--- In [email protected], taskcentered <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > Singer was at least as bad, FWIW. But Markovsky was very > > happy to have been appointed editor of her anticult > > journal, until that whole project fell through. > > > You should know that Markovsky required editorial independence > from the Singer Foundation and indicated that he intended to > hold the journal to <I>his</I> understanding of scholarly and > scientific rigor.
Yeah, well, that brings up the issue of how good his understanding was of "scholarly and scientific rigor." Just for example, there was his insistence on alt.m.t that TM researchers were unethical because they didn't obtain "informed consent" from the subjects of their Maharishi Effect studies (i.e., the populations to be affected by large-group practice of TM-Sidhis practitioners). > > <snip> > > If you're going to use the model of "brainwashing" > > as a "metaphor" or "poetic device," you better be > > damn sure you make that really clear at the outset. > > > > Of course, "brainwashing" is a metaphor to begin > > with, but most people understand the term as it > > was originally used and think of prisoners of war > > and the "Manchurian Candidate." > > > > And I rather doubt Gina was using Lifton's criteria > > as nothing more than metaphors. Curtis certainly > > doesn't. > > I may have misled you. I didn't mean to say that Gina > understands "thought reform" as a metaphor. No, I know that. I was saying I didn't think she did. I'm just suggesting that anyone who writes something for public consumption applying Lifton's criteria to the TMO metaphorically ought to make it clear that's what they're doing so as not to, you know, mislead readers. > > What I meant to offer was my reaction to her article. > > Lifton also didn't talk about "thought reform" as a metaphor. That was only my personal > reaction to the concept of thought reform or brainwashing. > > J. >
