AssemblyBoard
November 24, 2024, 11:32:22 am *
The board has been closed to new content. It is available as a searchable archive only. This information will remain available indefinitely.

I can be reached at brian@tucker.name

For a repository of informational articles and current information on The Assembly, see http://www.geftakysassembly.com
 
   Home   Search  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: interesting documentary  (Read 7116 times)
brian
Guest


Email
« on: June 12, 2006, 11:47:21 am »

i saw an interesting documentary on the sundance channel last week that stuck with me ( http://www.sundancechannel.com/film/?ixFilmID=7085 ). in it they explore the innate desire of humans to obey a recognized authority figure, even when what they are being told to do is absurd or immoral.

the new york times review of the documentary ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/arts/television/01huma.html?ex=1306814400&en=92f86522d28c6137&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss ) makes the following observation:
"Most of all, the film shows how easily people lose perspective and basic decency when in the grip of a credible authority figure or even just a difficult group dynamic."

one of the psychological studies detailed in the documentary is the famous Stanford prison experiment, conducted in the early 60's by philip zimbardo. for more details, see its wikipedia entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Prison_Experiment ). a quote from it: "Zimbardo said prisoners reacted in one of three ways: either by actively resisting, by breaking down as in the above image, or by becoming zealously obedient "model prisoners"."

i have a lot of thoughts about all this that i just don't have time to write up yet, but i thought i'd put it out there in case anyone else found it useful in understanding the basic psychology in all of our natures that would make us vulnerable to a cultish group such as the assembly. it airs again this weds night. i would love to hear other people's thoughts on this analysis.
Logged
Oscar
Guest


Email
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2006, 10:14:40 pm »

Brian,

A few observations:

1. In the prison and student studies, they were dealing with very unsophisticated subjects.  I wonder what the results would have been if they had tried this on Army/Marine/Special Forces personell.  Middle aged business executives or CEO's might have given very different results.

2. This aspect of human behavior has been known for a long time.  In Communist POW camps during the Korean war, many young soldiers collaborated with the enemy.  However, the collaborators were always a minority, and as the maturity level went up, as in NCO's and officers, the rate fell to very low to zero.

Interestingly, there were ZERO Turkish collaboraters.  Perhaps a strong loyalty to a higher power or principle raises the ability to function independently of the crowd.

In WWII the Japanese prisoners, who come from a conformist culture, collaborated almost to a man.

Since the Korean war, standards to follow if captured have been part of basic military training.

3. In my own case in the Assembly, I was almost constantly in mental turmoil over GG's teachings and behaviors.  On the one hand, I really wanted the acceptance and affirmation of my brethren.  When I would submit there was an emotional pay-off.  I felt safe and that I was part of something of transcendent importance.

 Then GG would say or do something that was either doctrinally skewed or of questionable moral correctness, usually in the way he treated people. This would bring all my questions, reservations and disagreements to the surface again.  It got to be sort of a cycle.

GG used two principle methods to bring me back into his control:  a. He would us the "Deeper Life" view of man, that some men were directly HS taught while others were merely "in the mind".  I was told "You don't have a doctrinal problem, you have a spiritual problem", many times.  This had the effect of undermining my confidence in my own thinking.  b. He would subject me to a heavy bombardment of criticism in the presence of the leading brothers.   Steve Irons, Mark Miller, Tim Geftakys, Dan Notti, Jim Hayman, Kieth Walker witnessed this repeatedly. They would frequently put their own two cents into the pot as well. Sometimes it happened in the Worker's Meeting in the presence of 30 people or so. 

The psychological pressure and public humiliation usually led to my lapsing into submissive silence.  But the issues always re-surfaced.
I believe that all this caused me to finally decide to clarify my own beliefs and then decide to live by them instead of seeking the approval of the group.  When I left I knew what the cost would be, (rejection by my "spiritual family), and I had determined to pay it.

Well, I must go now....I have to sit by the phone and wait for these guys to call up and apologize.   Wink

Steve Irons has posted a general apology on his website.  So far, he is the only one to make a public admission of wrongdoing.
Logged
Explorer
Guest


Email
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2006, 11:56:10 pm »

Is it possible that these men might apologize if they were contacted individually? Or has this been done?

Matthew 18:15

Explorer
Logged
Oscar
Guest


Email
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2006, 12:28:05 am »

Is it possible that these men might apologize if they were contacted individually? Or has this been done?

Matthew 18:15

Explorer

Explorer,

About a year ago I ran into Jim Hayman.  I explained to him that as a supporter of GG, we had all contributed to his oppresive system in general, and had done things we needed to own up to and apologize for in particular.

His reply was, "Tom, I know you are speaking from your heart".   And....that was that.

A few weeks ago I had a chat with an ex-leading brother's wife.  No mention of past behavior from her.

I suppose that if I contacted these folks and demanded a personal apology, something would be forthcoming.  But to what end?   I forgave them long ago, and I believe that I have recovered from the emotional/psychological damage done to me during those years.  In fact, I believe that I am a stronger person having gone through all that.  And, in the end events showed that I had been right all along.

To me, my own forgiveness of them is far more important for my emotional/spiritual health.  I also think it is very important for each individual that has this experience to come to understand why they willingly participated in in and submitted to such treatment. 

I bear them no ill, and I hope they all find resolution of their past before God, themselves, and those they injured.  Until I see evidence of this, I will always consider them unrecovered and largely unrepentant.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Logged
Margaret
Guest


Email
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2006, 01:10:25 am »

Explorer, I would like to comment on your suggestion, but will start a new thread to do so, because it seems we have diverted from Brian's original intention to discuss the Sundance channel film and how it might relate to Assembly behavior.

Margaret
Logged
brian
Guest


Email
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2006, 02:03:08 am »

1. In the prison and student studies, they were dealing with very unsophisticated subjects.  I wonder what the results would have been if they had tried this on Army/Marine/Special Forces personell.  Middle aged business executives or CEO's might have given very different results.

from my link:
" Of the 70 respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected 24 whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy. These participants were predominantly white, middle-class young males. All were college undergraduates."

in other words, a pretty average group. none of them had sadistic tendancies, for instance. and none of them had the special training to resist these situations that military personnel get. in the case of the abu-gharib prison scandal in iraq (an excellent parallel that the documentary brings out) you have a very similar situation of people in positions of power that they have not been trained to handle, combined with a lack of accountability. sound familiar?

in the assembly, young men were regularly put in positions of responsibility and power over other people's lives that they did not have the maturity and training to handle. when people challenged their authority, they used whatever techniques seemed effective to keep everyone in line. voila! a cult. in the pockets of the assembly where local leaders had more maturity it was somewhat less cultish, but the basic structure of the assembly will always lead to these kinds of group dynamics. if you put a perfectly nice, normal person into a position of power and control like that, the position itself is very capable of transforming them into someone who is controlling, abusive and in some cases even sadistic.

on the flip side, in the prison research average young men with a healthy self-esteem were observed to become passive, intimitaded, obediant - even to the point of betraying their fellow inmates. they became 'enablers' of the system of control. this also sounded very familiar to me. some people in the assembly got their thinking so turned around that they covered up and collaborated with blatant corruption and abuse. most of us didn't go quite that far, but far enough to have felt the unhealthy effects of this group dynamic.

what struck me about the research done is that these people were all so normal before and after the experiment! it was the unhealthy group dynamic that transformed them into the guard and prisoners they became. it is so unhealthy to be subjected to this level of control. the guards were not allowed to physically harm the prisoners, yet within a few days the prisoners went from snickering rebellion to total mental and emotional breakdowns. no wonder we had nightmares when we left the assembly! the controlling environment we experienced in the assembly was not this intense. it was generally more diluted, and took longer to inflict damage - but there is no denying the damage it inflicted!

here is another related experiment they discussed in the documentary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
this one is especially interesting because it shows the common human compulsion to obey a recognized authority figure. this complusion is significantly stronger than most people's morals, especially if everyone around them is doing the same thing. this study has shown this to be the case across cultures, nationalities, gender... it is integral to human nature.

well, gotta run, more later perhaps....
« Last Edit: June 13, 2007, 08:58:37 am by brian tucker » Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!