Psychology Articles

Historically, the debate over whether or not humans possess such a thing as free will was firmly within the realms of philosophy. Libertarians argued that humans are capable of making deliberate, reasoned choices, while determinists argued that causality and the physical laws of the universe imply that all of our actions are completely predetermined by the events which cause them, thus rendering us mere automatons.

Then, in the 1980s, the physiologist Benjamin Libet conducted a set of experiments which appeared to finally settle the matter. Libet asked volunteers to flick one of their fingers or wrists, measuring their brain activity through electrodes whilst they did so. The volunteers were also instructed to watch a clock, and report to Libet when they had made the decision to move.

Libet found that the volunteers’ decision to move was preceded by a characteristic brainwave pattern known as a “readiness potential”, which was interpreted as the brain preparing for movement. This readiness potential appeared around half a second before the participants claimed they had made the decision to move.

Libet interpreted this to mean that all of our choices are made unconsciously without us being aware of them. We merely rationalise them after the event, creating the illusion of free will.

A variant of Libet’s experiment was performed by a group of researchers in 2008. This time, participants were asked to choose whether to raise their left or right hands. The researchers found that they were able to accurately predict the volunteers’ choices up to 10 seconds before the volunteers themselves were aware of them.

Criticisms

This would appear to be the final nail in the coffin for free will. If you can predict my choices ten seconds before I feel like I make them, how can I genuinely be making those choices at all? However, this interpretation leaves several questions unanswered.

Firstly, why would the illusion of free will ever evolve? If my unconscious mind is capable of making complex decisions, why is there the need for consciousness at all?

Many people think of the ego/central executive/conscious part of themselves as being like a driver in a vehicle, and I suggest that this is why they have trouble reconciling Libet’s findings with their conceptions of free will. The ego is more like the captain of a ship, engaged in commanding a crew – directing, modifying, approving and vetoing decisions which are formulated unconsciously but presented to consciousness for review before they are executed.

This is in keeping with evolutionary psychology. The psychologist and neuroscientist Merlin Donald has theorised that the speciation of Homo erectus introduced a new cognitive system, based around the ability to consciously recall, review and modify episodic memories in order to create representations of intended behaviour, or action models; an ability he terms “mimesis”.

The Mimetic System and the Ego

Although apes possess a high capacity for episodic memory, they are unable to recall those memories without an environmental cue, and so cannot reflect on past experiences. Without the ability to construct action models and voluntarily recall them, the mind remains purely reactive. It is impossible to rehearse or refine any skill; an ability which is fundamental to making and using tools. The mimetic system thus developed as humans learnt to make and use tools.

In turn, Donald theorises that the linguistic system is a highly specialised mimetic subsystem. Conscious thought, in the form of internal dialogue, is a consequence of the linguistic system’s ability to create, rehearse and review phonological action models without executing them. Words are thus highly specialised episodic memories.

The mimetic system’s ability to consciously retrieve memories and review action models necessitates a central executive; i.e., there must be some unitary awareness to perform the actual reviewing. In functional terms, all that would be necessary to create such a unitary awareness would be an internal loop whereby motor commands, instead of being instantly executed, were first sent to a particular subfield of consciousness which evaluated them based on either emotive or cognitive processing.

Once the linguistic system evolved, this central executive also took on the role of reviewing and executing phonological action models. Since conscious thought is merely linguistic action modelling, the ego thus became associated with conscious thought, or internal dialogue.

Merlin Donald’s theories provide a detailed account of (1) how the ego evolved, (2) what its functions are, and (3) the role it plays in consciousness. Fundamentally, this account provides an explanation as to how our conscious decision making ability evolved, and supports the assertion that the ego is engaged in directing, modifying, approving and vetoing decisions which are formulated unconsciously but presented to consciousness for review before they are executed.

Within this framework, Libet’s “readiness potential” might plausibly correspond to the construction of an action plan. However, there are other reasons to reject the idea that Libet’s findings invalidate free will.

Deterministic Free Will

Determinism holds that if all events are determined by their causes, then everything that occurs – including all human behaviour – is inevitably set by the past, and there can therefore be no such thing as free will.

An event which is, hypothetically, not determined by its causes is referred to as random. Random processes, meanwhile, are referred to as stochastic processes. It is possible that the universe may contain both random and deterministic events – however, it is not necessary to debate whether or not randomness exists in order to ask whether randomness is necessary in order for free will to exist. We have to ask, would a choice made without prior cause be a free choice?

I define free will (or volition) as a capacity for conscious, purposeful decision making. When I make a choice, I evaluate the available options with regards to my emotions, beliefs, values, etc., and then choose the option most consistent with my own best interests, or which best fits my own purposes at any given time. Could I call this decision making process “free” if I chose an available option at random – through some psychological process equivalent to rolling a dice, for example?

If such a process was volitional, “free will” would be identical with “random action”, and this is not the case – random action is in fact the exact opposite of free will. If my actions were in no way dependent on my thought processes, emotions, values, etc., then I could not be said to have free will – I would be trapped within a body over which I had absolutely no control. It is clear that calling an action free does not mean that that action is free from causality.

My choices are dependent on reasons, since the human mind itself is a deterministic system, and these reasons determine which course of action I decide on. My actions are determined by my own psychological processes: my lines of reasoning, my desires and emotional reactions, my own deliberation. In fact, it is because psychological processes are deterministic that we are able to freely make choices at all.

Rebutting Libet

It should be noted that there are random processes in the brain. In the 1980s, researchers in chaos theory attempted to create computer models of the brain based on deterministic chaos, but these did not approximate real human brain activity. However, in the 1990s, researchers found that the brain generates random noise. When programmers incorporated a random element into their computer simulations, they found that it created models which matched the pattern of the brain’s activity.

The existence of randomness in the brain leaves open the possibility that we sometimes make decisions randomly, through the psychological equivalent of flipping a coin. However, as outlined above, this would be the opposite of free will.

This leads us back to Benjamin Libet. Crucially, Libet’s experiment involves a random choice – the opposite of free will. Deciding which hand to raise, or what time to raise it, is the mental equivalent of flipping a coin. There is no conscious deliberation – no logic, emotion, instinct, etc. Randomness is built into the set-up, precluding free will by the terms of the experiment.

There can be no doubt that humans often operate on autopilot – maybe even most of the time. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have the capacity to exercise free will through deliberation: by evaluating our options and making considered choices. Libet’s experiment and the conclusions that are often drawn from it reflect a bias towards randomness (and against free will) which is built into the experiment itself.

Copyright © Dan Haycock 2011. For similar articles and information about Dan’s forthcoming book, visit http://www.DanHaycock.co.uk

First of all, be aware that only the scientific method of dream interpretation accurately translates the meaning of the dream images. It is based on the discoveries of the psychiatrist Carl Jung concerning the meaning of dreams and their healing power. I simplified his method after curing many people with it. I also discovered more, after continuing Jung’s research. However, I found his extraordinary work ready. Jung is a genius who managed to understand the mysterious meaning of the dream logic. The world must be forever grateful for his persistence.

Most dreams are basically about yourself. You see many dreams that give you information about many different subjects, but everything is always related to you and your life.

You dream because you are an under-developed primate. Unfortunately, you are totally absurd because you have inherited a wild conscience in the biggest part of your brain (anti-conscience). Your one-sided and tiny human conscience is absurd too. Therefore, it cannot help you fight against the worst absurdity you have inherited in the biggest part of your brain.

The anti-conscience that occupies the biggest part of your brain is schizophrenic. It is a disaster resulting from the disorganized formation of the first conscience that appeared in the universe. A live conscience has to be organized in order to find solutions. Otherwise, it will be filled with craziness and despair. This is was what happened with your anti-conscience. Since the anti-conscience didn’t evolve, it remains in the same primitive condition of its formation. Your mission as a human being is to transform the absurd content you have inherited in your anti-conscience into a positive content. In other words, you have to cure your absurd wild conscience.

Consciousness is a very heavy burden. When we understand the meaning of our existence, we understand what is bad. This is why consciousness cannot be suddenly acquired. It must gradually enlighten our mind. When we suddenly acquire consciousness of our mistakes we cannot bear our existence. The anti-conscience suddenly acquired conscience of many existential tragedies, without finding solutions. This is why it became schizophrenic.

Therefore, your anti-conscience is a monster that tries to control your behavior and destroy your human conscience. It is your violent, primitive personality, that doesn’t want to be tamed by your sensibility. Your humanity is concentrated in the tiny part of your brain that possesses human characteristics like goodness, generosity, and forgiveness. However, there are also many negative characteristics in your human conscience, because it is one-sided and thus, absurd. It needs development. Besides this fact, your human conscience is controlled by your ego.

When you dream about yourself, you are getting information about the mistakes you make because you follow your ego. Your ego is stupid, ridiculous, and totally selfish. The ego represents the absurdity contained in your human conscience. You have no idea of how dangerous your ego and anti-conscience are. They can destroy your life. The unconscious mind helps you pass through various evolutionary stages of consciousness. You eliminate your dangerous ego and anti-conscience through knowledge.

The elimination of your absurd ego and the elimination of your absurd anti-conscience, work like a process of brain empowerment. You finally get rid of the craziness you have inherited in your brain.

You acquire more consciousness as you see your defects, and you learn how to use all your capacities. The unconscious mind criticizes your attitude in the dream images, so that you may correct all mistakes and become a perfect human being.

In the end you become so intelligent that you understand the solution to all problems. Your life has a deeper meaning, and everyday you feel more alive than ever. This is a transformation that gives you permanent relief and satisfaction.

Christina Sponias continued Carl Jung’s research into the human psyche, discovering the cure for all mental illnesses, and simplifying the scientific method of dream interpretation that teaches you how to exactly translate the meaning of your dreams, so that you can find health, wisdom and happiness.
Learn more at: http://www.scientificdreaminterpretation.com
Click Here to download a Free Sample of the eBook Dream Interpretation as a Science (86 pages!).

Being born into a world in which nothing is known outside of the empirical knowledge gained from a slight understanding of the physical tangible observable universe, the youth are taught a collective objectified version of reality which holds no real bearing or relation to the inner depth of the human psyche and spirit, as posited by the greek philosopher Plato in his Allegory of the Cave, and the theory of the simulacrum. In this condition in which people are subtly forcebly separated from their own nature, from all angles, and unwittingly made into being something that they are not by their culture, the impressionable teenage mind is made to be incredibly disturbed and unhappy with it’s existence, as it can only think and feel in terms of what it knows from the aforementioned empirical knowledge; this is called “The Human Condition”.

The Allegory of the Cave posits in this world, people have been symbolically bound and tied in a dark cave, where they only see the shadows projected onto a wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them. The poor wretched people who are bound in the cave get into a game of identifying the shadows on the wall based on names that they have given them, and so over time the one who wins the game is not the one who can accurately describe what is being seen, but rather the one who can match the shadow to the names given to it by the poor blind cave people; this is exactly the condition of the majority of people in the world in which we live in. From the very beginning what is taught to children is not what is the objective truth of the situation, but rather it is the objectified assumptions of the past.

Genetic memory has been proven as a fact, there are lab studies in which a placard of a harmless animal was shown to a baby chick, and then a placard of a harmful predator like a wolf or fox was shown, to gague the reaction and see if the chick would retain a genetic memory of predators. Sure enough, it was proven that baby birds especially have a strong retention of cellular or genetic memory. The same is proven when baby sea turtles pop out of an egg and go straight for the ocean, knowing exactly what to do without being taught in the least bit by it’s external environment. “Both the readiness to respond to specific triggering stimuli and the ensuing patterns of appropriate action are in all such cases inherited with the physiology of the species.

Known as ‘innate releasing mechanisms’ (IRM’s), they are constitutional to the central nervous system. And there are such in the physical make-up of the species Homo sapiens as well.’ (Joseph Campbell, ‘Myths to Live By’ p.117) How this works is not complicated to understand, our genes that are handed down to us from previous generations effect our physical makeup, our desires, and what motives us, we interact with the environment, and depending on our perception and our thoughts and feelings our genes are effected and passed down to the next generation. In fact in studies of twins it has been showns that genes account for 50-75% of your decision making, which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective as we would need to be prepared for our environment as well as be flexible and able to adapt to new changes. What results when these two factors are considered together is “The Human Condition”, whereby people generally and teenagers specifically are at constant odds with their own internal feelings and self, and the external self which they are forced to be by the co- denizens of their dark dank cave.

At every stage of an adolescent’s life which is supposed to be a natural progression of the life cycle, and in between, a corrupted objectified stale reality gradually seeps in to the nascent psyche and replaces what is truly a beautiful nature with it’s own bizarre abnormal form. Some people may be more resilient or react in different way then others, but within the general 99% of the population, most are so blinded by the objectifications that they are completely unable to even see what is happening. The “party line”, the mainstream view of things, is never challenged, and if it is the challengers are outcasted and laughed at for their failure to identify the shadows on the cave wall as successfuly as the deluded dungeon dwellers. According to teendepression.org “About 20 percent of teens will experience teen depression before they reach adulthood. Somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of teens show symptoms of depression at any given time. About 5 percent of teens are suffering from major depression at any one time.” Depression doesn’t include rage, frustration, insanity, apathy, lack of happiness, lack of excitement, and any other of manifestations of a constipated conditioned psyche.

These expressions of extreme sadness are unnatural, you can feel that they are unnatural when you are under them, because your body is telling you that something is not right by this visible manifestation of extreme sadness and maladaption. It is shocking and incredible that modern man continues to pump his children full of crazy drugs in order to “cure” this condition of the consciousness. The problem is not one which can be fixed merely by altering the chemistry in someone’s brain.

God knows what kind of additional psychological problems could be triggered with the addition of this poison in their brains both in the form of information and in the form of chemicals. If a child were raised in an environment where all of the good qualities of life could unfold themselves without violent interruption, where people worked together instead of apart, where a child was raised with a healthy mind, body, and Spirit, where there was no false perception of reality based on a purely materialistic awareness, there would be no 20% teenage depression. To look for support for this hypothesis you would need to look towards no less of a liberated soul then the Dalai Lama, who says, “If you want others to be happy, practice Compassion, and if you want to be happy, practice Compassion.” This statement contains the essence of my hypothesis, that happiness and a natural, enlightened state of being is possible through simply allowing our conscience to be our conscience. Most people understand all of this intuitively but are unable to enact it out in the world due to the thick layer of “simulacrum”.

What needs to be done is for people to be educated on the nature of their reality and their position in it. People can use the internet with such tools as Youtube to get the message of sanity out there, or post flyers, but something must be done to make people more generally aware of Plato’s ideas as well as those positive auspicious qualities of life which are not a product of man’s false simulacrum.

The author of this article is James Portocarrero from http://www.alchemymeditations.com – Alchemy Meditations is a direct way of experiencing the Transcendental Spiritual Energy of Meditation, evolving your Consciousness, and changing your life directly through special guided Shaktipat Meditations.. You can check out his YouTube channel also at http://www.youtube.com/ShaktipatSeer

James can be contacted @: ShaktipatSeer@gmail.com I began Meditating at the age of 21 and since then have been on a tremendous path of wonder and amazement.. Immediately after I began meditating I had a Kundalini awakening and began to transmit this Kundalini electricity to others through powerful group Shaktipat Meditations. I started to host daily Satsang (I would read from an Esoteric Text or lecture on Esoteric Science) and group Meditations and found the experience so utterly rewarding that I hardly had any say in the matter of devoting all of my Heart and energy into expanding my work. I have been gradually trying to build up my capacity to serve and help bring others together to serve and help to change the paradigm we live in.. Through my Youtube Channel ShaktipatSeer I have reached out to tens of thousands of people with my Pineal Gland Activations and much more.. check out my website and my Youtube channel for some amazing Wisdom and Electric Shaktipat Meditations!

Remorse, Regret, and Sorry are three words vital to adaptive living. These three words when practiced increase the probability of all social interactions being successful. Ignorance and/or refusal of this psychological triad lead to criminal and/or deviant behaviors with victimization as the modus operandi. Two diminutive words, “I’m Sorry”, is one of the most powerful and complex phrases expressed in communication.

Since the beginning of civilization, this phrase has been part of all societal and cultural exchanges communicated via various languages. “I’m Sorry” will always be integral to social relationships. The premise of this phrase concretely illustrates how all people are fallible creatures. Actions and/or words can offend briefly or inflict a life long psychological scar void of healing. Understanding the meaning and origins of “I’m Sorry” will assist the reader in comprehending this powerful phrase.

The actual term, Sorry, dates back to prehistoric times and theorized to derive from the West Germanic term, Sairig, a derivative of Sairaz, with the English source denoting Sore. The original definition meant both physical and psychological pain. Over hundreds of years, the word evolved into an expression of regret now coined, Sorry. Despite the resemblance, the word Sorry has no etymological connection with the term, Sorrow. This word also dates back to prehistoric Germanic language meaning “care.” Contemporary German dialect uses the word, Sorge, meaning to worry or feel sorrow.

The term, Sorry, is an adjective with a multitude of meanings defining different communications expressed in social relationships. From a reductionist standpoint, and adding the identifier, I’m, makes the phrase a form of apology and expression of regret.

The definition of apology is an expression of regret for causing someone else trouble or pain. The definition of regret means to feel remorse or contrite about ones actions. Remorse and regret are two emotions people in general have a very difficult time experiencing and admitting.

Remorse is another vital term to succinctly understand the phrase, “I’m Sorry.” Without the experience of remorse, it is impossible to sincerely communicate regret for ones misdeed(s). Remorse is defined as a sense of deep regret and guilt for causing someone harm. Depending on the harm committed, severity of remorse can range from subtle to severe. The societal purpose of remorse is to educate people on behaviors not acceptable in social interactions.

Without the experience of remorse, people can not learn to change their actions leading to a more conducive lifestyle. Since the beginning of recorded history, civilization has written poetry, music, songs, and various other forms of communication in an attempt to define and express the experience of remorse. Without remorse for wrongdoings, society could not exist and isolation would be central to human existence.

The human being is a social creature surviving and thriving within a group dynamic. As part of this evolutionary structure, remorse and communication of regret is both encouraged and necessary for survival of all people, the homo sapiens.

Given the vital purpose of remorse and regret to humanity, the term, “I’m Sorry”, is often confounded by suspicions of sincerity. A person’s character and integrity is a barometer of sincerity and the impact of communicating remorse is directly connected to the person’s intent. If integrity is deemed suspect, then attempts to apologize can easily be construed as misguided void of sincerity.

Character and integrity related to being genuinely remorseful is tied to past, present, and future actions following their misdeed(s). Some are unforgivable while most are accepted provided specific actions are exhibited after his/her misdeed(s). The end product of actions following a misdeed is new learned behaviors reducing the potential for repetition of the specific misdeeds.

An analogy to illustrate human fallibility not addressed, changed, or redirected would be the person who suffers from alcoholism. Although the alcoholic is secretly aware his/her drinking causes pain and anguish to others, he/she continues to drink using a variety of defense mechanisms such as denial, displacement, and minimization. Engaged in the gradual demise of his/her character, integrity, and trust by others, the alcoholic may go years before experiencing remorse and abstaining from future alcohol consumption. The process of recognition, remorse, regret, recovery and rehabilitation illustrates the path all people should experience in the process of positive human adaptation.

Without remorse or regret for actions deemed hurtful by others, the probability for positive change is minuscule. Given the depths of the human mind, there are copious defense mechanisms ready to protect someone from feeling regret for their actions. The ability to say, “I’m Sorry”, and mean it requires an internal reservoir called conscience. Conscience is defined as a moral sense of right and wrong. This psychological construct affects a person’s behavior and encourages functional behavior.

Consciousness, thinking, awareness, and self-awareness are all relevant facets of the conscience. This construct is like a glass of water ranging from empty to full. Most people’s reservoir of conscience ranges from ½ to ¾ filled. As mentioned above, a part of the human condition is fallibility and proclivity to engage in non functional behavior(s). The less conscience a person possesses, the more apt he/she is at a risk for victimizing others. The severest outcome of lacking a vessel of conscience would be the criminal, deviant, or sociopathic mind.

The phrase, “I’m Sorry”, is one of the most important phrases involved in the human experience. From the beginning of time and ad infinitum thereafter, the process of recognition, regret, remorse, and rehabilitation will always be a barometer for human adaptability. Laws, religions, philosophies, and familial guidelines for raising children are all geared to manage and reduce human suffering.

The goal is quite simple and easy to practice using five steps.

1. Expect others to become offended given variability of perceptions filtering all human interactions.
2. Whether innocent or guilty causing others harm, initiate an apology followed by empathy for their experience.
3. Verbalize a plan for not offending in the future.
4. Introspect upon and initiate a paradigm shift reducing the potential for future offending action(s).
5. Never forget, always forgive, and foster mutual respect.

Dr. Michael Nuccitelli is a New York State licensed psychologist and certified forensic consultant. He completed his doctoral degree in clinical psychology in 1994 from the Adler School in Chicago, Illinois. In 2006, he received a Diplomat by the American Board of Psychological Specialties and Certified Forensic Consultant, C.F.C., designation from the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute.

The theory of Dark Psychology assumes either you are ignorant to past devious actions or simply don’t care. Here is a chance to change your trajectory and begin anew. Whatever predatory behaviors you have engaged in, sociopathic and/or criminal, there is always a choice to cease, desist, and step from the abyss of becoming sociopathic.

The comedian Father Guido Sarduchi noted that we could all save a little time if we trimmed the fat from the Happy Birthday song. He proposed:

Happy birthday to you

Happy birthday dear Guido

Happy birthday to you

After all, what’s really gained from that second “happy birthday to you?” Isn’t an ABA format as good as an AABA?

Most jazz tunes are AABA with eight bars per section and 32 bars for the whole song. The blues also is AABA both in its chord changes and first-line lyrics repeated. In limericks too the rhythmic pattern is AABA. In classical Indian music the AABA form consists of four “matras” or sections, the third of which is “empty.” At a classical Indian concert you’ll see audience members backhand-sweep the air on the empty third matra as though brushing away flies.

It’s not just “Happy Birthday.” Apparently ABA isn’t necessarily as resonant with us as AABA. And why?

Maybe AABA affords the maximum tolerable repetition. Two A’s in a row is fine but three is monotonous. Still, music isn’t about tolerability. It’s about enjoyment and a certain metaphoric resonance with the patterns of life. Life is full of patterns and surprises so we resonate with both. Music is full of tantalizing patterns and attention-teasing surprises. In music’s bait and switches the AA is the bait and the B that follows is the switch. You can’t have a surprise exception to a pattern until you have a pattern, and the minimal pattern is a single repetition: AA.

I’ve long been interested in two possible ways rules work. One version is that all rules come in opposing pairs. For example, sometimes you should accept things as they are and sometimes you should resist things. Assume a 50/50 probability an ABAB, like coin-flips on each of the rules.

The other interpretations is that one rule dominates but with occasional exceptions. For example, assume that you should generally accept things as they are, but that there will be the occasional need to resist also. The minimal way to express this would be AABA.

I think there’s an analog to AABA in child development, helping children develop deep resonance with the patterns of life. First a child must learn rules like “be nice” through repetition. Once the pattern is established, the child learns to diverge from the pattern when necessary. For example when someone asks for something inappropriate, a child shouldn’t feel compelled to be nice.

Indeed, split the AABA pattern into two patterns and you get the two versions of how rules work. AA implies that A is always the rule. BA implies that rules alternate 50/50.

Adulthood is living by the A-rules, knowing that there will be B-exceptions and wondering when those exceptions are. For example, there are times when we break the rule that one should be nice. We take note when we do, wondering, “Was that OK?”

We note the exceptions, and the noting shows that there was a rule in the first place. That’s the real meaning of “The exception that proves the rule.” More accurately we could say that by taking note of the divergence from the rule we prove that there was a rule we diverged from.

Classic psychological research shows that people who doubt their own beliefs are more inclined to proselytize in favor of them. Shakespeare’s “The lady doth protest too much, methinks,” reflects this. If I say, “No, believe me. I meant to do that. That’s what I should have done,” I demonstrate that I’ve noticed that I’m making an exception from a rule. We say what we, ourselves need to hear. We need to hear reasons for making the exceptions we do.

And apparently we need to hear a fair amount of AABA, a pattern that reflects that there are both patterns and exceptions.

A multi-disciplinary professor translating ideas from the life and social sciences for application to everyday life.

Author of Doubt: A User’s Guide, Negotiate With Yourself and Win! and Executive UFO: A Field Guide to Unidentified Flying Objectives In the Workplace.

It is interesting how the word ‘cult’ seems to have a particularly negative meaning, indeed it is often spoken with a vocal intonation which suggests ‘disgust’ or ‘hate’. In fact the word can be used in a religious and a sociological sense.

One meaning of the word is “a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents”. In this usage we could describe any ‘flavour’ of a particular religious dogma as a cult if it moves away from or adds to the basic tenant of the original religion, i.e. if it makes changes to the essential doctrine of the parent doctrine.

In sociological terms a ‘cult’ can be suggested as being any group with a defined set of practices which seek to impact a person’s health, wealth, and/or personal relationships. In this sense then ‘cults’ need not be religious and of course need not be destructive. In common usage, however, the word cult implies something clandestine, divisive and, by assumption, harmful to the individuals wellbeing within it.

Recent conversations with several ’spiritually minded individuals’ has reminded me of how lax we are in using words and how emotionally charged some of them are. Use the term Ouija Board in some social circles and the looks of horror and highly charged anecdotal storytelling inspired by the words is remarkable. Similarly the word OCCULT (which simply means ‘hidden’ and therefore implies ’secret’) and CULT are words that are used in the same breath and generally with the same degree of distaste.

Groups are defined by the practices. Hence it follows that there are probably a series of behavioural markers that can be used to consider whether a group is a cult or ‘cult like’. Wikipedia, a resource we know to use with care, contains the following points…

“The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered strange.The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The narrower, derogatory sense of the word is a product of the 20th century, especially since the 1980s, and is considered subjective.”

Further noting that..

“It is also a result of the anti-cult movement which uses the word in reference to groups seen as authoritarian exploitative and that are believed to use dangerous rituals or mind control. The word implies a group which is a minority in a given society.”

So a cult will have an ‘authoritarian’ structure and use ‘mind manipulation’ and ‘rituals’ to keep its members ‘in check’. Almost by definition ‘cult members’ will have access to and be given ’secret knowledge’ which sets them apart from others in society. In general terms cults are normally build around some charismatic leader or founder. By this definition all of the World’s major religions have a ‘cult’ like basis.

Perhaps the key issue, as mentioned elsewhere, is that cults, in the pejorative sense, actually do little to promote and develop the ‘free will’ of the individual. Of course such negative cults may start out by promising personal liberation and access knowledge that increases personal power, but in exchange may require total subjugation to the cult hierarchy, their practices and beliefs.

In The Real Twilight Zone (TRTZ no 6: 11th Jan 2011 available from iTunes) we talked about mind control.

One of the things that cults are accused of is mind control. Psychologists and Therapists who specialize in ‘cult deprogramming’ have worked with individuals who have tried to extricate themselves from the vice like grips of certain cult groups. They have noted that an individual’s ‘free will’ is slowly eroded by mind control techniques familiar to all those who are aware of the CIA/MK ULTRA techniques developed from the 1950’s onward. In essence…

The ‘group’ present themselves has having something to make the individual happier, healthier, wealthier or more successful.

The individual offers personal information, and gradually discloses personal problems, fears, past misdeeds and yearnings

The group reduce the individuals problem to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;

They individual receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group

They individual gets a new identity or role based on the group’s structure

They individual, progressing through the upper stages of the cult hierarchy are isolated from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture (anyone who is not part of the group) and their access to information is controlled.

By these last stages the individual may well have become financially as well as socially and emotionally dependent upon the group.

Many groups operate by either sharing of ‘wealth’, ‘tithing’ (giving a percentage of your earnings to the group’s work) or by ever increasing costs of training courses which will take you to ‘the next level’ or ‘reveal an even higher truth’.

F.A.C.T. (the Fight Against Coercive Tactics) has a list of groups it claims uses mind control tactics to ensure its followers ‘keep the faith’.

We obviously can’t look at them all in detail, but let’s explore one or two that are interesting for different reasons whilst bearing in mind that existing groups and religions who are cults are very litigious often with deep pockets to match. Actually this last point is worth reflecting upon. For me if a group has nothing to hide, is acting for the best interests of people, knows that its ‘truths’ are sound and has a creedo about freedom of expression being aggressively litigious of those who criticize or ask questions must say something.

Heaven’s Gate

Heaven’s Gate was a UFO cult based in California and run by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. The group was said to have its origins in the 1970’s when Applewhite whilst recovering from a heart attack had ‘near death experience’. He became convinced that he and Nettles, his nurse, where the ‘2′ spoken about in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 11:3).

They developed a mythos related to apocalyptic Biblical teachings, salvation and science fiction. Before the ‘Heaven’s Gate’ name ’stuck’ the group was referred to as the Human Individual Metamorphosis movement. Applewhite preached that he was “Evolutionary Kingdom Level Above Human” in that he was directly related to Jesus Christ.

The group came to believe that:

The Earth was about to be ‘recycled’ and the only option was to leave it immediately.

Human bodies were only vessels which helped them on their journey

There were several paths by which they could leave the Earth prior to its recycling

Group members had to shed their attachment to the planet by giving up friends, family, possessions, money and sexuality.

Living a strictly ascetic lifestyle resulted in seven of the male members, including Applewhite, undergoing voluntary castration.

The Heaven’s Gate community settled in San Diego and earned money from the website development business Higher Source. Group members added the suffix “ody” to their first names in order to indicate that they were “children of the Next Level”.

On March 26 1997, 39 members of the group committed suicide. Applewhite had convinced the group that within the tail of the Hale-Boppe comet was a spaceship which was coming to take them to the next level.

Authorities found the dead lying in their own bunk beds, bodies covered by a square, purple cloth. Each member carried a five dollar bill and three quarters in their pockets.

All 39 were dressed in identical black shirts and sweat pants, brand new black-and-white Nike athletic shoes. They were also wearing an armband reading “Heaven’s Gate Away Team – a direct reference to Star Trek the language of which featured in much of their literature.

The Peoples Temple – Jim Jones

Jonestown was the name for the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project in Northwester Guyana.

The Peoples Temple was founded by Jim Warren Jones (born and lived in Indiana, USA for much of his life) who himself had a colourful and dynamic personal history including active involvement with communism, the Methodist Church with whom he became a student pastor but left when the Church leaders barred him from integrating Black people into his services.

Sometime around 1952 Jones witnessed a Faith-Healing service and apparently noted that the money and following such services attracted would help him achieve is social goals – which included integration. He set up his own Church, which he eventually called the Peoples Temple Christian Church Full Gospel.

It is suggested that the funds for this Church not only came from healings and healing services but through Jones’ own door to door selling of pet monkeys. Jones was a passionate integrationist and one would argue a social revolutionary. Indeed he was appointed by the Mayor of Inidanapolis as Director of their Human Rights Commission.

Often refusing to follow the party line he urged human rights activists to become more and more militant. There is so much more to Jim Jones than one would first imagine, but throughout his years of campaigning, the adoption of mixed race children by he and his wife, which he called his ‘Rainbow Family’, he was slowly building a set of personal beliefs that would lead him to establish an independent community in Guyana.

Building in Jonestown started in 1974 as a way to create a “socialist paradise” and as a “sanctuary” from the media that he and his Human Rights Activism attracted. Once in this isolated, ideal setting, things began to fall apart. It is suggested that Jones had a drug addiction and in the small community this was something that was difficult to hide.

To make matters worse Jonestown was attracting more and more people who wanted to share in what they believed was some kind of Utopia. The reality was one of a grueling schedule of work, followed by hours of ‘lessons’ on the nature of socialism a la Jim Jones. Internal pressures from his within his ’sanctuary’ and concerns from families in the US who had lost contact with children and relatives who had moved to Jonestown were fast becoming a major issue.

On April 11, 1978, a group of “concerned relatives” distributed documents, including letters and affidavits, that they titled an “Accusation of Human Rights Violations by Rev. James Warren Jones” to the Peoples Temple, to the media and members of Congress. In June 1978, ex Temple member Deborah Layton provided the group with a statement detailing alleged crimes by the Peoples Temple and substandard living conditions in Jonestown.

In November 1978 Congressman Leo Ryan agreed to visit Jonestown to assess the situation. As he was leaving for his plane members of Jim Jones so called “Red Brigade” shot at and killed Ryan and his party supposedly in fear of what he would report when he arrived back in the US.

Later that same day, 909 inhabitants of Jonestown, 303 of them children, died of apparent cyanide poisoning. The FBI eventually recovered a 45 minute audio tape. This recording includes Jones urging the members of the Jonestown community to come forward to receive the poison – first for their children, then for themselves – as Jones describes the horrors of what would await those who did not commit what he described as “revolutionary suicide”.

Of all those we could talk about why these?

Well in both cases the demonstrate the key elements of cult profiles and behaviour.

A Charismatic Leader with an apparently meaningful and relevant message.

A doctrine or mythos that evolves around a key idea or principle

A way of engaging followers with a specific message and a promise of something better

A system which ensures that the followers are isolated or self-supporting

Restriction of influences and information from outside the group

A hierarchy which brings the most militant and evangelical of members close to the leader

A sense that their behaviour, their solution, their inner secret must be protected. If we consider other cult groups, The Branch Davidians (David Koresh), The Unification Church (Reverend Moon – hence Moonies), The Manson ‘Family’ perhaps we can see the same patterns.

As for some of the others we could mention – well it looks like a cult, behaves like a cult and thinks like a cult then…..

Alan Jones has been studying aspects of the Paranormal and the Occult for many years. He has advised on films and documentaries and has contributed to numerous radio programmes. He currently co-hosts Haunted Cornwall FM as their resident sceptic and presents The Real Twilight Zone (available from iTunes)

Rational Mystic Blog http://www.therationalmystic.co.uk

I watched the last presidential election from several perspectives. Among them:

Mine: What I want (this perspective comes easiest).

Theirs: What something like half the American voters seem to want (at least for strategic reasons it’s useful to track this, given the chance that They may win).

Ours: What people need today and in the future (that is, what people everywhere will end up wishing we did).

My perspective probably shades my interpretation of Theirs and Ours more than I know.

One thing about Our perspective, with its focus on long-term and wide-ranging consequences: It’s the one that depends most on reading reality right. The truth will out. As our economy is teaching us lately, being unrealistic generally has bad long-term consequences. Even the most unrealistic ideas can seem to work in the short run, but not in the long.

Back in 2002, journalist Ronald Suskind interviewed Bush’s chief propagandist, Karl Rove. Suskind writes:

“Rove said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community’, which he defined as people ‘who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality’. I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ Rove continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Rove makes a fascinating point. In reality, perception is reality. According to Rove, the people who realize this are realists. Wasting time on judicious study of reality is just being unrealistic.

Confusing, isn’t it? Wouldn’t realists pay less attention to perception than to reality? Is it more realistic to be realistic or to be realistic about people’s lack of realism?

To clear up the confusion, just recognize two definitions of reality. “Reality” in quotation marks can be defined as anything that changes behavior. The time right now is 8:00 pm and I’ll have to leave to meet my family in a half hour. So “8:00″ is real in that it makes a difference to my behavior. The more something changes behavior the more real that something is. The concepts of democracy, happiness, poverty, fashion, communism, science-these are all real in this sense. So too are reincarnation, Hell, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. They too have changed a lot of behavior and are thus very “real” by this practical definition.

If you find it troubling to call the Tooth Fairy real, you are not alone. Like pretty much everyone except the severely psychotic, you demonstrate a commitment to a second definition of reality, a sense that perception isn’t everything-there’s a realer real than our impressions. As Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

The long-term object of the game might be making “reality” match reality. And we make progress at this. Few people today think Zeus is real. We acknowledge that Zeus was “real,” but since he was more like the Tooth Fairy than he was like poverty, belief in him eventually waned.

Sometimes we collapse “reality” into reality. We assume that what we perceive must be what’s really out there. We believe it when we see it, as though the eyes never lie or as though the eyes are merely crystal-clear windows through which the nature of the world is projected directly into the mind.

And sometimes we do the reverse, collapsing reality into “reality.” Take that runaway best-seller, “The Secret,” or Lakewood Church, the largest U.S. church, both of which claim that what you perceive to be real (for example, that you’ll be successful) automatically becomes hard fact in the world (you will be successful).

In Suskind’s interview, Rove is making a case akin to “The Secret.” (That sly old New Ager-whoda thunk it?!) He believes perception makes the world. He isn’t just saying you can make people believe anything. He’s saying you can get them to act and to act in such large numbers (since we’re an empire) that they actually create the whole entire hard reality.

If the world were composed exclusively of people’s perceptions and actions, Rove might be right. Life would be like “The Matrix,” where all the world is a matter of perception and perception management.

What Rove conveniently fails to perceive are the large numbers of people whose perceptions he can’t shape, and-more important-the hard physical constraints on the role of human perception and action. No matter how many people you successfully convince to perceive and act otherwise, you can’t get blood from a stone or enough oil from offshore drilling to fuel us inexpensively for any length of time. (You can fuel some of the people some of the time…)

I’ve long wondered what happens to people’s judgment in crises. Plenty of evidence indicates that when the going gets tough, crowds get selfish, fearful, angry, and devoted to tyrants. They invest in the “real” to escape the real.

But plenty of evidence also indicates that the higher the direct consequences of a decision the more sober and rational people get in making it (see Philosophizing). When it’s serious, the real becomes more compelling than the “real.” The market crash so far seems to be tipping people toward the real. Ideological oversimplifications are a luxury they feel they can’t afford. Rovian promotion of the “real” isn’t working like it used to. Of course it’s too early to tell for sure how we’re really going to tip.

From My perspective, I hope They’re coming around-because it will be better from Our perspective if they do. But meanwhile, I also view this election from a fourth perspective, that of the Cosmic Them:

I view it all as an alien would, looking in on the modest progress of this fledgling species, H. sapiens, an experiment in reality tracking and in fitting into an environment not merely by Darwinian evolution as all species do, or by feel the way animals do, but through symbol manipulation-in effect, using the extraordinary and unprecedented power of words to formulate and refine models of reality. It’s a species born yesterday, muddling through the lessons of history. Not evil, just naive. Short-sighted, but not by having lost some long-sightedness it once possessed. It didn’t fall from grace; it arose out of slime mold.

The species takes tests sometimes, like this election or the last one. It gets test results too, like Iraq and the market crash. The test results aren’t perfectly correlated with the answers. The species can’t tell for sure what caused what. Still, over time it is likely to discern useful patterns and make fewer mistakes.

From this perspective, the election is lined up just perfectly. John McCain and Sarah Palin have proven themselves capable of living by Rove’s strategic interpretation of “reality.” Mavericks though they may once have been, by now they have conformed to the strategy that has contributed to the Republican party’s dominance over the past few decades. All politicians have to manipulate perceptions, but until recently there has been sensitivity to questions of degree. Not with Rove, Bush, or Cheney, and apparently not with McCain or Palin either. Reality be damned. What counts is “reality.” They believe in saying whatever is necessary to change behavior to conform to what they would like it to be. And they lock in immunity for themselves by shaping perceptions so that people believe that they would never try to manipulate perceptions. Their MO is don’t talk straight, talk crooked, especially about how you’re talking straight.

We have that option pitted against the Democrats, who this time managed to send up some guys who indulge in just enough spin to survive, and do so largely in the service of paying due respect to the other definition of reality. Beyond America’s love affair with itself (“The greatest workforce in the world,” as McCain and Palin coo mawkishly), they argue, certain hard-and-fast limits still remain.

How will this fledgling reasoner species choose this time? Will it have learned from the past eight years that Rove’s treatment of reality ultimately is undermined by facts that “do not cease to exist because they are ignored”?

Nice to be tested from time to time. One way or another, reality will serve us up the grades we earn and the government we deserve.

A multi-disciplinary professor translating ideas from the life and social sciences for application to everyday life.

Author of Doubt: A User’s Guide, Negotiate With Yourself and Win! and Executive UFO: A Field Guide to Unidentified Flying Objectives In the Workplace.

I’m trying a new way to deal with effronteries. When someone does me harm, I have an old habit of compensating myself with the grant of retaliatory superiority. I automatically think, “This proves that I’m different from (and better than) them. I hold to the high standards better than they do, and I’m therefore entitled to chew them out for not meeting a standard. Unlike them, I’m perfectly capable of remembering the high standards… at least whenever others fail me personally by not meeting them.”

My new alternative is to compensate myself with credits through equality: “I’m the same as (and not better than) them, and therefore there will come a time, probably soon, when I’m going to need to be forgiven too for not meeting the high standards. Their mistake buys me a gift card, a credit toward forgiveness for the same or similar error of mine at some future date.

If I forgive her now for forgetting to bring the crucial item, then I’m entitled to be forgiven next time I forget to bring the crucial item. If he arrives late, then I can arrive late some other time.

Or to put it another way, as someone who doesn’t want to subscribe to a double standard, when I throw a fit over someone’s error, I’m basically signing up for a fit of equal value next time I make a similar error. If I don’t throw any fit, then I shouldn’t be subjected to one when my turn comes.

My natural response has been “You’re only as good as your last mistake to me.” This new response I’m cultivating is “I’m only as free as your last mistake to me.”

I like this new approach, but I do notice how it can lower standards. If he’s late, I’ll be forgiven if I’m late sometime, which means he’s further forgiven for being late… and pretty soon no one shows up on time. If every time someone drives drunk he goes unpunished and his victims earn permission to drive drunk with impunity, pretty soon we’re all driving drunk.

So which is it? Do two wrongs make a right or don’t they?

One answer is that it depends upon the particular wrong. Sometimes, when people don’t meet a standard, the standard ought to be changed because it’s not a good one. Suppose they gave a war and nobody came. Suppose during WWI people said, “Look, let’s face it, none of us want to meet the standard of patriotism that demands that we sacrifice our lives for this war. If you don’t go, I won’t give you a hard time-and then when I won’t go, you won’t give me a hard time either. Let’s boycott it together, OK?”

But imagine if we did the same about a more necessary war like WWII. Suppose Germany had given that war and nobody in England or the United States came? What would the world be like now?

I think there’s a real dilemma here: To forgive him for failing to meet the standard strengthens your bond to him while weakening your bond to the standard. Conversely, not forgiving him strengthens your bond to the standard while weakening your bond to him. When should noncompliance with some standard lead to punishment, and when should it lead to a changed standard?

There’s an old term for my new and admirable approach to effronteries. It’s called co-dependency. I figure if I show love in the face of failing, I’ll get love back, and the specialists on co-dependency argue that that’s just how enablers conspire with drunk drivers, wife abusers, and other addicts to lower the standards to unacceptable levels.

It’s true, that is how good standards are eroded, but it’s also how bad ones are. Many a bad law is eventually eroded by rolling standard lowerings. I have good friends who are gay. If I show tolerance to gays for not living by society’s (outmoded) standards, I’m freer too, and that’s a good thing. Yet there are surely some people still who are certain that accepting your friend’s homosexuality is the co-dependent enabling of sinful behavior.

I’ve long been bothered that the term “co-dependent” got used up on the argument that this particular pattern of behavior is intrinsically bad. For one thing, it would have been a great term for making explicit the fundamental characteristic of love-two people mutually dependent upon each other. For another, a lot of times forgiving people for lowering their standards is just the ticket, and it would be useful to have a name for that desirable action-but in common usage the implications of “co-dependence” are always negative, so to use it is to condemn whatever behavior it applies to.

I hope you’ll forgive me for using co-dependent sometimes more broadly and less pejoratively. If together we slouch toward a looser definitional standard on that term, we can get over the distracting question of whether it’s always good or bad to hold someone to a standard, and focus instead on the more important question of whether the particular standard in question is a good one or a bad one.

A multi-disciplinary professor translating ideas from the life and social sciences for application to everyday life.

Author of Doubt: A User’s Guide, Negotiate With Yourself and Win! and Executive UFO: A Field Guide to Unidentified Flying Objectives In the Workplace.

So I’ve got some bacofoil around my head; I’ve got an EMF-balancing pendant hanging from my neck and I attend a regular support group to share the messages the government are beaming in to my head. Am I immune to the effects of mind control now?

As was noted in Part 2 of this short series of articles, governments have a history of experimenting on the unsuspecting and unwitting public. So, perhaps, there is no reason to assume that they are not doing so now – right at this very minute.

Enter V2K…

Claimed to be an ‘official military’ term V2K stands for Voice to Skull technology. That’s right – a device which will beam brain washing instructions, mind programming instructions or even, I guess Barry Manilow tunes with hidden subliminals directly into your brain.

There are people, out there, who genuinely believe that they are TI’s (targeted individuals) and that they are being experimented upon with a range of electronic devices which plant thoughts into their minds. Of course, such claims can immediately be dismissed as some form of mental illness, but are there any grounds, apart from a lack of trust in governments, to think that there is anything in behind these beliefs?

Well if I can trust my internet ’search’ abilities I do find a Patent registered with the US Patents Office for a device which provides a…

“method of encoding an input audio signal thereby enabling intelligible speech to be perceived by the brain as any other nerve signal from the cochlea”

US Patents: 3563246 February 1971 Puharick 3629521 December 1971 Puharick 4835791

I think that constitutes voices in the head?

But does that automatically mean that TI’s are the unwitting victims of CIA-Secret Government Experimentation?

In the UK the TETRA System is actually claimed to be evidence of “Mass UK Mind Control Technology and the Zombification Of Britain’s Police” (CH4 News, Feb 5th, 2001).

One may wonder how this happens, well according to “leading psychotronic expert Tim Rifat)..

“The TETRA system pulses at 17.6 Hz broadcast at 400 MHz which is essentially the Pandora Project funded by the CIA in the late ’60s and early ’70s.”

Well Ross Adey is certainly a real person. He died in 2004 and his special interest was the effects of electromagnetic effects upon biological tissues. The University of California in its memoriam to him notes that he had…

“Especially provocative and revolutionary…. concepts..”

The problem with ‘provocative’ and ‘revolutionary’ work is that it is just that ‘provocative’ and ‘revolutionary’. The truth of the matter is that despite the constant recycling of Adey’s work there seems to be little in the way of corroborative supporting research on the biological effects of EMF fields in the ranges claimed by ‘conspiracy theorists’ and TI supporters. Of course, as in any area of ‘revolutionary’ science it will be possible to find individual reports, evangelical researchers, scientists and mavericks who will support the most left-field of ideas. Also, it must be remembered that scientific findings are by the very nature of scientific method tentative and are there to promote debate. This is why great care must be taken when starting with a belief or opinion and then looking for the scientific article or research to support it.

I am not an expert in EMF and ELF fields and their effect upon biology or neurology and the best I can do is remain open to the possibility whilst reading what those who do know about this stuff are saying. It’s not good enough to say that so many scientists disagree with an existing consensus – not all scientists are created equal. They can of course have opinions (whether they be informed, emotional or both) but if they are commenting outside of their area of expertise and current research then they are as likely to be mistaken as anyone else.

So what is TETRA – well as far as I can see it’s a communications mast which allows for cross-border communications to work. I’m not necessarily convinced that Motorola really wants to create zombie police or zombie anything for that matter.

That brings us to Project PANDORA.

When we consider MKULTRA, Project Artichoke and the other, now declassified projects, the existence of a project to consider V2K technology is seemingly plausible.

Well one whistleblower, named Hawkspirit, informs us that..

“The United States of America’s Army’s “Military Thesaurus” defines “Voice to skull” (V2K) devices as follows:

“Voice to skull devices..which can transmit sound into the skull of persons or animals. NOTE: the sound modulation may be voice or audio subliminal messages.. Acronym: V2K”.

I’ve no reason to assume that’s incorrect, although the idea of a published Military Thesaurus seems somewhat amusing.

Project Pandora was supposedly linked to MK Ultra and ran as part of it the first non-conspiracy friendly website I could find about Project Pandora was about the espionage film of the same title, about a mind control conspiracy, starring one of the Baldwin brothers.

A declassified document from 1966 identifies Project Pandora as an experiment in the nature and propagation of microwave radiation and not linked to mind control at all.

A 1984 documentary, Opening Pandora’s box, which was claimed to be shown BBC Channel 4 contains the following quotes:

“The Soviets started bombarding the American Embassy in Moscow in 1953 and the U.S. government funded Project Pandora to find out why. Project Pandora was “a top secret multimillion dollar program”

“Dr. Robert Becker was an eminent scientist and was asked if central nervous system, CNS disturbances occur by microwave radiation. The Pandora Project found that the microwave radiation interferes with decision making capacity, causes chronic stress and low efficiency.”

Source: Opening Pandora’s Box”, 1984, produced by David Jones for Fulcrum Central Productions, aired on BBC Channel 4.

A quick internet search only finds references to the documentary but little about the documentary itself.

Well BBC 4 launched in March 2002 so the fact that the sites searched contain the same basic source error (it could not have been a documentary on BBC Channel 4 shown in 1984), we do have to question the reliability of the sites in question.

Within a topic that is about misinformation we really do have to be careful about the quality of the information from BOTH SIDES of the argument!

So what is the science behind V2K if any?

Well Radio Frequency Hearing (RF Hearing) is fairly well documented.

RF induced sounds can be heard in a quiet environment is required and is similar to other common sounds such as a click, buzz, hiss, knock, or chirp.

In terms of RF or Microwave frequencies affecting behaviour Dr. John A. D’Andrea, Brenda L. Cobb, John O. de Lorge amongst others have show no effects on behaviour with pulse tests on rhesus monkeys. Although pulsed microwaves can induce acoustic pressure waves in the brain (Olsen and James 1983) there is still little evidence to support these techniques as a viable method of systematic mind control.

Dr Alan Jones in an NLP Trainer, Motivational Speaker and Educational Coach who has worked with a wide range of clients including international organisations, education authorities, professional training providers and individuals. He is an Accredited de Bono Thinking Skills Consultant. His colleagues recognise not only his particular skills as a trainer and presenter but also his eclectic interests. He is a magician (Member of the Magic Circle), mentalist, writer and broadcaster.

You can find out more about his work by visiting http://www.aljones.net

A few months before Katrina, I caught one of the early Mardi Gras parades in a rural town outside New Orleans. Race relations there seemed different from those here in Northern California. Blacks were more outgoing and friendly to whites, and yet there also seemed to be more racial segregation. At the parade, the floats and teams were strictly segregated. The only integration I saw was a few clusters of black and white teens. I watched a policeman go out of his way to harass a black youth who was hanging out with some white girls.

As I was heading back to my car I saw one group by a 7-11 and thought to ask them directly about the state of race relations. A white girl spoke for them all, “Oh, it’s getting better. The police still give you a hard time but it’s not bad.” I thanked her and walked toward my car feeling pleased and hopeful; it was good to hear from a like-minded youth who was transcending past bigotries.

The girl called me back. “You say you’re from San Francisco?” she asked.

“Are they still letting gays marry there? ‘Cause I think that’s so disgusting.”

OK, not entirely like-minded. She had learned a lesson about bigotry, but she hadn’t generalized it. Me, I’ve seen enough instances of destructive bigotry to extrapolate to a universal pattern. Bigotry against blacks, Jews, the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, gays-I get it-no bigotry is acceptable. What you don’t do to blacks you don’t do to gays either.

In this election I’m hoping a disenchanted nation will do some careful generalizing. Too much focus on Bush and Cheney’s bad character distracts us from questions about what makes them bad. If we conclude that they’re just bad apples, then what’s to stop equally counterproductive people with different names and faces from taking their places?

Everyone says, “People who don’t learn the lessons of history are forced to repeat it,” but if that statement doesn’t miss the point completely, it just barely grazes it. Sure, we should try to learn lessons-but the real question is which lessons, what generalizations? From Stalin and Hitler should we generalize to no more leaders with mustaches? No more short people?

What we want, of course, is to generalize lessons from history that end up paying off in the future. Unfortunately, although that’s a great goal, it’s useless as a rule of thumb. The future isn’t here yet, so you can’t use it directly to guide your generalizations.

“Son, my advice to you is buy low, sell high, and always learn today what worked tomorrow.”

Still, our society’s accelerated progress over the past few centuries is largely a product of culture realizing that right generalization is the name of the game. Science and engineering are largely attempts to systematize the process of effective generalization. In the hope of promoting that process, however slightly, here are a few generalizations about generalization applied to the coming election.

Undergeneralizing: Sometimes we fail to learn because we fail to generalize at all. Bush voters who now criticize the president tend to defend their votes. Yes, Bush turned out to be a lemon, an exception to the otherwise fine products of the conservative movement. Gore, Kerry, and the whole liberal agenda would have been much worse. McCain will fix things. Abu Ghraib? A few bad low-level soldiers. There’s nothing to learn, no generalization to be drawn.

When McCain said the economic problem was caused by greedy people on Wall Street and that the answer was to fire the head of the SEC, he sounded like unsophisticated leftists I knew in the ’70s. The problem is a few greedy people leading big corporations. Replace them with un-greedy people like me and it will all be groovy.

Overgeneralizing: Litmus-test radicals think they’ve found the one or two factors from which you can generalize to everything you need to know about a candidate. A Christian? Anti-abortion? For gay marriage? Divorced? A loyal spouse? For change? A traditionalist? The Sufis say, “He who’s burnt by hot milk blows on ice cream.” Not all dairy products will burn you. And not all Christians are great leaders. To litmus-test radicals on the left or the right, expert status isn’t earned through careful analysis but through passionate self-certainty. They’ve found the one cause that matters. It’s a priority not because they’ve compared it to other issues but because they can make an impassioned argument for its intrinsic and isolated merit. “But don’t you see, it’s a fundamental right!”

Motivated generalization: An alcoholic ponders what’s causing those daily hangovers. Monday: gin and tonic; Tuesday: vodka and tonic; Wednesday: whiskey and tonic; Thursday: rum and tonic. Clearly it’s the tonic.

Generalization serves two masters. One is, of course, our future selves. We hope to learn history’s real lessons so we don’t have to repeat them. The other is our present gut instinct, which definitely prefers some lessons to others. The alcoholic’s future self wants to avoid future hangovers, but the alcoholic’s gut doesn’t want to discover that those hangovers are caused by alcohol rather than tonic.

Most Republicans don’t seem to want to consider the possibility that they’ve had a substantial chance to try their ideas out in the real world and that in general those ideas don’t work as well as they had hoped. Just this week, days after the $700 billion bailout was announced, I was probing a right-wing friend about the core values and principles that drive his beliefs. He’s for the bailout as the lesser of two evils. On core values, though, he proudly told me one thing he knows for sure. Liberal efforts to regulate the free market have failed over and over and should never be tried again. No mention of the possibility that conservatives have anything to learn here.

This same friend tells me that he relishes arguing with liberals like me because our arguments are so weak and implausible. He’s the second conservative to tell me that this month. In other words, we generalize poorly. We’re either slow learners or we’re driven to our generalizations by our gut instincts, not our rational minds as they are.

Psychological research* indicates that we all generalize through two parallel systems, the rational mind and the gut, and that the gut predominates. The gut is faster acting than the rational mind. It’s often right or we wouldn’t survive. But there’s plenty of evidence that the gut gets it wrong consistently on crucial matters.

Ideally, therefore, we’d be rational about when to use our gut instincts and when to be rational. Among the more troubling findings therefore is strong evidence that most of us assume we’re more rational than we in fact are. We interpret gut instincts as rational instincts. Guts have the upper hand. Our guts tell us our rational minds are telling us that our rational minds are generalizing from the evidence and not our guts. We generalize incorrectly about our generalizing performance and skill.

Me and all my Obama-supporting friends included. We assume we’re the rational ones. Given the psychological evidence regarding everyone’s ability to interpret their interpretive prowess, we’re disqualified as authorities on the subject of our own rationality. So are our equally gut-motivated Republican detractors. Indeed, posterity gets the final word on whose generalizing skills were best. It alone knows how skillful we were at generalizing to the right lessons of history to learn and not the wrong ones. Unfortunately it was unavailable for comment at the time of this writing.For a great new survey of the findings, check out Nudge: Improving decisions about health wealth and happiness.

I’m an out- of-the-closet theorist in anti-theory society. I’m an evolutionary epistemologist, meaning a researcher and teacher focused on the ways we all generalize, drawing conclusions from inconclusive data, shopping among interpretations of evidence, theorizing and employing abstractions whether we know it or not. I look at how we do this stuff and how we could do it better.

I play jazz bass and sing. My big persistent drivers seem to be competition for status, bottomless introspection, assiduous intellectual inquiry, real social change and good company. I love good company.