the mind control device устройство контроля разума
Mind Control Device
Examples that do not use devices need to be moved to other trope pages about Mind Control.
This is the device that the villain (usually) will use to keep the hero, townspeople, or Mr/Mrs. Random Supporting Character in thrall. It has been used countless times in stories across many different types of media. Plot Device, MacGuffin, and even a key part of a Very Special Episode.
While these devices tend to fall into two general categories, either broadcasting «hypno-waves» at any luckless viewer for a one-time treatment, or are somehow attached to the victim’s body (usually the head), they ultimately know no shape and can come in nearly any specific form:
See Mind Control, Mind Control Eyes and More Than Mind Control for the effects of these devices. May be the result of televising a person with the power of Hypnotic Eyes. Subtropes include: Subliminal Seduction, Hypno Ray, and Hypno Trinket. See also: Power Perversion Potential for the inevitable result in some viewers. May require the target to be Forced to Watch a transmission of some kind.
Contents
Anime and Manga
Comic Books
Fan Works
Maximillian ‘Max’ Shreck: What is that supposed to do? Hypnotize me?
The Penguin: No, just give you a splitting headache.
Mind control
Содержание
Theoretical models and methods [ ]
Lifton thought reform model [ ]
In his 1999 book Destroying the world to save it: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence and the New Global Terrorism, he concluded that thought reform was possible without violence or physical coercion.
William Sargant’s theories on mind control [ ]
William Sargant connected Pavlov’s findings to the ways people learned and internalized belief systems. Conditioned behavior patterns could be changed by stimulated stresses beyond a dog’s capacity for response, in essence causing a breakdown. This could also be caused by intense signals, longer than normal waiting periods, rotating positive and negative signals and changing a dog’s physical condition, as through illness. Depending on the dog’s initial personality, this could possibly cause a new belief system to be held tenaciously. Sargant also connected Pavlov’s findings to the mechanisms of brain-washing in religion and politics. [3]
Margaret Singer’s conditions for mind control [ ]
Psychologist Margaret Singer describes in her book Cults in our Midst six conditions which she says would create an atmosphere in which thought reform is possible. Singer states that these conditions involve no need for physical coercion or violence. [4]
A report on brainwashing and mind control presented by an American Psychological Association (APA) task force known as the APA Taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control ( DIMPAC ), chaired by Singer, was rejected in 1987 by the APA’s Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) as lacking «the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur.» and cautioned the task force members to «not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board.» [5]
Writing in 1999, research and forensic psychologist Dick Anthony noted that the removal of Singer’s brainwashing concept from the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) «would seem to indicate that the American Psychiatric Association, like the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, has repudiated Singer’s cultic brainwashing theory because of its unscientific character.» Anthony also noted that Singer’s testimony had also been repeatedly excluded from American legal trials. [7]
Steven Hassan’s BITE model [ ]
In the book, Hassan describes the components of the BITE model: [8]
Hassan writes that cults recruit and retain members through a three-step process which he refers to as «unfreezing,» «changing,» and «refreezing». This involves the use of an extensive array of various techniques, including systematic deception, behavior modification, withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques (such as the induction of phobias ), which he collectively terms mind control. He describes these steps as follows: [9]
In Releasing the Bonds he also writes «I suspect that most cult groups use informal hypnotic techniques to induce trance states. They tend to use what are called «naturalistic» hypnotic techniques. Practicing meditation to shut down thinking, chanting a phrase repetitively for hours, or reciting affirmations are all powerful ways to promote spiritual growth. But they can also be used unethically, as methods for mind control indoctrination.» [8]
Hassan, after taking part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, states that he is no longer involved in this practice. [10] and which eventually became completely illegal except in the case of minors. [источник?]
In Releasing the Bonds, Hassan describes an approach that he calls the «Strategic Interaction Approach» (SIA) in order to help cult members leave their groups, and in order to help them recover from the psychological damage that they have incurred. The approach is non-coercive and the person being treated is free to discontinue it at any time. He writes: «The goal of the SIA is to help the loved one recover his full faculties; to restore the creative, interdependent adult who fully understands what has happened to him; who has digested and integrated the experience and is better and stronger from the experience.» [11]
In 1998 the Enquete Commission issued its report on «So-called Sects and Psychogroups» in Germany. Reviewing Hassan’s BITE model, the report said that: [12]
Thus, the milieu control identified by Hassan, consisting of behavioural control, mental control, emotional control and information control cannot, in every case and as a matter of principle, be characterised as «manipulative». Control of these areas of action is an inevitable component of social interactions in a group or community. The social control that is always associated with intense commitment to a group must therefore be clearly distinguished from the exertion of intentional, methodical influence for the express purpose of manipulation.
Mind Control and the Battered Person Syndrome [ ]
A very different explanation of the control some groups have over their members is by associating it with Battered person syndrome and Stockholm syndrome. This has been done by psychologists Teresa Ramirez Boulette, Ph.D. and Susan M. Andersen, Ph.D.
Social psychology tactics [ ]
I conceive of mind control as a phenomena Шаблон:Sic encompassing all the ways in which personal, social and institutional forces are exerted to induce compliance, conformity, belief, attitude, and value change in others. [13] «Mind control is the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that involves a set of basic social psychological principles.»
In Influence, Science and Practice, social psychologist Robert Cialdini argues that mind control is possible through the covert exploitation of the unconscious rules that underlie and facilitate healthy human social interactions. He states that common social rules can be used to prey upon the unwary, and he titles them as follows:
Using these six broad categories, he offers specific examples of both mild and extreme mind control (both one on one and in groups), notes the conditions under which each social rule is most easily exploited for false ends, and offers suggestions on how to resist such methods.
Social psychological conditioning by Stahelski [ ]
Subliminal advertising [ ]
Subliminal advertising was proposed around 1960 as a means for organized mass control of human behavior. The allegations has since then fallen out of the common debate, because there are few reports that subliminal advertising has any real effect in the way advertisers may wish.
Cults and mind control controversies [ ]
Scholarly points of view [ ]
«The CCM movement has collected some information to support its belief that religious groups successfully employ mind-control techniques. But the data is unreliable. The information typically represents a very small sample size. It is not practical to obtain information before, during and after an individual has been in a new religious movement (NRM). Often, their data is disproportionately obtained from former members of a religious organization who have been convinced during CCM counseling that they have been victims of mind-control.» [14]
Sociologist Benjamin Zablocki sees strong indicators of mind control in some NRMs and suggests that the concept should be researched without bias:
«I am not personally opposed to the existence of NRMs and still less to the free exercise of religious conscience. I would fight actively against any governmental attempt to limit freedom of religious expression. Nor do I believe it is within the competence of secular scholars such as myself to evaluate or judge the cultural worth of spiritual beliefs or spiritual actions. However, I am convinced, based on more than three decades of studying NRMs through participant-observation and through interviews with both members and ex-members, that these movements have unleashed social and psychological forces of truly awesome power. These forces have wreaked havoc in many lives—in both adults and in children. It is these social and psychological influence processes that the social scientist has both the right and the duty to try to understand, regardless of whether such understanding will ultimately prove helpful or harmful to the cause of religious liberty.» (Zablocki, 1997)
Sociologists David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that » cults » are brainwashing American youth to be «implausible».. [14] Sociology professor Stephen A. Kent published several articles where he discusses practices of NRMs as regards to brainwashing [16] [17]
There are two interpretations of this rejection: one side (e.g. Amitrani and di Marzio 2000 and Zablocki 2001) see it as no position on the issue of brainwashing, the other (e.g. Introvigne 1997) sees it as rejecting all brainwashing theories.
Mind control, exit counseling, and deprogramming [ ]
Mind control and recruitment rates [ ]
Eileen Barker states that out of one thousand people persuaded by the Unification Church to attend one of their overnight programs in 1979, 90% had no further involvement. Only 8% joined for more than one week and less than 4% remained members by 1981, two years later. [14]
Mind control and faith [ ]
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a statement in 1977 related to brainwashing and mind control. In this statement the ACLU opposed certain methods «depriving people of the free exercise of religion». The ACLU also rejected (under certain conditions) the idea that claims of the use of ‘brainwashing’ or of ‘mind control’ should overcome the free exercise of religion. [21]
Counter-cult movement and mind control [ ]
In the Christian counter-cult movement there are several commentators who reject mind control as a factor in cult membership, and membership in both Christian and non-Christian cults as a spiritual or theological issue.
In an article by the evangelical Christian writers Bob and Gretchen Passantino, first appearing in Cornerstone magazine, titled Overcoming The Bondage Of Victimization: A Critical Evaluation of Cult Mind Control Theories they challenge the validity of mind control theories and the alleged «victimization» by mind-control, and assert in their conclusion:
[. ] the Bogey Man of cult mind control is nothing but a ghost story, good for inducing an adrenaline high and maintaining a crusade, but irrelevant to reality. The reality is that people who have very real spiritual, emotional, and social needs are looking for fulfillment and significance for their lives. Ill-equipped to test the false gospels of this world, they make poor decisions about their religious affiliations. Poor decisions, yes, but decisions for which they are personally responsible nonetheless. As Christians who believe in an absolute standard of truth and religious reality, we cannot ignore the spiritual threat of the cults. We must promote critical thinking, responsible education, biblical apologetics, and Christian evangelism. We must recognize that those who join the cults, while morally responsible, are also spiritually ignorant. [23]
In a rebuttal to the Passantino’s article, a protagonist of the counter-cult movement, Paul R. Martin, Ph.D. et al. in his Overcoming the Bondage of Revictimization: A Rational/Empirical Defense of Thought Reform, (first appeared in Cultic Studies Journal 15/2 1998), writes:
«The Passantinos are well known and respected evangelical writers. Consequently, their critique, which is rife with errors and misinterpretations, disturbs us very much and calls for a detailed rebuttal. [. ]For us, theological considerations inform our understanding of the sociological and psychological destruction caused by cults, although others hold similar positions without considering theological issues. Cults distort one’s perceptions both of natural reality (sociological and psychological) and spiritual reality. In the Christian tradition, the former is supposed to reveal the latter; therefore, those interested in spiritual issues must address both sides in order to minister adequately to former cult members. [24]
Legal issues [ ]
Also in the court cases against members of Aum Shinrikyo regarding the 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system the mind control defense was not a mitigating factor.
Starting from the Fishman case (1990) (where a defendant accused of commercial fraud raised as a defense that he was not fully responsible since he was under the mind control of Scientology ) American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science according to the Frye Standard (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Margaret Singer and her associate Richard Ofshe filed suits against the American Psychological Association ) (APA) and the American Sociological Association (ASA) (who had supported APA’s 1987 statement) but they lost in 1993 and 1994. [25]
The Frye standard has since been replaced by the Daubert standard and there have been to court cases where testimonies about mind control have been examined according to the Daubert standard.
Some Civil suits where mind control was an issue, were, though, more effective:
«During trial, Wollersheim’s experts testified Scientology’s «auditing» and «disconnect» practices constituted «brainwashing» and «thought reform» akin to what the Chinese and North Koreans practiced on American prisoners of war. A religious practice which takes place in the context of this level of coercion has less religious value than one the recipient engages in voluntarily. Even more significantly, it poses a greater threat to society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens.» «Using its position as religious leader, the ‘church’ and its agents coerced Wollersheim into continuing auditing even though his sanity was repeatedly threatened by this practice. Thus there is adequate proof the religious practice in this instance caused real harm to the individual and the appellant’s outrageous conduct caused that harm. ‘Church’ practices conducted in a coercive environment are not qualified to be voluntary religious practices entitled to first amendment religious freedom guarantees» [26]
See also [ ]
Methods [ ]
Researchers [ ]
Miscellaneous [ ]
References [ ]
Further reading [ ]
External links [ ]
Шаблон:Cults Шаблон:Silva Method
es:Control mental de:Bewusstseinskontrolle fr:Manipulation mentale ja:マインドコントロール pt:Controle mental ru:Манипулирование сознанием sq:Mendje kontrolli zh:精神控制
Mind control
Contents
Theoretical models and methods [ ]
Lifton thought reform model [ ]
In his 1999 book Destroying the world to save it: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence and the New Global Terrorism, he concluded that thought reform was possible without violence or physical coercion.
William Sargant’s theories on mind control [ ]
William Sargant connected Pavlov’s findings to the ways people learned and internalized belief systems. Conditioned behavior patterns could be changed by stimulated stresses beyond a dog’s capacity for response, in essence causing a breakdown. This could also be caused by intense signals, longer than normal waiting periods, rotating positive and negative signals and changing a dog’s physical condition, as through illness. Depending on the dog’s initial personality, this could possibly cause a new belief system to be held tenaciously. Sargant also connected Pavlov’s findings to the mechanisms of brain-washing in religion and politics. [3]
«Though men are not dogs, they should humbly try to remember how much they resemble dogs in their brain functions, and not boast themselves as demigods. They are gifted with religious and social apprehensions, and they are gifted with the power of reason; but all these faculties are physiologically entailed to the brain. Therefore the brain should not be abused by having forced upon it any religious or political mystique that stunts the reason, or any form of crude rationalism that stunts the religious sense.» (p. 274) [3]
Margaret Singer’s conditions for mind control [ ]
Psychologist Margaret Singer describes in her book Cults in our Midst six conditions which she says would create an atmosphere in which thought reform is possible. Singer states that these conditions involve no need for physical coercion or violence. [4]
A report on brainwashing and mind control presented by an American Psychological Association (APA) task force known as the APA Taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control ( DIMPAC ), chaired by Singer, was rejected in 1987 by the APA’s Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) as lacking «the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur.» and cautioned the task force members to «not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board.» [5]
Writing in 1999, research and forensic psychologist Dick Anthony noted that the removal of Singer’s brainwashing concept from the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) «would seem to indicate that the American Psychiatric Association, like the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, has repudiated Singer’s cultic brainwashing theory because of its unscientific character.» Anthony also noted that Singer’s testimony had also been repeatedly excluded from American legal trials. [7]
Steven Hassan’s BITE model [ ]
In the book, Hassan describes the components of the BITE model: [8]
Hassan writes that cults recruit and retain members through a three-step process which he refers to as «unfreezing,» «changing,» and «refreezing». This involves the use of an extensive array of various techniques, including systematic deception, behavior modification, withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques (such as the induction of phobias ), which he collectively terms mind control. He describes these steps as follows: [9]
In Releasing the Bonds he also writes «I suspect that most cult groups use informal hypnotic techniques to induce trance states. They tend to use what are called «naturalistic» hypnotic techniques. Practicing meditation to shut down thinking, chanting a phrase repetitively for hours, or reciting affirmations are all powerful ways to promote spiritual growth. But they can also be used unethically, as methods for mind control indoctrination.» [8]
Hassan, after taking part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, states that he is no longer involved in this practice. [10] and which eventually became completely illegal except in the case of minors. [citation needed]
In Releasing the Bonds, Hassan describes an approach that he calls the «Strategic Interaction Approach» (SIA) in order to help cult members leave their groups, and in order to help them recover from the psychological damage that they have incurred. The approach is non-coercive and the person being treated is free to discontinue it at any time. He writes: «The goal of the SIA is to help the loved one recover his full faculties; to restore the creative, interdependent adult who fully understands what has happened to him; who has digested and integrated the experience and is better and stronger from the experience.» [11]
In 1998 the Enquete Commission issued its report on «So-called Sects and Psychogroups» in Germany. Reviewing Hassan’s BITE model, the report said that: [12]
Thus, the milieu control identified by Hassan, consisting of behavioural control, mental control, emotional control and information control cannot, in every case and as a matter of principle, be characterised as «manipulative». Control of these areas of action is an inevitable component of social interactions in a group or community. The social control that is always associated with intense commitment to a group must therefore be clearly distinguished from the exertion of intentional, methodical influence for the express purpose of manipulation.
Mind Control and the Battered Person Syndrome [ ]
A very different explanation of the control some groups have over their members is by associating it with Battered person syndrome and Stockholm syndrome. This has been done by psychologists Teresa Ramirez Boulette, Ph.D. and Susan M. Andersen, Ph.D.
Social psychology tactics [ ]
One of the most notable proponents of such theories is social psychologist Philip Zimbardo, former president of the American Psychological Association :
I conceive of mind control as a phenomena [ sic ] encompassing all the ways in which personal, social and institutional forces are exerted to induce compliance, conformity, belief, attitude, and value change in others. [13] «Mind control is the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that involves a set of basic social psychological principles.»
In Influence, Science and Practice, social psychologist Robert Cialdini argues that mind control is possible through the covert exploitation of the unconscious rules that underlie and facilitate healthy human social interactions. He states that common social rules can be used to prey upon the unwary, and he titles them as follows:
Using these six broad categories, he offers specific examples of both mild and extreme mind control (both one on one and in groups), notes the conditions under which each social rule is most easily exploited for false ends, and offers suggestions on how to resist such methods.
Social psychological conditioning by Stahelski [ ]
Subliminal advertising [ ]
Subliminal advertising was proposed around 1960 as a means for organized mass control of human behavior. The allegations has since then fallen out of the common debate, because there are few reports that subliminal advertising has any real effect in the way advertisers may wish.
Cults and mind control controversies [ ]
Scholarly points of view [ ]
«The CCM movement has collected some information to support its belief that religious groups successfully employ mind-control techniques. But the data is unreliable. The information typically represents a very small sample size. It is not practical to obtain information before, during and after an individual has been in a new religious movement (NRM). Often, their data is disproportionately obtained from former members of a religious organization who have been convinced during CCM counseling that they have been victims of mind-control.» [14]
Sociologist Benjamin Zablocki sees strong indicators of mind control in some NRMs and suggests that the concept should be researched without bias:
«I am not personally opposed to the existence of NRMs and still less to the free exercise of religious conscience. I would fight actively against any governmental attempt to limit freedom of religious expression. Nor do I believe it is within the competence of secular scholars such as myself to evaluate or judge the cultural worth of spiritual beliefs or spiritual actions. However, I am convinced, based on more than three decades of studying NRMs through participant-observation and through interviews with both members and ex-members, that these movements have unleashed social and psychological forces of truly awesome power. These forces have wreaked havoc in many lives—in both adults and in children. It is these social and psychological influence processes that the social scientist has both the right and the duty to try to understand, regardless of whether such understanding will ultimately prove helpful or harmful to the cause of religious liberty.» (Zablocki, 1997)
Sociologists David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that » cults » are brainwashing American youth to be «implausible».. [14] Sociology professor Stephen A. Kent published several articles where he discusses practices of NRMs as regards to brainwashing [16] [17]
In 1984 the American Psychological Association (APA) requested Margaret Singer, the main proponent of mind control theories, to set up a working group called the APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC).
There are two interpretations of this rejection: one side (e.g. Amitrani and di Marzio 2000 and Zablocki 2001) see it as no position on the issue of brainwashing, the other (e.g. Introvigne 1997) sees it as rejecting all brainwashing theories.
Mind control, exit counseling, and deprogramming [ ]
Mind control and recruitment rates [ ]
Eileen Barker states that out of one thousand people persuaded by the Unification Church to attend one of their overnight programs in 1979, 90% had no further involvement. Only 8% joined for more than one week and less than 4% remained members by 1981, two years later. [14]
Mind control and faith [ ]
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a statement in 1977 related to brainwashing and mind control. In this statement the ACLU opposed certain methods «depriving people of the free exercise of religion». The ACLU also rejected (under certain conditions) the idea that claims of the use of ‘brainwashing’ or of ‘mind control’ should overcome the free exercise of religion. [21]
Counter-cult movement and mind control [ ]
In the Christian counter-cult movement there are several commentators who reject mind control as a factor in cult membership, and membership in both Christian and non-Christian cults as a spiritual or theological issue.
In an article by the evangelical Christian writers Bob and Gretchen Passantino, first appearing in Cornerstone magazine, titled Overcoming The Bondage Of Victimization: A Critical Evaluation of Cult Mind Control Theories they challenge the validity of mind control theories and the alleged «victimization» by mind-control, and assert in their conclusion:
[. ] the Bogey Man of cult mind control is nothing but a ghost story, good for inducing an adrenaline high and maintaining a crusade, but irrelevant to reality. The reality is that people who have very real spiritual, emotional, and social needs are looking for fulfillment and significance for their lives. Ill-equipped to test the false gospels of this world, they make poor decisions about their religious affiliations. Poor decisions, yes, but decisions for which they are personally responsible nonetheless. As Christians who believe in an absolute standard of truth and religious reality, we cannot ignore the spiritual threat of the cults. We must promote critical thinking, responsible education, biblical apologetics, and Christian evangelism. We must recognize that those who join the cults, while morally responsible, are also spiritually ignorant. [23]
In a rebuttal to the Passantino’s article, a protagonist of the counter-cult movement, Paul R. Martin, Ph.D. et al. in his Overcoming the Bondage of Revictimization: A Rational/Empirical Defense of Thought Reform, (first appeared in Cultic Studies Journal 15/2 1998), writes:
«The Passantinos are well known and respected evangelical writers. Consequently, their critique, which is rife with errors and misinterpretations, disturbs us very much and calls for a detailed rebuttal. [. ]For us, theological considerations inform our understanding of the sociological and psychological destruction caused by cults, although others hold similar positions without considering theological issues. Cults distort one’s perceptions both of natural reality (sociological and psychological) and spiritual reality. In the Christian tradition, the former is supposed to reveal the latter; therefore, those interested in spiritual issues must address both sides in order to minister adequately to former cult members. [24]
Legal issues [ ]
Also in the court cases against members of Aum Shinrikyo regarding the 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system the mind control defense was not a mitigating factor.
Starting from the Fishman case (1990) (where a defendant accused of commercial fraud raised as a defense that he was not fully responsible since he was under the mind control of Scientology ) American courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that these were not part of accepted mainline science according to the Frye Standard (Anthony & Robbins 1992: 5-29). Margaret Singer and her associate Richard Ofshe filed suits against the American Psychological Association ) (APA) and the American Sociological Association (ASA) (who had supported APA’s 1987 statement) but they lost in 1993 and 1994. [25]
The Frye standard has since been replaced by the Daubert standard and there have been to court cases where testimonies about mind control have been examined according to the Daubert standard.
Some Civil suits where mind control was an issue, were, though, more effective:
«During trial, Wollersheim’s experts testified Scientology’s «auditing» and «disconnect» practices constituted «brainwashing» and «thought reform» akin to what the Chinese and North Koreans practiced on American prisoners of war. A religious practice which takes place in the context of this level of coercion has less religious value than one the recipient engages in voluntarily. Even more significantly, it poses a greater threat to society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens.» «Using its position as religious leader, the ‘church’ and its agents coerced Wollersheim into continuing auditing even though his sanity was repeatedly threatened by this practice. Thus there is adequate proof the religious practice in this instance caused real harm to the individual and the appellant’s outrageous conduct caused that harm. ‘Church’ practices conducted in a coercive environment are not qualified to be voluntary religious practices entitled to first amendment religious freedom guarantees» [26]
See also [ ]
Methods [ ]
Researchers [ ]
Miscellaneous [ ]
References [ ]
Further reading [ ]
External links [ ]
es:Control mental de:Bewusstseinskontrolle fr:Manipulation mentale ja:マインドコントロール pt:Controle mental ru:Манипулирование сознанием sq:Mendje kontrolli zh:精神控制