicit. He is quite clear on that video that he does consider the Mormon church to be a cult. He pays lip service to urging people to think for themselves, but then puts forth his own criteria that he has not encouraged people to question but instead, makes the unsubstantiated assertion they are scientific. In other words, the implicit message seems to be, think for yourself using my premises.
That is hardly the kind of scientific rigor he implies it is. In fact, many of the ways in which the ex-Mormon claims it fits could be applied to a number of the major world religions. For example, the pressure to marry within ones religion is hardly unique to Mormonism and there are many Fundamentalist Christians who believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ is going to burn in hell. Special garments are common among many major world religions. As for phobia indoctrination, when my mother first read Combatting Cult Mind Control, she felt that this strongly applied to what she had experienced, growing up in the Catholic church and being taught by nuns in Catholic school and how she initially felt when she decided to leave the Catholicism and convert to the Episcopal Church, how difficult a decision that was, having to overcome earlier fears installed about what would happen if one left. Also, when I was giving a presentation on cults, a former Catholic nun in the audience who had left a convent, later came up to me and informed me that at the comment, forbidden books were identified at the convent. Does this make the Catholic Church a cult or does it mean that the model identifies false positives?
This is ironic, given that in Steve Hassan’s own religion, Judiasm, it is well known that there is very strong pressure within Jewish families to marry within the religion (the ex-Mormon listed this as one of the ways in which Mormonism conforms to the BITE model). Most of us know Jewish parents who were devastated if their children married outside the religion and let their adult children and their spouses know it by shunning the spouse and complaining when holidays such as Christmas were celebrated by the interfaith couple and their children. But does that make it a cult? I doubt Hassan would think so, nor do I. It is understandable that people, whether Mormon, Jewish, Fundamentalist Christian or Atheist, would want to seek partners with similar values and actually research shows that like-minded people have a better chance of marital success. Does that mean it conforms to the BITE model or is this a false positive? Note that this is not the tu quoque fallacy, as it is a legitimate requirement that assessment tools not only correctly identify what they were designed to identify, but also that they do not produce false positives. Just as the BITE model was applied to Mormonism it could be similarly applied to many major world religions.
If Steve Hassan would be candid and transparent enough to admit that research on cults is in its infancy and we all still have a great deal to learn, his opinions might be interesting and valuable within that context and I would have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is his portrayal of himself as the leading cult and “mind control” expert and claims without evidence, that his therapy is superior to that of other therapists he considers non “experts” and that his implications that work is “scientific”. When these kinds of grandiose claims are made, they must be viewed with skepticism and caution. But then again, skepticism and caution doesn’t sell very well, especially among people who are looking for quick and certain answers and to give credit where credit is due, he does offer this in nice, neat sound bytes.
As for the Mormon religion, some of the most rigorous critical thinkers I know regarding pseudoscience in mental health practices and evidence-based practice, happen to be Mormons whereas some of the most uncritically accepting individuals I have seen come, unfortunately, from the community of certain (not all, but some) self-proclaimed “cult experts”. Although I have not yet decided who I will support in the 2012 election, I would have no problem supporting a Mormon political candidate, if I agreed with their views in other areas.
Perhaps a more useful way to use these various models of thought reform and “cult” characteristics would be to identify how they are used at times by virtually any organization, have an open and critical discussion of the processes involved, rather than simply slapping a label on organizations one doesn’t like and explaining them away when they exist in organizations one does support.
PS: It is interesting to note, as some else recently pointed out to me, that Steve Hassan’s blog does not have any kind of mechanism that allows people to post comments. This blog does and even though I cannot post comments to his blog, he is welcome to post his comments to mine, should he desire to respond to any of this.
Eating Disorders Residential Treatment Facility and Psychologist Sued by Former Patient
A Missouri eating disorders treatment center, Castlewood and one of its co-directors, psychologist Mark Schwartz, are being sued for malpractice in the Missouri Circuit Court by former patient Lisa Nasseff, who is reported to have been a patient, off and on for a total of 15 months, at the facility from 2007 through 2009 and also received outpatient therapy through 2010. Please note that at this point, everything I am about to describe has the status of an allegation, as the case has not yet been heard and tried. Go here to read the full complaint by Lisa Nasseff against Castlewood and Dr. Schwartz.
The charges are very serious and include the allegations that false memories were implanted of sexual abuse, multiple rapes, Satanic ritual abuse, membership in a Satanic cult where serious crimes were committed, as well as convincing the patient that she had 20 multiple personalities. Lisa Nasseff is being represented by attorney Kenneth Vuylsteke. Nasseff alleges that Dr. Schwartz, as her therapist, hypnotized her and implanted false memories. Dr. Schwartz has spoken to the press and is completely denying the charges. Schwartz, who reported as of the date of that article that he had not retained legal counsel responded, “We don’t use hypnosis” although an introductory video on the website by clinical co-director Lori Galperin, when listing the various specialties of the staff, does mention hypnosis and it is also mentioned in a written description of staff specialties (see #5).
One of the main therapies used in the center is Internal Family Systems (IFS) and the website states that all staff are trained this approach. These cannot be said to be some rogue therapists misusing IFS because the creator of IFS, Richard Schwartz (not sure if he and Mark Schwartz are related), is listed as staff at Castlewood and reportedly trained all the staff in IFS. Internal Family Systems is basically family systems, applied not to actual families, but to internal “parts” within a person. This approach has also been used by Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) therapists although it does not necessarily have to be only for DID. The IFS model is described on the Castlewood website. Several strong claims are made about IFS in the treatment of eating disorders, claiming that it helps the client to get to the root of the problem and find “parts” that may be sabotaging treatment success and hence, provides long-lasting results. However, I have been unable to find references to peer reviewed published outcome research that would support such claims.
On a side note, Steve Hassan has reported in a Psychology Today advertisement that he is trained in and utilizes IFS in his treatment of former cult members and this concerns me greatly, since I have not seen any evidence that it is effective and does no harm. This fits with his own theory that there is a “cult self” that has been created by cult indoctrination. Ironically, the description of IFS, the way parts are identified and located according to how they are felt in the body, bears some similarities to Scientology’s secret upper level called OT III, which also somaticizes “parts” that they call “body thetans”. Needless to say, IFS does not have the accompanying sci fi narrative as to how this came about, but I’ve often wondered if it is Scientology’s “parts work” that has damaged some on this level to the point they have had to be hospitalized or worse. Like IFS, Scientology promises, ironically, “return of full self determinism” by completing that level. Here we have a promise of return to an authentic self, free of influence, when the reality is all too often just the opposite. This may be the ultimate form of betrayal.
What I have learned since, from my study of a large volume of social psychology literature is that no human being is completely free from influence. What we can do is learn about influence techniques and do the best we can to identify them when they occur, learn and practice critical thinking skills and apply them wherever possible, but to think that one is immune and fully self-determined is what makes us most vulnerable. The “authentic self” is an imperfect self and varies from individual to individual. Not all “authentic selves” are likable, charismatic, and good, as the IFS description implies. Although we are all born with the potential to be virtuous, we are not born with virtues, nor do I believe we are we born “evil”. Virtues have to be earned through our actions. My own point of view is that who we are, ultimately is the sum total of all we have done in our lives, some of it chosen and some of it not and subject to change, depending on what we are doing now and will do in the future. Note that I am saying all, not isolated acts or periods in our lives, taken out of context as we have all done things in our lives that we are less than proud of that do not have to be our identity, although smear propagandists would like to portray it that way. When a person admits to mistakes and strives to learn from them, that speaks volumes for who they are. When a person arrogantly refuses to admit mistakes and shows no remorse for causing harm (e.g. Conrad Murray in his most recent documentary) that also speaks volumes and those are the individuals who are indeed a danger to society.
In any case, although it is promoted as being just the opposite, IFS seems to be a convenient way not to take responsibility for ones own actions if someone does something he or she is not proud of (e.g. getting involved in a cult or behaving in a reprehensible manner or simply losing ones temper). According to IFS, it’s the “part” that did it and the real “self” is completely benign, honest, authentic and good. This also bears similarities to Scientology’s conception of the native state of a spiritual being, aka, the thetan. It is highly questionable if IFS is helpful and not harmful for anyone, let alone former cult members. It seems to complicate things unnecessarily. The client originates a feeling connected with a presenting problem and this gets labeled by the therapist as a “part” rather than simply a feeling. I can see how this would be a compelling belief, but the question remains, whether it is helpful or harmful. I raise these concerns, not to make claims, but I raise them as possibilities that need to be investigated. Although it is claimed that the goal is to integrate the parts, labeling and reinforcing them in this manner may result in further fragmentation and since at this point this is clinical lore that hasn’t been subjected to randomized controlled trials, we simply do not know and it should be labeled experimental outlining possible risks to clients, if therapists are determined to use it. There may be people who genuinely befit from such an approach, even if it turns out that others were harmed. No therapy or therapist is 100% harmful all the time for everyone. I point this out because often this becomes a primary form of defense, showing testimonials of people who feel they were helped. Although this may be the case (not necessarily because testimonials are not evidence, even for the individuals who give them since it is possible for a person to believe he or she is better when that actually is not the case and testimonials can easily be faked), it does not in any disprove that others were harmed, as the differences in outcomes are not mutually exclusive and can coexist. The State of California v Conrad Murray in the death of Michael Jackson clearly illustrates this, as I have no doubt that when he practiced standard medicine, he truly did save lives and help the patients who testified for him who appeared to be very honest and credible individuals, yet with Michael Jackson, he was found guilty of egregious violations and he richly deserved every word uttered by Judge Michael Pastor and his ensuing sentence, regardless of who he helped in the past. Whether that is the case with Castlewood, remains to be seen, but thankfully no one has died there, as far as I know but there are allegations of serious damage, at great expense. Since Castlewood uses a wide variety of different modalities (some of them with an evidence-base, such as DBT) and treatment varies by individual, some individuals may well have benefited from their treatment there. Whether some individuals have been harmed, remains to be seen. The evidence presented in this case, if it continues, or if others come forward, will reveal whether this is the case.
Nasseff’s allegations that she was alienated from family members is particularly concerning since family therapy (with an actual family, not an internal “parts” family) is an empirically supported approach to eating disorders. In other words, family support is very important and can be very helpful in recovery. The therapies shown to work for eating disorders are those such as Cognitive-Behavioral therapy that deal with the present and interpersonal therapy is helpful with relationships and systems of support. There is no good evidence that going back into the past and hunting for trauma is helpful, nor is there evidence of a causal relationship between trauma and eating disorders (correlation is not necessarily causation).
Although Mark Schwartz is vigorously denying the allegations in the complaint, according to legal counsel Vuylsteke, there are “several” other former patients who are alleging similar experiences and thus corroborating Nasseff’s allegations and may come forward at some point.
It is also interesting to note that Mark Schwartz has presented at ISST-D conferences, as recently as 2010 and is listed as a therapist in their membership referral database on the ISST-D website. Recently, some other high profile members of ISST-D, such as Dr. Richard Kluft, have maintained that the memories of satanic cults are screen memories for other forms of abuse. However, Nasseff alleges in her complaint that she was threatened by Dr. Schwartz that if she were to come forward and sue him, the crimes she revealed in therapy to have perpetrated as part of the alleged Satanic cult, would have to come out. If this allegation is shown to be true, the it would mean that at least by some therapists, these memories are believed to literally be true. Time will tell as the evidence unfolds, whether or not this is the case. Will ISST-D support and defend Dr. Schwartz, as they have earlier defendants such as Judith Peterson? Again, time will tell.
Although there were a number of very high profile recovered memory lawsuits in the 1990s, this recent lawsuit, if Nasseff’s allegations are proven in a court of law, would show that, as I have long suspected, such therapy has not ceased but has merely gone underground and not publicly discussed and indeed, Dr. Schwartz has denied that he has ever discussed Satanic cults with the plaintiff. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds and plays out and this is a case I will continue to follow with great interest.
Martha Marcy May Marlene: An Echo of Therapy Myths?
Sean Durkin’s movie, Martha Marcy May Marlene (MMMM), has opened to great critical acclaim. As far as the acting (especially the brilliant performance by Elizabeth Olsen) and the movie as a work of art about human relationships is concerned, the critical acclaim is well deserved although at times, through no fault of the actors, motivation was unclear. For example, I really didn’t see a compelling motivation for Martha to join the commune, other than some vague sense that she had a need to belong. Contrary to this stereotype, while need to belong can be as powerful factor for some in getting involved in a cult, it is by far, not the only or even the main factor for everyone. The need to make a difference in the world, idealism, the cult offering solutions to problems, financial prosperity, or comfort for an emotional issue such as a loss, can all be compelling inducements getting involved in such a situation. As someone who has had first-hand experience as well as counseling hundreds who have been in cults and known thousands, in my opinion, it fails when it comes to be a realistic depiction of the typical cult experience on many levels.
Caution: If you haven’t seen the movie, this review does contain some spoilers, such a a revelation of the ending.
The good news is that the movie is not claimed to be anything other than fiction, so at least we don’t have the same situation as we did with Sybil. The bad news is, that the movie is already being co-opted by at least one self-proclaimed cult “expert” as an accurate depiction of the psychological problems one experiences while leaving the cult, especially if they do not get “specialized” counseling from an “expert” who appears to be using it as a tool to bring more people into therapy with him by claiming, in essence, that the movie is an accurate depiction of so-called “walk aways” or “castaways” (I’ve always found those labels very demeaning although they were thankfully not used in the movie but are used by “experts” such as Hassan) from cults who do not get “expert” help from the enlightened “counseled outs”. Not so fast, Mr. Hassan.
Let us look at the actual evidence, rather than uncritically be scared into turning over ourselves over to self-proclaimed cult experts out of fear of meeting the same fate as Martha. Ex-cult members made that mistake once with the cult. Let’s not make it again with those of claim they are your only salvation from cults. Yes, of course there are some ex-cult members who do exhibit these kinds of severe symptoms after leaving cults, but I have to strongly question that this is typical. Based on the literature I have seen and my own familiarity with thousands who have left cults, Martha’s experience appears to be the exception rather than the rule. I also take exception to the condescending label of “walk away” fortunately not used in the movie, but used by “counseled out” people such as Steve Hassan and others, implying that because they were deprogrammed out, they have some kind of edge over people who walked out of cults. Evidence shows otherwise and in fact, even Hassan admits that a number of people have reported being severely traumatized by the deprogramming experience itself. Even when the intervention was voluntary, people who are counseled out often feel violated and deceived if their family members were not open with them in the beginning about the purpose of the intervention, deception that Hassan supports, especially in the cases where he recommends “covert” interventions where the person does not realize he or she is speaking to an exit counselor hired at great expense, by family members.
First of all, there is no evidence that people who walk away from cults (and the majority of cult members do leave that way) and do not seek out help are any more sympomatic than those who are counseled out or seek help from anti-cult “experts”. Some of the literature shows the opposite is the case. A study by Wright showed that people exposed to anti-cult narratives were more symptomatic and that cults are not nearly has harmful as sensationalized media stories and cult “experts” whose living depends on their treatment would have us believe. More recently, however, Carmen Alamendros and her colleagues did a study that compared people who had sought out help from anti-cult organizations to those who did not and found no difference in symptoms. While they didn’t help the symptoms, they also did not increase them, at least in the populations she studied. I need to put that qualifier onto any study on cults, since it is obviously impossible to obtain a random sample of ex-cult members. Alamendros’ study is an improvement, however, over earlier studies such as the one by Conway and Siegelman reported in their book, Snapping, which included only people who had been in contact with anti-cult organizations and complained of severe symptoms. Although this was never stated in MMMM, it is implied and Durkin overtly echoed this mythology in an interview where he stated his belief that “You don’t recover from things like this. It takes years and some people never recover.” On the contrary, the vast majority of ex-cult members can and do recover and most do it without going to a cult “expert”.
MMMM leaves the outcome open-ended and undetermined. It ends with her sister, who never even learned Martha was in a cult, taking her to some sort of undefined residential treatment facility because her symptoms were so severe that she was unable to live with the sister and husband any longer. Martha was having flashbacks to the extent she was unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Just to give an example of her over the top behavior, in one scene she crawls into bed with her sister and husband who are having sex! This was intended to be a dissociative episode, an unknowing reenactment of her former cult practices, which included open sex among members as Martha was unable to distinguish between her memories and reality. While it is normal for people who have been through any kind of intense experience to have “flashbacks” to memories of it and even, to an extent, re-experience emotions, most ex-cult members, even in the early stages, do know the difference and would not engage in such florid behavior that borders on psychosis (of course there are some who do and tragic instances of complete psychotic breaks in reality, for instance, Lisa McPherson, but these are the exception rather than the rule). Moreover, most ex-cultists are very well aware of how to behave in public around people who do not share the cult’s beliefs, especially since Martha was only with the group for two years, having gotten involved as an adult.
While such behavior might be more prevalent among people born and raised in cults, even with people in that population, not all are so out of touch. Yes, the first few weeks out of a cult can be a very confusing time, but most people get through that period and are not so impaired that they cannot function in society. Accounts such as Marc Headley’s Blown for Good, provide a more realistic account of what people, when they are long-term members of a cult’s inner circle, go through when they leave cults. Even though Marc and his wife, Claire were essentially raised in Scientology, their remarkable escape from the group, which included having to get past an electric fenced in compound, shows how well they were still able to think and concoct an elaborate escape plan, as well as function quite well in the outside world by successfully starting a business soon after leaving. Although emotionally, the experience was extremely difficult for them and I’m sure they spent much time confused and struggling to make sense of their experience, they were not out of touch with reality as Martha portrays and the anti-cult mythology would predict. Confusion and struggling to make sense of unusual experiences is part of the human condition, not a mental disorder.
This brings us to an even larger issue, which is the medicalization and pathologizing of human experience and suffering which brings to mind what Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel have called Therapism, the view that human beings are weak, frail creatures who need to be protected and saved by therapists (for example, Steve Hassan, warning female ex-cult members not to go to a movie theater and watch MMMM on a large screen). While rape victims, whether they are ex-cultists or not should be forewarned that there is a pretty graphic and disturbing rape scene in the movie and take that into consideration in deciding whether to see it, I see no reason to presume most female ex cult members are so fragile they cannot handle seeing MMMM. On the contrary, the type of cult portrayed is in many ways just the opposite of how cults such as Scientology operate (for example, the very open ended attitude the MMMM cult had about finding one’s role where in Scientology and most other cults, people are assigned jobs to do, usually with no or little regard what they would like to do).
I’m also puzzled at Sean Durkin’s choice to portray a 60s-style back-to-earth cult reminiscent of Charles Manson’s cult, when he stated in an interview that his impetus for making the movie was to make a modern movie about a cult, since there were none currently in existence and I thought his choice to not feature a religious cult was a smart one, so as to not get off onto a tangent of religious issues. That being said, these back-to-earth types of cults do still exist and may actually be making a comeback in the future, with the influences of Occupy Wall Street (not a cult itself but a fertile ground for cult recruiters to take advantage of) and Global Warming (also not a cult, but subject to misuse by cult leaders). Nevertheless, if he wanted to portray something current, why not portray a new age or psychotherapy cult that operates in more subtle ways and has members who often will openly live within mainstream society yet still manage to live a mentally cloistered existence (e.g. something like James Arthur Ray’s seminars)? I respect his artistic right to make the choice he did, but I’m just curious about it, given his motivation for making this film.
In any case, not everyone needs a therapist to get through such experiences. While there are legitimate reasons to seek help and I would never want to discourage or think less of anyone from doing so, it is not necessarily the right choice for everyone. Personally, I was one who did seek therapy and found it helpful, first from a therapist who knew virtually nothing about cults and was not an “expert” and 12 years later, from someone who did have expertise in cults. I feel that contrary to Hassan’s claims that non-experts are a waste of time and may do harm, I feel I benefited from both in different ways. What I would not presume to do, however, is generalize that my own help-seeking behavior is right for everyone who has left a cult. Some people do perfectly well without any formal therapy. Sometimes a strong system of support, just to help the person get back into the real world, even from people who know nothing about cults, can be very helpful. The highly judgmental attitude of Martha’s sister and her husband are not necessarily typical of family members who know nothing about cults. Of all the families I have counseled with cult involved loved ones, I have yet to come across any that were as insensitive as Martha’s sister was, although some did engage in some uninformed behavior (e.g. trying to get into an argument with the cult member about the cult’s doctrine). I was fortunate in that my own family did not behave in that way at all, although unlike Martha, I spoke very openly and frequently about my experience in Scientology with my family from the very beginning and always knew the difference between my memories and reality. The point is, that every case is different and while there are some common themes, I found the fictional Martha to not be typical of anything I have encountered, although I am aware of isolated cases that do bear similarities.
I share all this to illustrate that experience of former cult members varies greatly, which is why I cringed when I read Steve Hassan’s statement of intentions to show this movie to family members with loved ones involved in a cult. It might be a way to scare them into investing in post-cult therapy, but is it realistic? What comes to mind is an experience recounted by Steve Hassan. He reported that when he was a member of a cult, they were taken to see the movie, The Exorcist as a way to scare them into what would happen if they did not stay with the cult’s program. In all honesty, I have to wonder, how is his planned use of Martha Marcy May Marlene any different? This is what can happen if you don’t get your loved one (or yourself) therapy from a cult expert. Yes, I realize he probably would reply that the difference is that his manipulations are for a good purpose encourage people to think for themselves, but isn’t that a contradiction? And do you really want Hassan (or anyone else, for that matter) define what is good for you and put yourself in their hands to be influenced by manipulative tactics? I write this review to offer a different perspective and although I have not put myself forth into the media to the extent Hassan has, I am just as qualified to have an opinion on this topic as he or any other cult “expert” is. Thankfully, both The Exorcist and Martha Marcy May Marlene are works of fiction that may be enjoyed as well-produced entertainment, but not confused with reality.
Steve Hassan to Speak at Ego-State Therapy Conference in Germany
In the past, I have expressed concerns that Steve Hassan may have gotten involved with questionable DID therapies with ex-cult members, based on exchanges on the now-defunct Freedom of Mind list serv where he defended it. Now we learn that he is scheduled to speak at an Ego States Therapy conference in Germany next week (website is in German but can be easily translated into English with Google Translator). Ego States Therapy is basically parts work and includes highly questionable therapy for DID. Here is the first paragraph of Steve Hassan’s description of the workshop he will be presenting (English translation) click here for full description:
Millions of people have experienced unethical uses of hypnosis, behavior modification techniques and systematic pattern of social influence by destructive cults or individuals in his own body. There is a strong need for therapists who understand it, how to advise these people helping (these people are in the DSM listed IV as Atypical Dissociative Disorders 300.15).
The first sentence with the curious addition of “individuals in his own body” would seem to indicate that he is indeed endorsing DID therapy. Does he inform prospective clients of the highly controversial nature of this therapy? Are his clients being educated on how this can be highly iatrogenic? I would have to ask Steve Hassan: What evidence is there that this therapy helps and does no harm, rather than authoritative assertions and anecdotes?
Additionally, in his bio, he presents himself as: “The leading expert on destructive cults in structures, fundamentalist groups, pathological relationships, etc…” The leading expert? According to whom?
This is a prime example of why it is so important for mental health consumers to question and challenge authority.
The way in which his characterization of post cult pathology and treatment fits several points in Eileen Gambrill’s recently published Propaganda Index (go here for a full copy and article), including:
1. The nature of the problem in distress is in dispute.
12. Prevalence is in dispute.
17. Significant distress and adverse effects are claimed.
21. Course without treatment is described as poor.
25. It is claimed that the problem is under-diagnosed.
29. It is claimed that the problem is under-treated.
These are all the types of claims that Hassan has made in his writings, without, as the checklist indicates, data described in quantitative terms and citations to references that actually provide evidence to support them (as opposed to references to more authoritative unsubstantiated assertions). Instead what we see are vague terms and assertions. Hassan has repeatedly claimed a high prevalence for post cult distress and pathology, including dissociative disorders, that people will stay the same or get worse without treatment from cult “experts” and that the problem is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Where is the evidence to support this?
People who have left cults who do not feel that they are having problems are said to just not be aware of them. What we have here is a classic example of Karl Popper’s unfalsifiable claims. A claim, to be scientific must have a way to be tested/falsified. Post cult syndrome has been rendered unfalsifiable. Anyone who denies having it can be taken as evidence that they are even more in need of treatment. The bottom line, in my opinion, is for therapy consumers is buyer beware. There is no research evidence that therapy from such “experts” helps or is better than therapy from other credentialed mental health professionals who Hassan attempts to steer people away from, claiming that it can make people worse, based on his “experience”. He seems to think that saying “in my experience” alleviates him from the need to support his claims. It doesn’t.
If people think I am being overly harsh here, my intent here is to provide mental health consumers who are seeking help for cult involvement with another perspective that they may not be exposed to through the websites of those who make their living providing such help. Since I do not make a living from this, I am not a business competitor of Hassan’s. As always the views expressed here are my opinions and should not be interpreted as advice. People are obviously free to examine what he and others have to say and make their own decisions.
