Manipulation, Avoid it, guard your self esteem. Tips!

Manipulation is the tool used by the people with shaky self esteem in an attempt to control others.

You should know their tricks and avoid them, to protect your self esteem AND your self. Remember that you need to keep yourself in a safe environment (a safe environment reduces anxiety, and anxiety breeds self doubt, the enemy of self esteem).

Many of the situations they get you into are win-lose (although there are win-win manipulation techniquea, of which I will talk in some post and can help you increase the self esteem of a person).


Here is the first installment on this topic:

Are you someone's puppet? 4 ways people manipulate others.
By Mary Treffert
May 24, 2003



With the current interest in mental health topics, a mental health language has emerged with words such as manipulation, boundaries, limits, rescuing, dependence, and codependence. Many people are unclear what these words mean when applied to relationships. I would like to bring some clarity to one of these terms ? MANIPULATION ? and how it relates to the other terms mentioned above.

Webster?s New World Dictionary defines manipulation as: ?managing or controlling artfully or by shrewd use of influence, often in an unfair or fraudulent way; to alter or falsify for one?s own purpose.?

In relationships, manipulation can be defined as: any attempt to control, through coercion (overt or covert), another person?s thoughts, feelings or behaviors.

From this definition, manipulation would seem to have no advantages. However, if you are codependent and defined by others, there can be many advantages. When you allow others to control your thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and make decisions for you,

-- you do not have to think for yourself;
-- you can avoid taking risks and making difficult decision;
-- you can avoid taking a stand on controversial issues;
-- you can avoid feeling responsible for negative outcomes;
-- you get to blame others when things go wrong;
-- you can believe, when others tell you how to behave, what to think, how to feel and what to decide, that you are ?being loved? because they ?want what is best for you?;
-- you can avoid feeling separate and alone by avoiding conflict;
-- you can avoid the hard work of emotional growth and development.

Appreciating the advantages of not being manipulated is to accept the hard work of living and interacting with others. It is about being willing to grow and develop emotionally. These advantages can be that,

-- you learn to know who you are, what you like, what you think, and how you feel;
-- you learn to make difficult decisions;
-- you get to take credit for your decisions;
-- you learn to handle risks and uncertainty;
-- you learn to handle differences and conflicts;
-- you get to be in control of your life and know the freedom of personal self-reliance;
-- you get to have an increased sense of self worth by feeling competent and capable of taking responsibility for your life and personal happiness.

Manipulation is usually attempted using power, unsolicited helping, rescuing, guilt, weakness, and/or dependence, in order to achieve a desired outcome. For example,

1) Power ? physical, verbal, intellectual intimidation or threats, put-downs, belittling, withholding of things needed or wanted. The goal is to be in a ?one up, I am right and you are wrong? position;

2) Unsolicited helping/rescuing ? doing things for others when they do not request it, want it, or need it; helping others so they become indebted, obligated, and owe you. The goal is to be in the ?after all I have done for you, and now you owe me? position;

3) Guilt ? shaming, scolding, blaming others, attempting to make others responsible, trying to collect for past favors. The goal is to be in the ?it is all your fault,? or ?after all I have done for you and now you treat me like this? position;

4) Weakness/dependence ? being (or threatening to become) helpless, needy, fearful, sick, depressed, incompetent, suicidal. The goal is to confuse want with need, with the message ?if you do not take care of me, something bad is going to happen and it will be all your fault? position.

With manipulation, there is a physical and emotional response, such as a heightened level of anxiety or irritation, although it may not be perceived as such.

Manipulation feels like a struggle or contest, not free communication. The reason is the manipulator is always invested in the outcome of a situation.

This is where boundaries differ from manipulation.
Boundaries (or limits) are statements about our values and where we stand on issues. True boundaries are not threats or about getting the other person to do what we want. True boundaries are not compromised by another?s response.

For example, you discover that your spouse has lied to you and has run up a large gambling debt. You discover the problem by chance, get financial and professional help and are back on track. However, there are new signs of trouble. It is time for some hard decisions.

- What is your bottom line?

- What will you tolerate?

- What manipulative tactics do you use to change your spouse?s behavior ? check up on them constantly, bird-dog them, never let them be alone, hide the credit cards, lie to your creditors, parents, and children?

- How much rescuing, guilt, power plays, threats, and protection do you run on the gambler?

- At what point do you stop trying to change their behavior and let them know your bottom line?

You cannot make them do or not do anything. You can only let them know what your position is and what you are willing to do to protect yourself and those you are responsible for.

The problem with loud, threatening bottom lines, is that they keep getting louder, more threatening, and redrawn lower and lower.

We tend to determine what our position and action is by what the other person does, instead of voicing our true position and then responding accordingly. This is the time for tough decisions and actions.

In another example, a friend asks you for a ride to work because she is having car trouble. This is the time to establish ground rules, such as, how long will she need your help, pick up times, expense sharing, days off, etc. A boundary or limit is set when you clearly let your friend know what you are willing to do and not do.

Problems arise ? she is frequently not on time morning and evening. Do you wait and be late, or do you leave her? Her car has been in the shop six weeks because she cannot afford to get it out. She has not offered to help with the expense, nor does she seem concerned about the arrangement.

Your friend is using weakness to manipulate and be dependent on you. She has transferred her problem to you and you have accepted it by rescuing and not setting boundaries or limits on your participation in her problem. If you refuse to wait when she is late and she has problems as a result, she will blame you and try to make you feel guilty. What we really want are for others to be responsible and play fair; however, when they do not, we either have to set boundaries, or feel manipulated and victimized with the accompanying advantages and disadvantages.

Lastly, often we confuse UNDERSTANDING with AGREEMENT.

This is when people confuse their decisions with wanting the recipient of a decision to like or agree with it. When we make decisions that oppose the desires of others, there is a cost. We usually attempt to minimize that cost by explaining, in exhaustive detail, our rationale for that decision, somehow thinking if they could just understand our position, they would agree.

Applying that scenario to parent and child ? if a parent makes a decision based on the best interest of the child, it needs to be made separate from whether the child is going to like it.

When a child knows it is important to the parent that they be happy with a decision, then it will never be in the child?s personal interest to be happy with an unwanted decision.

If a child knows that their happiness with a parental decision is of equal importance to the decision itself, then all a child has to do is be unhappy in order to make their parent uncomfortable and doubt their decision -- after all, it is always worth a try. This same dynamic can apply to interactions among adults also.

How do we manage manipulation? By becoming more aware of our interaction with others.

- Is the interaction an attempt to communicate or does it feel like a contest?
- Are you beginning to feel anxious or irritated?
- Do you want to get out of the conversation?
- Does the interaction fit into a manipulative style?
- Is there an attempt to use power, service, guilt, or weakness to get your cooperation?
- Are you a willing participant in your own manipulation?
- Is it easier not taking responsibility?
- Are you attempting to manipulate others instead of setting clear boundaries?
- Are you making a distinction between a value and a preference?
Preferences can be negotiated, but values should not.

Our society does not deal well with differences in values and preference. We tend to take it as a personal affront and insult when others disagree with us. We will avoid conflicts at all costs, because it feels like rejection. What we need is to communicate to others, clearly and calmly, our values, preferences, and boundaries. We need to be respectful and dedicated to listening, hearing and appreciating, if not understanding, how we all are different.


http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Treffert1.html

How People Manipulate People
Cults, Influence, and the Science Behind Psychological Warfare




Talk about it:
info@livereal.com


Dr. Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University has been making waves with his studies of how the human "knee-jerk" influence and persuasion process works . . . in other words, how certain individuals exploit natural human reactions to serve their own ends.

Cialdini and has emerged with several guiding principles which illustrate how we can often be manipulated, by those who know "the tricks," into to doing things not in our overall self-interest.

His work is recommended.

A short snapshot of what Dr. Cialdini describes:

"Consistency," or "Don't Be A Hypocrite"
Essentially, humans are programmed not to say one thing and do another . . . consciously. (This is fodder for a long, long discussion - in reality, people do this all the time, but it requires this other mechanism called "denial".)

So, manipulators exploit this by getting you to any public commitment to a group, philosophy, or position . . . because if you break it, you would naturally feel guilty (or confusion, or a highly uncomfortable something called "cognitive dissonance") for breaking it, and seeming inconsistent.

Thus, understanding this at some level, manipulators often try to elicit small commitments out of you ("Raise your hand if you agree with this (obvious statement)" . . . "Is there anything not completely perfect about your other boyfriend?") - and, once they have the "foot in the door," they keep you going in a consistent direction from there. And suddenly, you find yourself saying things and defending positions you never might have imagined . . .


"Reciprocity," or "The Hare Krishna trick"
Nothing is free. Manipulators understand this.
If you accept the any person's favor, real or imagined (food, attention, nice gesture, etc), we automatically feel a built-in sense that we should repay them.

Translation: I give you a flower, for free . . . so now, automatically, you feel like you owe me something in return. I will accept a dollar or two.


"Social Proof," or "Everyone's Doing It!"
Humans as social creatures take our cues of "how to act" from the people around us. It seems to be a deeply ingrained instinct to stay smack in the middle of the herd, where it feels safe. (And it is more safe, in general . . . unless, say, you're in the middle of a herd of lemmings. But ignore that for now). Observing other people in a group defines what is proper, good, and expected (related to peer pressure) for acceptance. So, trying to communicate that "Everyone's doing it!" - tends to make you more likely to do it, too. Unless, of course, you wise up to their little tricks.


Authority, or "Big Daddy Said So!":
If an authority figure tells you to do something - and that authority seems to have enough real authority - ordinary people can do some pretty mind-blowing extraordinarily shockingly amazing things you wouldn't believe. (Example: Check into what psychologist Stanley Milgram did, that made the psychology industry completely freak out.) Moral: that doctor, guru, expert, Ph.D., media personality might have more influence over you than you realize. This works by you giving up responsibility for yourself, and handing it over to that "authority."


Liking, or "Heeey, friend!":
People who know how to appear likable, who know how to make you feel wanted and loved ("you're beautiful, baby!") increases peer pressure and uses the power of our own fantasies (Note: it will probably be a few decades before most psychologists even acknowledge that such things as "fantasies" exist - but by that time, most of us will be too brainwashed to worry about it.)


Scarcity, or "Last Chance One-Day-Only Special Offer":
Individuals who are trying to sell you or convince you of something can say that, without the group, person, leader, etc, you will miss out on an extremely rare opportunity for an exceptional life, spiritual liberation, changing the world, a great deal on a used car, etc.
People are being conditioned to expect and hope that some outside agency, power, or person will solve their problems. Bad, bad.


Dr. Cialdini's book:
Influence: The Psychology Of Persuasion


In Conclusion
(or just getting started) . . .



The work of self-defense

The modern world has changed in fundamental ways, and simply living in it can be more stressful and challenging than ever. The normal person today is typically subjected to a barrage of ads, pitches, spin, glitter and hype - some harmless, some not.

Navigating through this maze requires an ace baloney-detector and a constant effort of re-translating hype into honest communication and lies into meaningful interchange. This effort requires a lot of work. This Arena is designed to help make that work a little easier.


"Like a border town that is well guarded
both within and without, so let a man guard himself,
and let not a moment pass by in carelessness."
- The Dhammapada



Just getting started . . .

This is just scratching the tip of the surface of what is available
in psychological self-defense.

For further exploration, we recommend a look through
the Battle For the Mind section of
LiveReal Products

(and what's the best single product in this category?

If you think you can handle it,
the book How To Conquer Negative Emotions by Roy Masters on interpersonal manipulation,

and the web site www.TransparencyNow.com about living in this crazy culture. )


Appendix
LiveReal.com: The Cure For Cults

Here at LiveReal, we figure that the knowledge and technologies of human manipulation, like the atom bomb, cannot be "uninvented." So, the answer is not to try to uninvent them, but rather, to educate real people about these tactics so that they become immune.

Of course, this is a double-edged sword - the more people learn how not to be manipulated, the more people learn as well how to manipulate, in a psychological arms race. Like the war between pesticides and bugs, each side evolves a new breed of manipulation tactics, in response to our wising up to their previous ones. And the arms race of our minds will rage on.

But of course, LiveReal will be right there waiting for them.

http://www.livereal.com/battle_for_mind ... ate_IV.htm

Mind control is a general term for a number of controversial theories and/or techniques designed to subvert an individual's control of their own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decisions.

While terms such as mind control have been called "merely more scientific-sounding terms for . . . brainwashing",[1] the term can cover subjects such as hypothetical neurotechnology that, it is claimed, might one day "hack" the human brain.[2]

Since the mid-1930s, scientists have known that establishing a potential field across a neural-cell membrane could cause it to fire artificially. Experiments, especially with the giant axons of ocean squid, showed such artificial stimulation possible.

While discussion of these techniques are popular amongst cult critics, conspiracy buffs, and as a subject of speculative fiction,[3] any techniques of mind control that actually work would have real-world applications.[not specific enough to verify] Such applications, were they to exist, might include use by hypothetical religious cults, by governments as torture techniques used to obtain confessions, as psyops to break resistance movements, by the advertising industry to manipulate consumer habits, and by the public relations industry to manufacture consent or remediate corporate image in the event of a crisis.[not specific enough to verify]

The feasibility of such control and the methods by which it might be attained (either direct or more subtle) are subject to debate among psychologists, neuroscientists, and sociologists. Also, the exact definition of mind control and the extent to which it might have any kind of influence over individuals are debated.

The different views on the subject do have legal implications. For example, mind control was an issue in the court case of Patty Hearst, and in several court cases involving New Religious Movements. Also, questions of mind control are regarding ethical questions linked to the subject of free will.[citation needed]

The question of mind control has been discussed in conjunction with religion, politics, prisoners of war, totalitarianism, neural cell manipulation, cults, terrorism, torture, parental alienation, and even battered person syndrome.

Contents [hide]
1 Theoretical models and methods
1.1 Subliminal advertising
1.2 Lifton thought reform model
1.3 Margaret Singer's conditions for mind control
1.4 Steven Hassan's BITE model
1.5 Mind Control and the Battered Person Syndrome
1.6 Social psychology tactics
1.7 Social psychological conditioning by Stahelski
1.8 Matthew Hendrickson's Modern Mind Control (MMC)
2 Cults and mind control controversies
2.1 Scholarly points of view
2.2 Mind control, exit counseling, and deprogramming
2.3 Mind control and recruitment rates
2.4 Mind control and faith
2.5 Counter-cult movement and mind control
3 Legal issues
4 Mind control against children in Parental Alienation
5 Mind control in conspiracy theories
5.1 Validity of claims
5.1.1 Arguments for
5.1.2 Arguments against
6 Mind control in fiction and popular culture
7 Mind control as entertainment
8 See also
8.1 Methods
8.2 Researchers
8.3 Miscellaneous
9 Further reading
10 External links
11 References



[edit] Theoretical models and methods

[edit] Subliminal advertising
Main article: Subliminal message
Outline:

One of the more serious sides of subliminal advertising is the fact that it is theoretically possible to control people's behaviour.[citation needed] For example, if a drink company were to utilize it, anyone watching or listening to the advertisement may be compelled to purchase that drink for a supposedly unknown reason.[citation needed]

James Vicary named the term "subliminal advertising" .
The publication in 1957 of Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders brought the term to the attention of the people of the world.
In 1973 the book Subliminal Seduction

[edit] Lifton thought reform model
In his 1961 book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, M.D., describes eight coercive methods which, he says, are able to change the minds of individuals without their knowledge and were used with this purpose on prisoners of war in Korea and China. These include:[4]

Milieu Control. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
Mystical Manipulation. There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.
Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.
Doctrine over person. Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.
In his 1999 book Destroying the world to save it: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence and the New Global Terrorism, he concluded that thought reform was possible without violence or physical coercion.


[edit] Margaret Singer's conditions for mind control
Psychologist Margaret Singer describes in her book Cults in our Midst six conditions which she says would create an atmosphere in which thought reform is possible. Singer states that these conditions involve no need for physical coercion or violence.[5]

Keep the person unaware of what is going on and how she or he is being changed a step at a time.
Potential new members are led, step by step, through a behavioral-change program without being aware of the final agenda or full content of the group. The goal may be to make them deployable agents for the leadership, to get them to buy more courses, or get them to make a deeper commitment, depending on the leader's aim and desires.
Control the person's social and/or physical environment; especially control the person's time.
Through various methods, newer members are kept busy and led to think about the group and its content during as much of their waking time as possible.
Systematically create a sense of powerlessness in the person.
This is accomplished by getting members away from the normal social support group for a period of time and into an environment where the majority of people are already group members.
The members serve as models of the attitudes and behaviors of the group and speak an in- group language.
Strip members of their main occupation (quit jobs, drop out of school) or source of income or have them turn over their income (or the majority of) to the group.
Once stripped of your usual support network, your confidence in your own perception erodes.
As your sense of powerlessness increases, your good judgment and understanding of the world are diminished. (ordinary view of reality is destabilized)
As group attacks your previous worldview, it causes you distress and inner confusion; yet you are not allowed to speak about this confusion or object to it -- leadership suppresses questions and counters resistance.
This process is speeded up if you are kept tired -- the cult will keep you constantly busy.
Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments and experiences in such a way as to inhibit behavior that reflects the person's former social identity.
Manipulation of experiences can be accomplished through various methods of trance induction, including leaders using such techniques as paced speaking patterns, guided imagery, chanting, long prayer sessions or lectures, and lengthy meditation sessions.
Your old beliefs and patterns of behavior are defined as irrelevant or evil. Leadership wants these old patterns eliminated, so the member must suppress them.
Members get positive feedback for conforming to the group's beliefs and behaviors and negative feedback for old beliefs and behavior.
Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in order to promote learning the group's ideology or belief system and group-approved behaviors.
Good behavior, demonstrating an understanding and acceptance of the group's beliefs, and compliance are rewarded while questioning, expressing doubts or criticizing are met with disapproval, redress and possible rejection. If one expresses a question, he or she is made to feel that there is something inherently wrong with them to be questioning.
The only feedback members get is from the group, they become totally dependent upon the rewards given by those who control the environment.
Members must learn varying amounts of new information about the beliefs of the group and the behaviors expected by the group.
The more complicated and filled with contradictions the new system in and the more difficult it is to learn, the more effective the conversion process will be.
Esteem and affection from peers is very important to new recruits. Approval comes from having the new member's behaviors and thought patterns conform to the models (members). Members' relationship with peers is threatened whenever they fail to learn or display new behaviors. Over time, the easy solution to the insecurity generated by the difficulties of learning the new system is to inhibit any display of doubts -- new recruits simply acquiesce, affirm and act as if they do understand and accept the new ideology.
Put forth a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure that permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by leadership approval or executive order.
The group has a top-down, pyramid structure. The leaders must have verbal ways of never losing.
Members are not allowed to question, criticize or complain -- if they do, the leaders allege that the member is defective -- not the organization or the beliefs.
The individual is always wrong -- the system, its leaders and its belief are always right.
Conversion or remolding of the individual member happens in a closed system. As members learn to modify their behavior in order to be accepted in this closed system, they change -- begin to speak the language -- which serves to further isolate them from their prior beliefs and behaviors.
A report on brainwashing and mind control presented by an American Psychological Association (APA) task force known as the APA Taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC), chaired by Singer, was rejected in 1987 by the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) as lacking "the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur." and cautioned the task force members to "not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board."[6]

In 2001, Alberto Amitrani and Raffaella Di Marzio, from the Roman seat of the Group for Research and Information about Sects (GRIS) published an article in which they assert that the rejection of the report should not be construed as a rejection of the theories of thought reform and mind control as applied to New Religious Movements, and that the rejection by one division of the APA does not represet the whole association. They quote a personal e-mail from Benjamin Zablocki, professor of sociology, from 1997 in which Zablocki told the authors "many people have been misled about the true position of the APA and the ASA with regard to brainwashing", and that the APA urged scholars to do more research on the matter. They also write that they have reason to believe that the APA still considers "psychological coercion" to be a phenomenon worth investigating, and not a notion rejected by the scientific community. They also write "Otherwise, why would people such as Margaret Singer, Michael Langone, and others considered to be 'anti-cultists' contribute to APA Conventions and be respected in other prestigious professional bodies as well?"[7]

Writing in 1999, research and forensic psychologist Dick Anthony noted that the removal of Singer's brainwashing concept from the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) "would seem to indicate that the American Psychiatric Association, like the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, has repudiated Singer's cultic brainwashing theory because of its unscientific character." Anthony also noted that Singer's testimony had also been repeatedly excluded from American legal trials.[8]


[edit] Steven Hassan's BITE model
In his book Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, mental health counselor and exit counselor Steven Hassan describes his mind-control model, "BITE". "BITE" stands for "Behavior, Information, Thoughts, and Emotions." The model has a basis on the works of Singer and Lifton, and on the cognitive dissonance theory of Leon Festinger.[9]

In the book, Hassan describes the components of the BITE model:[9]

Behavior Control
Regulation of individual’s physical reality
Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals
Need to ask permission for major decisions
Need to report thoughts, feelings, and activities to superiors
Rewards and punishments (behavior modification techniques positive and negative)
Individualism discouraged; "group think" prevails
Rigid rules and regulations
Need for obedience and dependency
Information Control
Use of deception
Access to non cult sources of information minimized or discouraged
Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines
Spying on other members is encouraged
Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda
Unethical use of confession
Thought Control
Need to internalize the group’s doctrine as "Truth"
Use of "loaded" language (for example, “thought terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding, and can even stop thoughts altogether. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words."
Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged.
Use of hypnotic techniques to induce altered mental states
Manipulation of memories and implantation of false memories
Use of thought stopping techniques, which shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts
Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate.
No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful
Emotional Control
Manipulate and narrow the range of a person’s feelings
Make the person feel that if there are ever any problems, it is always their fault, never the leader’s or the group’s
Excessive use of guilt
Excessive use of fear
Extremes of emotional highs and lows
Ritual and often public confession of "sins"
Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader’s authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group.
Hassan writes that cults recruit and retain members through a three-step process which he refers to as "unfreezing," "changing," and "refreezing". This involves the use of an extensive array of various techniques, including systematic deception, behavior modification, withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques (such as the induction of phobias), which he collectively terms mind control. He describes these steps as follows:[10]

Unfreezing: the process of breaking a person down
Changing: the indoctrination process
Refreezing: the process of reinforcing the new identity
In Releasing the Bonds he also writes "I suspect that most cult groups use informal hypnotic techniques to induce trance states. They tend to use what are called "naturalistic" hypnotic techniques. Practicing meditation to shut down thinking, chanting a phrase repetitively for hours, or reciting affirmations are all powerful ways to promote spiritual growth. But they can also be used unethically, as methods for mind control indoctrination."[9]

Hassan, after taking part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, states that he is no longer involved in this practice.[11] and which eventually became completely illegal except in the case of minors.[citation needed]

In Releasing the Bonds, Hassan describes an approach that he calls the "Strategic Interaction Approach" (SIA) in order to help cult members leave their groups, and in order to help them recover from the psychological damage that they have incurred. The approach is non-coercive and the person being treated is free to discontinue it at any time. He writes: "The goal of the SIA is to help the loved one recover his full faculties; to restore the creative, interdependent adult who fully understands what has happened to him; who has digested and integrated the experience and is better and stronger from the experience."[12]

In 1998 the Enquete Commission issued its report on "So-called Sects and Psychogroups" in Germany. Reviewing Hassan's BITE model, the report said that:[13]

Thus, the milieu control identified by Hassan, consisting of behavioural control, mental control, emotional control and information control cannot, in every case and as a matter of principle, be characterised as "manipulative". Control of these areas of action is an inevitable component of social interactions in a group or community. The social control that is always associated with intense commitment to a group must therefore be clearly distinguished from the exertion of intentional, methodical influence for the express purpose of manipulation.


[edit] Mind Control and the Battered Person Syndrome
A very different explanation of the control some groups have over their members is by associating it with Battered person syndrome and Stockholm syndrome. This has been done by psychologists Teresa Ramirez Boulette, Ph.D. and Susan M. Andersen, Ph.D.


[edit] Social psychology tactics
A contemporary view of mind control sees it as an intensified and persistent use of well researched social psychology principles like compliance, conformity, persuasion, dissonance, reactance, framing or emotional manipulation.

One of the most notable proponents of such theories is social psychologist Philip Zimbardo, former president of the American Psychological Association:

I conceive of mind control as a phenomena encompassing all the ways in which personal, social and institutional forces are exerted to induce compliance, conformity, belief, attitude, and value change in others. [1]
"Mind control is the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that involves a set of basic social psychological principles."
In Influence, Science and Practice, social psychologist Robert Cialdini argues that mind control is possible through the covert exploitation of the unconscious rules that underlie and facilitate healthy human social interactions. He states that common social rules can be used to prey upon the unwary, and he titles them as follows:

"Reciprocation: The Old Give and Take...and Take"
"Commitment and Consistency: Hobgoblins of the Mind"
"Social Proof: Truths Are Us"
"Liking: The Friendly Thief"
"Authority: Directed Deference"
"Scarcity: The Rule of the Few"
Using these six broad categories, he offers specific examples of both mild and extreme mind control (both one on one and in groups), notes the conditions under which each social rule is most easily exploited for false ends, and offers suggestions on how to resist such methods.


[edit] Social psychological conditioning by Stahelski
Writing in the Journal of Homeland Security, a publication of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, Anthony Stahelski identifies five phases of social psychological conditioning which he calls cult-like conditioning techniques employed by terrorist groups: [Stahelski, 2004]:

Depluralization: stripping away all other group member identities
Self-deindividuation: stripping away each member’s personal identity
Other-deindividuation: stripping away the personal identities of enemies
Dehumanization: identifying enemies as subhuman or nonhuman
Demonization: identifying enemies as evil

[edit] Matthew Hendrickson's Modern Mind Control (MMC)
Drawing off previous works by Singer, Hassan, and most notably, Derren Brown, Matthew Hendrickson is the founder of a theory based on the pitfalls of human nature and the simple mind's inability to distinguish between truth and delusion. Dubbed 'Modern Mind Control' in his book "Do As I Say, Not As You Do", Hendrickson outlines his idea to "empower and uplift the human race to greater existence" by "subverting negative thoughts and emotions into powerful behavior." [14]


[edit] Cults and mind control controversies
Some of the mind control models discussed above have been related to religious and non-religious cults (for debates regarding what is a cult, see the article). There is debate among scholars, members of new religious movements, and cult critics whether or not mind control is applied either in general or by any particular group.


[edit] Scholarly points of view
While the majority of scholars in the study of religion reject theories of mind control (e.g., Massimo Introvigne and J. Gordon Melton), it is often accepted in psychology and psychiatry (e.g., Margaret Singer, Michael Langone, and Philip Zimbardo) and in sociology the opinions are divided (e.g., David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe contra, Stephen A. Kent and Benjamin Zablocki pro). Most scholars have either a decided contra or a decided pro opinion; there are few who advocate a moderate point of view.

The medical journals The Lancet and The American Journal of Psychiatry have published favorable reviews of Steven Hassan's 1988 book Combatting Cult Mind Control.[2] [3] The latter review was written by psychiatrist Louis Jolyon West, a long time advisory board member of the International Cultic Studies Association and of the Cult Awareness Network.

James T. Richardson, professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies at the University of Nevada, writes in his "Brainwashing" Claims and Minority Religions Outside the United States: Cultural Diffusion of a Questionable Concept in the Legal Arena that, while heavy on theory, the mind control model is light on evidence:

"The CCM movement has collected some information to support its belief that religious groups successfully employ mind-control techniques. But the data is unreliable. The information typically represents a very small sample size. It is not practical to obtain information before, during and after an individual has been in a NRM. Often, their data is disproportionately obtained from former members of a religious organization who have been convinced during CCM counseling that they have been victims of mind-control." [4]
James Richardson, also states that if the NRMs had access to powerful brainwashing techniques, one would expect that NRMs would have high growth rates, while in fact most have not had notable success in recruitment. Most adherents participate for only a short time, and the success in retaining members has been limited. In addition, Thomas Robbins, Eileen Barker, Newton Maloney, Massimo Introvigne, John Hall, Lorne Dawson, Anson Shupe, David G. Bromley, Gordon Melton, Marc Galanter, Saul Levine and other scholars researching NRMs have argued and established to the satisfaction of courts and relevant professional associations and scientific communities that there exists no scientific theory, generally accepted and based upon methodologically sound research, that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement. [5]

Sociologist Benjamin Zablocki sees strong indicators of mind control in some NRMs and suggests that the concept should be researched without bias:

"I am not personally opposed to the existence of NRMs and still less to the free exercise of religious conscience. I would fight actively against any governmental attempt to limit freedom of religious expression. Nor do I believe it is within the competence of secular scholars such as myself to evaluate or judge the cultural worth of spiritual beliefs or spiritual actions. However, I am convinced, based on more than three decades of studying NRMs through participant-observation and through interviews with both members and ex-members, that these movements have unleashed social and psychological forces of truly awesome power. These forces have wreaked havoc in many lives—in both adults and in children. It is these social and psychological influence processes that the social scientist has both the right and the duty to try to understand, regardless of whether such understanding will ultimately prove helpful or harmful to the cause of religious liberty." (Zablocki, 1997)
Sociologists David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cults" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible".[6]. Sociology professor Stephen A. Kent published several articles where he discusses practices of NRMs as regards to brainwashing [7], [8]

In 1984 the American Psychological Association (APA) requested Margaret Singer, the main proponent of mind control theories, to set up a working group called the APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC).

In 1987 the DIMPAC committee submitted its final report to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On May 11, 1987 the Board rejected the report. In the rejection memo [9] it is stated: "Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue.".

There are two interpretations of this rejection: one side (e.g. Amitrani and di Marzio 2000 and Zablocki 2001) see it as no position on the issue of brainwashing, the other (e.g. Introvigne 1997) sees it as rejecting all brainwashing theories.

Philip Zimbardo, who teaches a course on the "The psychology of mind control" at Stanford University, wrote that "Several participants [in a presentation called 'Cults of Hatred'] challenged our profession to form a task force on extreme forms of influence, asserting that the underlying issues inform discourses on terrorist recruiting, on destructive cults versus new religious movements, on social-political-'therapy' cults and on human malleability or resiliency when confronted by authority power."[15]

Recently, there are indications that some members of both sides are willing to start a dialog as, for example, in the 2001 book "Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field". Additionally, professor of Sociology Eileen Barker was invited to speak at the 2002 yearly conference of the International Cultic Studies Association. And J. Gordon Melton and Douglas Cowan were invited to speak at a conference sponsored by the Evangelical Ministries to New Religions.


[edit] Mind control, exit counseling, and deprogramming
Opponents of some new religious movements have accused them of being cults that coerce recruits to join (and members to remain) by using strong influence over members that is instilled and maintained by manipulation (see also Anti-cult movement, Opposition to cults and new religious movements and Christian countercult movement). Such opponents frequently advocate exit counseling as necessary to free the a cult member from mind control. The practice of coercive deprogramming has practically ceased. (Kent & Szimhart, 2002)

Opponents of deprogramming generally regard it as an even worse violation of personal autonomy than any loss of free will attributable to the recruiting tactics of new religious movements. These people complain that targets of deprogramming are being deceived, denied due process, and forced to endure more intense manipulation than that encountered during their previous group membership.

Steven Hassan, who began his career as a deprogrammer, criticizes deprogramming in his book Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves. He writes that "Deprogramming has many drawbacks. I have met dozens of people who were successfully deprogrammed but, to this day, experience psychological trauma as a result of the method. These people were glad to be released from the grip of cult programming but were not happy about the method used to help them."[16]


[edit] Mind control and recruitment rates
Eileen Barker states that out of one thousand people persuaded by the Moonies [Unification Church] to attend one of their overnight programs in 1979, 90% had no further involvement. Only 8% joined for more than one week and less than 4% remained members by 1981, two years later.[10]

Tyler Hendricks, former president of the Unification Church, estimates that approximately 100,000 people "moved into" the Unification Church as full-time members from the 1970s to the 1990s. Membership in the church was 8,600 in 2004 (counting only those who joined as adults and excluding the children of members). This is an attrition rate of 93%.

Billy Graham, one of the most prominent evangelists of the last century had only an average of 1% of the attendants of his evangelizations heed the altar call at all. Follow-up work after evangelizations shows that only 10% of the people responding to an altar call actually do join a church. Therefore successful Christian evangelizations resulted in a longterm success rate of 0.1%, as compared to the 4% of Barker's observation. And these 0.1% do not become full-time missionaries as in the Unification Church. (Langone, 1993).


[edit] Mind control and faith
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a statement in 1977 related to brainwashing and mind control. In this statement the ACLU opposed certain methods "depriving people of the free exercise of religion". The ACLU also rejected (under certain conditions) the idea that claims of the use of 'brainwashing' or of 'mind control' should overcome the free exercise of religion. [11]

Leon Festinger based his theory of the cognitive dissonance, a component of Hassan's Mind Control model, on his observation that the faith of most members of a UFO cult was unshattered by failed prophecy. [12].

Barrett who is affiliated with CESNUR and Eileen Barker, whom some anti-cult activists consider cult apologists, wrote that logical arguments are irrelevant when trying to persuade some members to leave a movement due to the certainty that they have about their faith, which he sees as not confined to cults, but also occurring in some forms of mainstream religion. He also wrote that some members do not leave the movement even though they realize that things are wrong. See also Leaving a cult.


[edit] Counter-cult movement and mind control
In the Christian counter-cult movement there are several commentators who refute mind control as a factor in cult membership, and membership in both Christian and non-Christian cults as a spiritual or theological issue.

In an article by the evangelical Christian writers Bob and Gretchen Passantino, first appearing in Cornerstone magazine, titled Overcoming The Bondage Of Victimization: A Critical Evaluation of Cult Mind Control Theories they challenge the validity of mind control theories and the alleged "victimization" by mind-control, and assert in their conclusion:

[...] the Bogey Man of cult mind control is nothing but a ghost story, good for inducing an adrenaline high and maintaining a crusade, but irrelevant to reality. The reality is that people who have very real spiritual, emotional, and social needs are looking for fulfillment and significance for their lives. Ill-equipped to test the false gospels of this world, they make poor decisions about their religious affiliations. Poor decisions, yes, but decisions for which they are personally responsible nonetheless. As Christians who believe in an absolute standard of truth and religious reality, we cannot ignore the spiritual threat of the cults. We must promote critical thinking, responsible education, biblical apologetics, and Christian evangelism. We must recognize that those who join the cults, while morally responsible, are also spiritually ignorant.[13]
In a rebuttal to the Passantino's article, a protagonist of the counter-cult movement, Paul R. Martin, Ph.D. et al. in his Overcoming the Bondage of Revictimization: A Rational/Empirical Defense of Thought Reform, (first appeared in Cultic Studies Journal 15/2 1998), writes:

"The Passantinos are well known and respected evangelical writers. Consequently, their critique, which is rife with errors and misinterpretations, disturbs us very much and calls for a detailed rebuttal. [...]For us, theological considerations inform our understanding of the sociological and psychological destruction caused by cults, although others hold similar positions without considering theological issues. Cults distort one's perceptions both of natural reality (sociological and psychological) and spiritual reality. In the Christian tradition, the former is supposed to reveal the latter; therefore, those interested in spiritual issues must address both sides in order to minister adequately to former cult members.[14]

[edit] Legal issues
Some persons have claimed a "brainwashing defense" for crimes committed while purportedly under mind control. In the cases of Patty Hearst, Steven Fishman and Lee Boyd Malvo the court rejected such defenses.

Also in the court cases against members of Aum Shinrikyo regarding the 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system the mind control defense was not a mitigating factor.

Starting from the Fishman case (1990) (where a defendant accused of commercial fraud raised as a defense that he was not fully responsible since he was under the mind control of Scientology) American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science according to the Frye Standard (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Margaret Singer and her associate Richard Ofshe filed suits against the American Psychological Association) (APA) and the American Sociological Association (ASA) (who had supported APA's 1987 statement) but they lost in 1993 and 1994.[17]

The Frye standard has since been replaced by the Daubert standard and there have been to court cases where testimonies about mind control have been examined according to the Daubert standard.

Some Civil suits where mind control was an issue, were, though, more effective:

In the case of Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California the court states church practices had been conducted in a coercive environment and so were not protected by religious freedom guarantees. Wollersheim was finally awarded $8 million in damages. (California appellate court, 2nd district, 7th division, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. No. B023193 Cal. Super. (1986)

"During trial, Wollersheim's experts testified Scientology's "auditing" and "disconnect" practices constituted "brainwashing" and "thought reform" akin to what the Chinese and North Koreans practiced on American prisoners of war. A religious practice which takes place in the context of this level of coercion has less religious value than one the recipient engages in voluntarily. Even more significantly, it poses a greater threat to society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens." "Using its position as religious leader, the 'church' and its agents coerced Wollersheim into continuing auditing even though his sanity was repeatedly threatened by this practice... Thus there is adequate proof the religious practice in this instance caused real harm to the individual and the appellant's outrageous conduct caused that harm... 'Church' practices conducted in a coercive environment are not qualified to be voluntary religious practices entitled to first amendment religious freedom guarantees" [15]

In 1993 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the right of a Greek Jehovah's Witness Minos Kokkinakis, who had been sentenced to prison and a fine for proselytizing, to spread his faith, though the court sought to define what it regarded as acceptable ways of sharing one's faith. However, in a dissenting judgment, two judges argued that Kokkinakis and his wife had applied "unacceptable psychological techniques" akin to brainwashing. KOKKINAKIS v. GREECE (14307/88) [1993] ECHR 20 (25 May 1993) [16]


[edit] Mind control against children in Parental Alienation
Stanley Clawar and Brynne Rivlin have claimed in Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children that many forms of mind control are used in Parental alienation by one parent against the other parent using both parents' children as unwitting weapons. This use of mind control is often devastating to children and follows them into adulthood by creating a chronic condition which the authors have named Parental Alienation Syndrome. (It should be noted that there is no medical or psychological recognition of PAS as an actual syndrome, and that the use of this term serves to reify the age-old practice of one parent turning the child against the other). The authors claim the mind control used in Parental Alienation often permanently damages or destroys the target parent's bonds with his or her children. While this is undoubtedly true in some cases, in others, the alienating parent may be in fact protecting the child from an abusive or inadequate parent. These kinds of disputes are complex and the use of a simplistic term such as PAS can distract from the uniqueness of each situation.


[edit] Mind control in conspiracy theories
Mind control is a common feature in many conspiracy theories, as it provides a mechanism by which an alleged conspiracy could maintain control over innocent people, prevent knowledge of the conspiracy's actions, or prevent the conspiracy theorist's intended audience from believing the theory's allegations.[citation needed]

The means by which victims are alleged to be controlled varies according to the nature of the theory in which they are said to be used.[citation needed] Theories centering on existing governmental groups or intelligence agencies usually feature mind control via hypnosis, subliminal messages or other technological means, while theories focusing on non-human entities, extraterrestrials, demons, invisible masters, and organised secret societies, such as the Illuminati, Freemasons, or Black Dragon Society, are more likely to involve supernatural or magical means, or particularly fanciful technology such as "mind control satellites".[not specific enough to verify] Theories that involve the United States government frequently refer to MKULTRA. Radio waves or microwave radiation are frequently claimed to be used for mind control; radio and television broadcast towers, and more recently cell phone towers, are often considered suspect.[17][this source's reliability may need verification] Other theories may involve the use of lasers, or other methods such as various trauma-based or electronic-based mind control (see here).[18][this source's reliability may need verification]

J.D. Salinger's novel The Catcher in the Rye was rumored to be a device for FBI/CIA mind control at one time, based on the apparent coincidence of Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark Chapman owning a copy.[original research?] Seeing as this has always been a popular novel among intelligent and alienated young men, however, this coincidence of ownership is hardly surprising.[original research?] Nevertheless, there is a large fringe literature on the supposed 'mind control' subtext of 'Catcher in the Rye' [18].[this source's reliability may need verification]

Some individuals imagine themselves to be victims; for example Dan Rightmyer, who has published under the pen name "Alex Constantine." [19] His books are published by a fellow traveller named Adam Parfrey, who runs Feral House.[citation needed] Rightmyer claimed in a letter to the now-defunct "Mondo 2000" magazine that he repelled magnets from his head.[citation needed] "For die-hard skeptics, I can offer this proof: Two of the leading child psychologists in the country once witnessed magnets repelled from my cranium. When I wrote a letter to Amnesty International about my plight (it was ignored), friends of mind [sic] were subjected to microwave attack...".[citation needed]


[edit] Validity of claims
The perceived validity of conspiracy theories are highly subject to opinion and may often find themselves to be at the center of a debate.[not specific enough to verify] There are almost always many arguments or instances of evidence indicating reasons to believe or disbelieve any such theory, and for this reason, it may be difficult to discern fact from fiction.[original research?] Proponents often find themselves with fewer supporters and are in the position to suggest that those in opposition maintain an "open mind" and allow themselves to consider what may seem contrary to one's prior knowledge.[not specific enough to verify] Often the antagonists in this position may be relatively unresponsive and negatively poised towards such arguments.[original research?] Ergo, this is a controversial subject.[original research?]


[edit] Arguments for
The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

In support of such claims concerning mind control, one note of worth is that the U.S. Secret Service's use of hypnosis and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)'s use of brainwashing has been confirmed in past court cases where testimony was conclusive and the agencies were decided as guilty.[citation needed]

Principles behind electronic-based mind control devices have been proposed.[citation needed] A study in the 1930s concerning the neural cells of giant squid[20] showed that establishing a potential energy field across a neuron or neural cell membrane will cause it to fire. Although the neurons of giant squids are much larger in size than the human counterpart, such experiments could potentially be applied to the human mind.[citation needed] Seventy-five years of understanding these facts lends support that devices could have been devised to affect human mental and bodily processes and functions using external energy sources.[original research?]


[edit] Arguments against
There are certainly those who discredit the notion of mind control as a secretive or conspirative tool.[not specific enough to verify] Some conspiracy theorists have even been viewed by some as crazy or paranoid individuals who lack a convincing basis for their claims.[not specific enough to verify] Others discredit conspirative claims in that they may be attributed to possible symptoms of schizophrenia or other forms of psychosis.[citation needed]


[edit] Mind control in fiction and popular culture
This article contains a trivia section.
Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed.

This article has been tagged since June 2007.
Mind control has proven a popular subject in fiction, featuring in books and films such as The IPCRESS File, and The Manchurian Candidate, which has the premise that controllers could hypnotize a person into murdering on command while retaining no memory of the killing.

The TV series The Prisoner featured mind control as a recurring plot element.
In the Anthony Burgess novel A Clockwork Orange, later adapted into a film by Stanley Kubrick, the "Ludovico Technique" is a form of mind control that causes the subject, in this case the thug anti-hero Alex, to feel sickness and pain whenever he has a violent or anti-social impulse.
Mind control (telepathic hypnosis) is a prominent psionic gift in the Scanners movies. It is used by the Scanners to escape imprisonment in the first movie, and to sometimes control others in the subsequent films.
George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four features a description of mind control, both directly by torture, and indirectly, in the form of pervasive mind control by the use of Newspeak, a constructed language designed to remove the possibility, Sapir-Whorf-wise of articulating or of even thinking subversive thoughts.
The Jedi mind trick is a prominent plot device in the Star Wars saga.
There has also been a rapidly growing genre known as erotic mind-control and psychic seduction, where the controller's motivation is to control victims for the controller's own pleasure, although this is often described as resulting in pleasure for the victims as well. Most such stories are published only online as they are written by amateur writers as a hobby.
The Illuminatus! Trilogy pokes fun at conspiracy theorists' assertions of pervasive mind control. The best known example for the book is the fnord, a word that the populace at large has been programmed since birth to not consciously notice, but to associate with a sense of fear and general unease; it is supposedly inserted into published works on current events, such as magazines and newspapers, but is absent from advertising, leading people to avoid knowledge of the world and to be obedient consumers.
In the MMORPG World of Warcraft, players of the priest class gain the ability to mind-control other humanoid characters, gaining full control over their actions for a short period. (Due to interface limitations, priests cannot do anything else while controlling a target.)
Preacher units in Populous: The Beginning as well as priests in Age of Empires are able to take control of an opponent's units (in fact, this is their primary function in both games). Although this is not mind control, but rather preaching to the enemy so that they willingly convert sides.
In Konami's stealthy title Metal Gear Solid for the PlayStation, Psycho Mantis, a rogue special forces member with powerful telepathic abilities, subtly controls a small army, and on several occasions completely dominates a single person's movements and speech.
In "The Matrix", a chemical was injected into Morpheus to make him reveal access codes.
The character Yuri in the Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 is an extremely advanced telepath with the capability of completely controlling the actions of others. There is one flaw, however: a mind-controlled person can be seen to be showing strain against Yuri's power, culminating in sweating, stammering and memory loss. Later in the game expansion Yuri's Revenge, he leads an entire faction with several mind controlling units included.
The Dark Archon, a unit in the computer game StarCraft, has the ability to psionically mind control other units, indefinitely taking complete control of them.
In Midway's Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy, the player's character Nick Scryer can perform mind control.
Michael Crichton's "Terminal Man" has doctors implant a simple computer into the brainstem of a man who suffers from impulsive violence. The plan is to stimulate certain nerves to ease the violent impulses. Instead, the violence becomes even more irresistible.
In Bionicle storyline, a Kanohi mask called Komau allows the user the power to control minds of beings.
In the anime, movie and video game series Street Fighter 2, Vega (known as M. Bison in the US) uses his "Psycho Power" to brainwash and corrupt street fighters across the world into joining his criminal organization known as Shadowloo, turning them into remorseless killing machines fully under his control.
In the movie Control Factor, an unsuspecting "everyman" slowly realizes he is an unwitting guinea pig being used in a mind control test. If successful, the test will then expand to behavioral control of an entire population.
In comic books, Professor Xavier, the leader of the X-Men, can read and control people's minds.
The progressive/heavy metal band Queensrÿche uses mind control as the central theme of their 1988 album Operation Mindcrime.
In the movie Conspiracy Theory, Mel Gibson plays as Jerry Fletcher, a cab driver and a conspiracy theorist who coincidentally hits a truth involving a secretly government-funded mind control program, as it turns out Jerry himself is one of the subjects of the program.
The late Russian psychic, Wolf Messing, was said to be able to hand somebody a blank piece of paper and make them see money or whatever he wanted them to see.
Jim Halpert is another fictional character to prominently use mind-control for personal gain.
The House of the Scorpion is a Sci-Fi book in which people have computer chips implanted in their brain, allowing them to only do what they are 'programmed' to do. These people are referred to as 'Eejits'.
See also: Mind uploading


[edit] Mind control as entertainment
Hypnotism has often been used by stage performers to make volunteers do strange things, such as clucking like a chicken, for the entertainment of audiences. The British psychological illusionist Derren Brown performs more sophisticated mental tricks in his television programmes, Derren Brown: Mind Control.

As of March 24th 2007 a US company called Emotiv began launching a mind control device for video games based on Electroencephalography. It was reported by Wall Street Journal's Don Clark on MSNBC.[19]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control