Sometimes I wonder whether it’s the more “whitish,” less-grey brains that need our attention and concern, or the more “greyish,” soon-to-be-whitewashed ones that actually deserve it. I don’t get surprised when someone with less access to knowledge, information, or time to analyze ends up blinded by belief, but I do feel awe when someone with all the knowledge, information, and cognitive skill to dig deep still chooses to counterfeit the truth just to establish or cling to their belief system.
There’s a famous Bengali movie by the great Satyajit Ray, Hirak Rajar Deshe, featuring a machine called “Mogoj Dholai Jontro” (the Brainwashing Machine), which the king uses to secure blind devotion from his people. For a long time, I thought that was pure fiction. Yeah, I know that’s not very smart of me, I was never very smart. The wand to wash off all your grey matter was always blowing in the wind.
“Brainwashing” is indeed very real, and it’s been studied for over 70 years. Psychologists mostly don’t use the word “brainwashing” anymore, though. The more precise way to put it is “coercive persuasion” or “thought reform,” and understanding it tells you a lot about how humans form political identities, why propaganda works, and why perfectly intelligent people end up in cults, authoritarian movements, or unshakeable conspiracy communities.
Two researchers, one puzzle
The study actually came from two directions at once: psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton interviewed the American soldiers, the prisoners of war (POWs), who had been captured and held by Chinese Communist forces during the Korean War (1950–1953) and put through Maoist “re-education”. Social psychologist Edgar Schein studied that same POW population. Both arrived at the same conclusion: this wasn’t magic; it was a process, and a slow one.
Lifton’s contribution was the anatomy of the environment. He identified eight recurring features of environments that successfully produce deep, lasting belief change – for example, controlling a person’s environment and information; staging “spontaneous” experiences that are actually orchestrated so the leader looks divinely gifted; a black-and-white moral world that runs on guilt and shame; treating the doctrine as sacred and unquestionable; loading language with jargon that shuts down independent thought; and so on.
Schein’s contribution, meanwhile, was the timeline. He borrowed his framework from Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist (often called one of the founders of social psychology) who, back in the 1940s, developed a simple three-stage model of how change happens in people or organizations in a completely benign context, like helping factories or communities adopt new habits. Schein recognized the same three stages playing out in the POW interviews and adapted the model:
Unfreezing — deliberately destabilize the person’s identity: undermine their confidence in their own judgment, isolate them, induce a kind of engineered helplessness.
Changing — once defenses are down, install the new beliefs, often via small, escalating commitments.
Refreezing — lock the new identity in with social rewards, privileges, and status, while cutting off any contact with disconfirming information that could pull the person back.
The unsettling part: it doesn’t take a weak mind
The most important finding across decades of this research isn’t about brainwashing specifically; it’s about who’s vulnerable to it. And the answer is: everyone. American psychologist Stanley Milgram ran an experiment in the 1960s where ordinary volunteers were told by a lab-coated authority figure to administer what they believed were increasingly painful electric shocks to another person. Surprisingly, most kept going even past levels labeled “danger.”
Psychologist Solomon Asch, in his famous conformity experiment in the 1950s, had one real participant sit in a group of actors who had been instructed to deliberately give the same wrong answer to a simple visual question, and a large share of real participants went along with that wrong answer rather than trust their own eyes. Neither study involved coercion or isolation, yet both showed that psychologically healthy adults will override their own judgment under authority or group pressure.
One of the most fun experiments was by psychologist Leon Festinger. He ran an experiment where participants had to do a boring, repetitive task. Afterward, he asked them to tell the next waiting “participant” (actually an actor) that the task had been really fun — a lie. But for the lie, he paid them. One group he paid $1 and one group $20. Then he asked everyone privately: Did you actually enjoy the task?
Here’s the twist: the people paid only $1 rated the task as more genuinely enjoyable than the people paid $20, even though it was the same boring task for everyone. But why?
So, the $20 group had an easy excuse for lying: “I said it was fun because I got paid a lot.” Their self-image stayed intact; no tension there. But the $1 group didn’t have a good excuse: $1 isn’t enough to justify lying to a stranger. So instead of thinking “I’m someone who lies for almost nothing,” their minds resolved the discomfort by actually convincing themselves the task was somewhat fun. Changing their genuine belief was easier than admitting they’d lied for no good reason.
That’s cognitive dissonance in a nutshell: when your actions and beliefs conflict, and you can’t easily justify the gap, you tend to change the belief rather than face the conflict. Now, give it some thought — have you recognized how many people in your own peer group have fallen for this mirage?
My two cents
So the research gives us a baseline of human psychology: our tendency toward conformity, toward obedience, toward attaching ourselves to an identity. The research also points to another fact: the belief that “brainwashing happens to other people, weak or gullible people” is itself one of the more dangerous cognitive habits a person can have, precisely because the evidence says the opposite is true: it can and does happen to smart, stable people placed in the right (or wrong) conditions. If you want a functional immunity against brainwashing of any form- political, religious, commercial, whatever the actual defense isn’t intelligence or skepticism as a personality trait. It’s keeping access to outside information, keeping your analytical faculty unbiased, and staying suspicious of any belief system that discourages you from talking to people who disagree with you.
Being conscious is the only immunity you have.
Discover more from CuPod
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.