NLP, Subliminal Messages and the WT Writing Department

by 00DAD 32 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  00DAD

  A few years ago I became interested in the subject of Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP). While the core concepts of NLP have been largely discredited as New-Age pseudo-science, there is no doubt that there is at least some validity to the idea. Words and images remain the key way we communicate. Some people are clearly more skilled at their use than others. The whole concepts of memes is based an what is essentially the same idea.

  Whether you believe it or not, there is a curious pattern of manipulative language in many WT articles, a pattern that appears to me to be influenced by NLP concepts and methods. For example, in the recent Watchtower of January 15, 2013, in the Study Article "Let Nothing Distance You From Jehovah" there is to my mind a very odd expression used in connection with the admonition to refrain from contacting disfellowshipped relatives even by email. The comment is:

  "It is not wrong to hope that a loved one will return to Jehovah." - (ibid, p. 16)

  This comment is a caption to a photograph of a very sad looking couple looking forlornly at a family photograph showing presumably their disfellowshipped daughter. A similar statement is made in the body of the article:

  "It is not wrong for you to entertain the hope that your loved one will return." - (ibid, p. 16, paragraph 20)

  Now, when I read this, it struck me as odd that this obstensibly encouraging, empathetic comment was wording as a negative. It was not, "It is RIGHT for you to hope your loved one returns ...," but rather, "It is not wrong." Not wrong. Odd word choice.

  Why would the WT Writers choose to word what should be an affirmation in a negative manner? We can only speculate, but there is some basis for our speculations.

  It is a popular axiom that, " your subconscious mind cannot process negative words. " Personally, I don't know if I completely subscribe to this notion or not. But I know educators and parents are encouraged to phrase affirmations positively rather than negatively. We are told to tell our children:

  "Do this!" rather than, "Don't do that!"

  "You can do it!" instead of, "Don't choke!"

  Why? For a couple of reasons. It's more direct, it's simpler and whether it's really true or not, we all like to hear a positive over a negative statement.

  Certainly the mind is a vast and as of yet largerly undiscovered--and in many ways still very misunderstood--country.

  Nevertheless, many disciplines have studied it intensely for a variety of reasons: psychiatrists and psychologies seek to understand and to heal, advertisers to persuade and other unscrupulous ones to manipulate and control.

  So why did the WT Writers choose to tell their follower that it is, " not wrong ," rather than to say, "It is right for you to entertain the hope that your loved one will return"?

  Have they been studying NLP and attempting to implant conflicting subliminal messages in the minds of the R&F JW's? I'll admit it, it's tempting to engage in this kind of wild speculation, but to answer with an air of certainty would be tantamount to practicing mind-reading. This is something I do not do.

  I like my evidence to be more substantianted than this. But it is an intriguing question to say the least. Given their track record and the vast amount of other evidence from their own publications which clearly demonstrate a very entrenched pattern of the deliberate, conscious application of sophisticated manipulative and controlling techniques I can only say this:

  I wouldn't put it passed them!

  00DAD
• 

  Pistoff

  The WT hopes to dampen the bonds between family members; they constantly interfere with the strong blood relationship of families.

  By saying it is not wrong, they are implying it is a waste of time, that it MIGHT be wrong.

  I agree that if they wanted to say it is normal and proper to wish for it, they would say "it is proper and right to hope for a return".

  But IMO the real process here is not hoping for a return; by talking about a hope for a return, they are ignoring the argument that family members can talk to their disfellowshipped sons, brothers, etc.

  In other words, if hoping for a return is at best 'not wrong', certainly it is out of the question to just speak with your df'd loved ones.

  The WT can be (not always) clever with words.
• 

  Terry

  I once experimented for a day or so with shaking my head "no" as I was saying out loud "yes" (and vice-verse) to see which response was impacting the listener.

  The verbal to precedence in my listener, although, sometimes I was queried as to why I had given a mixed message:)

  Any politician can tell you that how you FRAME a statement is the single most manipulating element to a declaration.

  Listen to this NPR recording for an expert's keen insight into the word choice and framing issue:

  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6761960
• 

  slimboyfat

  Interesting observation. I have been reading about NLP too. It does look like an embedded command of sorts that you highlight, disguised by the negative. But I am not sure what would be the agenda in this particular instance. People can easily use NLP language without realising it as it comes naturally to use language this way. Plus as you say, NLP has been shown to be pseudoscience at its base. But nevertheless, words are powerful, there in no doubt about it, and they can be used more or less effectively.

  As Zizek might say, I don't personally believe in the theory behind NLP, but they that's okay because they tell me that it works whether you believe in it or not.
• 

  sir82

  It's not just that article, the "not wrong" thought saturates WT literature.

  How many times have you heard "there is nothing wrong with [XYZ] in itself, but..."? In our public talk yesterday the speaker must have used that expression a dozen times.
• 

  BlindersOff1

  Its another way to way for them to speak out of both sides of their mouth.

  Good insights .
• 

  Amelia Ashton

  It's not wrong implies that although it is wrong it is also understandable so might be excused as a weakness but by saying something is right would imply it is perfectly ok and acceptable which they could not endorse if it is something that may distract from being unquestioningly obedient to the bOrg.
• 

  Apognophos

  William Shatner was once asked how he knew, back in the '60s while filming a scene in TOS where Kirk had to avoid a hostile encounter, that certain body language was non-confrontational and disarming. It wasn't for many years that a study demonstrated that this body language indeed has this effect. Shatner simply replied that any trained actor would understand this subject intuitively and there was no need to read about it in a scientific journal.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  It's the same old " works " based reasoning coming through. It permeates the entire Borg collective. It is hard for me to articulate my feelings on this, but I GROK it. It is the same core reasoning that made the WTBTS translators use " undeserved kindness " instead of Grace. Give your spouse or loved one a gift. As you hand it to them, remind them of how much they do not deserve it. Then tell them how much you love them and remind them one last time of how unworthy they are to receive your gift. It's a total mind-frak.

  It serves no other purpose than to reinforce that YOU are wrong for hoping. They left Jehovah! They are in the wrong! It is normal to be heart-broken and feel like crap, and ignore your child who may need you the most at this point in their life! It is what God wants. You should feel guilty about feeling bad. We will let it slide this time. The extreme control that we exert over you exists so that we can extend leniency towards those who cannot meet our standards. It is a totally abusive relationship.
• 

  sd-7

  To say "it is not wrong", in this specific case is to imply without saying it outright that your audience is in doubt as to the rightness of hoping for a loved one's return to the organization. Maybe even to imply that some of them might think it IS wrong to hope for a loved one's return, which would be a sad thing, indeed, to feel about a close relative.

  So, then, who gave such people those guilty thoughts? Who tells them that people who leave are wicked and doomed to destruction unless they return? Oh. I see. So the Society creates guilt in the first place, and then cashes in on that guilt. It's like a double taxation on the conscience. This statement pulls the guilt up just a little, only to be followed by slamming it back down on the heads of anyone who might want to talk to their DF'd relative.

  Reminds me of the confusion and guilt I felt years ago as I read an article that didn't quite answer the question of whether it was okay to pray for a DF'd person. The elders told me no; the Society was vague and only suggested that it was okay if you were in a position to observe their repentance (which is kind of difficult if you're shunning someone). One would think the sinner needs more prayer than the righteous person, but apparently the WTS feels otherwise...

  --sd-7