Everyone of you have heard about how Pawlow’s dogs salivated when a bell rang. So the same techniques can be used against humans and here is the article about that:
How Cues and Programming Work in Mind Control and Propaganda
Neil Brick’s Survivorship East Coast Conference Presentation 5/24/03 1 – 2 PM
at Cambridge, Mass. Friends Meeting House
to write us : firstname.lastname@example.org
My name is Neil Brick and today I will be speaking about How Cues and Programming Work in Mind Control and Propaganda as well as how to avoid these cues. I am the editor of the SMART newsletter and sponsor of the Ritual Abuse, Secretive Organizations and Mind Control Conference held in Connecticut near Bradley Airport every summer in August.
This may be very heavy for survivors. This transcript is not a substitute for other ways of recovering from ritual abuse is not meant as therapy or therapeutic advice. Readers should use caution while reading this transcript. If necessary, make sure other support systems are available during and after reading this transcript.
Many triggers or cues are innate. An example of a trigger or cue could be a hot feeling when going near an oven burner. Almost instinctively, a person would pull their hand away from the burner. This would be an unconditioned response. There are conditioned and unconditioned triggers or stimuli and conditioned or unconditioned responses. Pavlovian classical conditioning involves pairing an unconditioned stimuli with a conditioned stimuli to get a conditioned response.
The famous example of dogs salivating when a bell rings is an example of classical conditioning. The dogs were conditioned to do this. The unconditioned stimuli may have been the smell of food and the unconditioned (normal) response was salivation. The unconditioned stimuli, the smell of food was paired with the soon to be conditioned stimuli, the bell. Eventually when one withdraws the smell of food stimuli, the bell alone produces salivation. This is the new conditioned response. Extinction is when the conditioned response diminishes. In other words, if the bell conditioned stimuli is not reinforced with the giving of food, the response (salivation) will diminish after a while. The more trials performed, the more there will be resistance to extinction. In other words, the more often the bell is paired with the smell of food, the longer it will take for the conditioned response to fade away. Generalization is when a similar stimuli produce a similar response. In this case, a bell with a similar tone or note may also produce salivation. Pavlov’s Law of Strength states that when higher intensity conditioned stimuli are paired with conditioned stimuli with shorter intervals between them or if they are overlapping, this will produce better conditioning. If the bell was rung a long time after the smell of food, the conditioning would be weaker than if it was rung at the same time or close to the same time as the smell of food.
Programming is similar to this in several ways. A survivor may be tortured repeatedly until an new alter is created. This alter will be given a cue to let them know when to come out, this could be a smell, word, number, sound, color and so on. This cue is either paired with the alter’s creation and is given to the alter to listen for or to look for. The law of strength applies to the strength of the trauma and the strength of the cue. A stronger smell may be easier to associate with a strong trauma, which makes the conditioning stronger. Also if the alter and cue are paired together or closer in terms of time, they will associate more easily.
Extinction may occur or at least the cue and programmed connection could be weakened when the survivor avoids the cult and other cues for long periods of time. But these cues could also lie dormant and be regenerated unless the survivor does the necessary work to undo the program and all its components, including the emotional components.
William Sargant first looked at combat PTSD and compared it to Pavlov’s classical conditioning. He extended Pavlov’s model to explain how people could change their world view suddenly. This was caused by intense trauma, followed by a person’s personality breaking down, followed by the application of new ways of thinking. Pavlov’s dogs during a flood either forgot or reversed their previous training. First, Pavlov’s “equivalent” phase of brain activity or breakdown occurred. Second, Pavlov’s “paradoxical inhibition” occurred where weak stimuli would produce strong responses and strong stimuli would produce weak responses (inappropriate responses). Third, in the “ultraparadoxical” stage, responses changed from positive to negative and vice-versa. Current models of PTSD suggest that PTSD can be understood as learned helplessness, a set of foci in the brain firing repeatedly and inappropriately. Cognitively, a person’s world view is so changed as to become untenable. Pavlov’s observations on animals breaking down under extreme stress could be applied to humans and survivors.
Pavlov was able to build up and break down behavior patterns in dogs. Pavlov’s work seems to have influenced confession getting and brainwashing techniques. Pavlov’s dogs had four basic temperaments, strong excitatory, lively, calm imperturbable type and melancholic. Each type reacted differently to stress. Pavlov could cause a dog to break down by increasing the intensity of a signal (electricity), delaying the time between the signal and food, confusing them with positive and negative signals interchanged or tampering with its physical condition. If a dog of stable temperament acquires a behavior after extreme stress, it is hard to break this behavior. The could be compared to a person of strong character becoming a one-track minded fanatic. Some survivors may also become fanatics.
The implications for survivors of ritual abuse and their symptoms are obvious. Increased trauma could cause dissociation, making a person more susceptible to suggestion. The delay of gratification could also make one more suggestible. Positive and negative signals interchanged, like praise and insults given rapidly can cause a break. Or the lack of sleep, food or drugging can also make one more suggestible. And once a survivor becomes suggestible, they are easier to program or reprogram.
Propaganda techniques are similar in many ways to programming techniques. One could say a person is being programmed when being propagandized. The combination of vision and sound on TV make a person more suggestible. Most people get their news from TV. Once a person is overly emotional or numbed out, they become more suggestible and less likely to critically think about their choices. Subliminal learning is then enhanced.
According to Sargant, various types of beliefs can be implanted in people after brain functioning has been disturbed by fear, anger or excitement. These cause heightened suggestibility and impaired judgement. These group manifestations may be classified as the herd instinct, they appear most strongly in wartime and periods of common danger. Prolonging the time between giving a signal and the reward or giving an unexpected shock or alternating positive and negative signals and not giving the reward can also cause dramatic changes in patterns of behavior. Sargant describes Edward’s conversion techniques. In brain-washing and eliciting confessions an induced sense of guilt is important to achieve. This is also common when programming survivors. Anger against external and internal enemies nationally can be used to make the masses suggestible, like our war against Iraq. Examples in our media today are all too obvious. It is unfortunately too easy to direct people’s attention away from the fraudulent elections in our country and the outright thievery (like Enron) of the rich corporations against the populace, by creating enemies (like Iraq) and fear (like different color codes against apparently almost nonexistent threats).
Skinner believed that the environment controls the behavior (operant conditioning). Behavior is shaped and it is continued by its consequences. Operant behavior is behavior that operates on or manipulates the environment to produce consequences. This is like the bird in the Skinner box being conditioned to peck at the button to get the food. Organisms act to eliminate or avoid harmful stimuli. The consequence of this action is called a reinforcer. A negative reinforcer is aversive, the organism attempts to eliminate the aversive stimuli. People react to negative stimuli by moving away, acting aggressively or by initiating the desired behavior.
People can also be conditioned this way. A person will act, speak or dress a certain way to gain approval or to avoid insult. According to Skinner, freedom is not dependent on the feelings the contingencies generate, but it is dependent on the contingencies of reinforcement. In other words, it is not how you feel, but the result that determines your action. He believed that the ideas of a culture are the social contingencies or the behaviors they generate, the reinforcers are the society’s values. In cultural evolution, acquired practices (not genetic) that promote survival are transmitted. Feelings are by-products of the controlling social practices. A cultural designer needs to accelerate the development of practices that develop appropriate social behavior through consequences (like laws). The malevolence or benevolence of the society depends on the social programmers, in our case those that control the media and television. Malevolent social programmers will cause wars, extreme poverty and suffering, like we see in the United States. But Skinner also believe that people make the environment which in turn controls them. Therefore people can have control, if they take it.
Read more from Auricmedia: