The Four Factors of Cultish Thinking

This isn't limited to religion. 

Jim Jones spent his childhood exploring religion and torturing animals. These seemingly odd bedfellows do, in fact, make sense: Any human who believes a special creator crowned our species atop a kingdom would not necessarily exhibit much empathy for other animals. This lack of caring for others — humans included — became a lifelong occupation.

Jones went on to found the People's Temple in 1955 at age 24. According to experimental psychologist Richard Wiseman, the third thing Jones focused on during his youth was death, which would play heavily into the cult he led for 23 years until its abrupt ending in Guyana.

The question of how one man could influence over 900 people to commit mass suicide by drinking spiked Kool-Aid has been asked ever since. In his book Paranormality: Why We See What Isn’t There, Wiseman attributes it to four key factors. 

First is getting a "foot in the door." Wiseman cites a Stanford University study regarding traffic accidents. Suburban residents were much more likely to display a large, ugly placard in their front yard only after displaying a much smaller, less invasive sign first. When asked if they would display the obnoxious signage first, they were unwilling. Charismatic cults operate on the same principle. The stepladder of Scientology is an example of this: Start here; hook them; and then you really get to climb.

Conformity is also an important factor. Former cult member Steven Hassan discusses this in his book, Combating Cult Mind Control. When indoctrinated into the Unification Church (aka the "Moonies") he was strung along by people who he thought were simple members, not realizing they had moved up that stepladder and were tasked to hook newbies. Later he would become one of the lead indoctrinators. Espousing shared principles is sacred; criticism of the group’s platform is not tolerated.

These two principles exploit the human brain’s penchant for tribalism. We want to feel a part of a community. The third factor takes advantage of our habit of magical thinking: Jones claimed he had God’s direct number. Once his foot was in the door and you were part of his tribe, the next logical step — no matter how illogical — is that Jones is the chosen one. Because he already has you emotionally, and because you don’t want to upset your crew of new BFFs, believing the leader is prophetic completes the mind control.

Almost. You eventually have to justify why you’ve left your family and friends behind for this group’s cause. In the self-justification phase, you’ve now decided reasons why you were fated to be involved in saving/leaving the world all along. Meaning in life is a crucial component of psychological welfare. As Viktor Frankl writes in Man’s Search for Meaning:

Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.

This quest for meaning has a neurological correlate. Leonard Mlodinow writes in Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior:

The motivated reasoning we engage in when we have a personal stake in an issue proceeds via different physical process within the brain than the cold, objective analysis we carry out when we don’t.

It is this unconscious processing that Jones and numerous other cult leaders have exploited for their personal gain. The first three factors in some way support this fourth. As Wiseman writes,

People have a remarkable ability to explain away evidence rather than change their cherished beliefs.

Which is why Hassan has spent the last few decades of his life saving cult members and returning them to their loved ones. This process is not easy; it takes months if not years to soften their cultish psychological state. Even then the process sometimes just takes a new form: I’ve watched people raised heavily in religion become drug addicts only to return to religion as priests and other church leaders. The internal craving, the impetus for 'something" shifted from idea to idea, but the process remained the same.

Wiseman supports this idea in his conclusion of the four factors. Salespeople, politicians, advertising agencies, all proponents of the same "foot in the door" segue to gain control of people’s minds. The way we align ourselves with brands is a modern example of this. Successful Instagram "stars" accept free schwag and sometimes get paid to pimp products, making it appear as though that product is aligned with some spiritual principle. If your brand can seem like it has a tribe behind it, your bottom line is the thing that really prospers. 

As a longtime yoga instructor, I’ve watched numerous people fall under the same spell: They are searching for meaning, find one in a school or instructor, and quickly their entire philosophy has shifted into alignment with whatever has been preached to them. For the most part, these people suffer more benign consequences — indeed, they often receive positive benefits along the way, as do people in all sorts of cults — but the underlying process of mind control remains intact. As Wiseman concludes,

The practitioners of mind control are not restricted to cult leaders and religious sects. Instead, they walk among us on a daily basis. 

Image: Don Hogan Charles / Getty Images

Big Think
Sponsored by Lumina Foundation

Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!

As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.

Keep reading Show less

Essential financial life skills for 21st-century Americans

Having these financial life skills can help you navigate challenging economic environments.

Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash
Personal Growth
  • Americans are swimming in increasingly higher amounts of debt, even the upper middle class.
  • For many, this burden can be alleviated by becoming familiar with some straightforward financial concepts.
  • Here's some essential financial life skills needed to ensure your economic wellbeing.
Keep reading Show less

How to flirt: 7 tips backed by science

When it comes to flirting, love meters have nothing on these researchers' findings.

(Photo from Wikimedia)
Sex & Relationships
  • Flirting is an important part of life. It can be a fun, adventurous way to meet others and develop intimate relationships.
  • Many people find flirting to be an anxiety-ridden experience, but science can help us discover principles to be more relaxed while flirting.
  • Smiling and eye contact are proven winners, while pick-up lines are a flirty fallacy.
Keep reading Show less

New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa

Experts argue the jaws of an ancient European ape reveal a key human ancestor.

Surprising Science
  • The jaw bones of an 8-million-year-old ape were discovered at Nikiti, Greece, in the '90s.
  • Researchers speculate it could be a previously unknown species and one of humanity's earliest evolutionary ancestors.
  • These fossils may change how we view the evolution of our species.

Homo sapiens have been on earth for 200,000 years — give or take a few ten-thousand-year stretches. Much of that time is shrouded in the fog of prehistory. What we do know has been pieced together by deciphering the fossil record through the principles of evolutionary theory. Yet new discoveries contain the potential to refashion that knowledge and lead scientists to new, previously unconsidered conclusions.

A set of 8-million-year-old teeth may have done just that. Researchers recently inspected the upper and lower jaw of an ancient European ape. Their conclusions suggest that humanity's forebearers may have arisen in Europe before migrating to Africa, potentially upending a scientific consensus that has stood since Darwin's day.

Rethinking humanity's origin story

The frontispiece of Thomas Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863) sketched by natural history artist Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

As reported in New Scientist, the 8- to 9-million-year-old hominin jaw bones were found at Nikiti, northern Greece, in the '90s. Scientists originally pegged the chompers as belonging to a member of Ouranopithecus, an genus of extinct Eurasian ape.

David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto, and his team recently reexamined the jaw bones. They argue that the original identification was incorrect. Based on the fossil's hominin-like canines and premolar roots, they identify that the ape belongs to a previously unknown proto-hominin.

The researchers hypothesize that these proto-hominins were the evolutionary ancestors of another European great ape Graecopithecus, which the same team tentatively identified as an early hominin in 2017. Graecopithecus lived in south-east Europe 7.2 million years ago. If the premise is correct, these hominins would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago, after undergoing much of their evolutionary development in Europe.

Begun points out that south-east Europe was once occupied by the ancestors of animals like the giraffe and rhino, too. "It's widely agreed that this was the found fauna of most of what we see in Africa today," he told New Scientists. "If the antelopes and giraffes could get into Africa 7 million years ago, why not the apes?"

He recently outlined this idea at a conference of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

It's worth noting that Begun has made similar hypotheses before. Writing for the Journal of Human Evolution in 2002, Begun and Elmar Heizmann of the Natural history Museum of Stuttgart discussed a great ape fossil found in Germany that they argued could be the ancestor (broadly speaking) of all living great apes and humans.

"Found in Germany 20 years ago, this specimen is about 16.5 million years old, some 1.5 million years older than similar species from East Africa," Begun said in a statement then. "It suggests that the great ape and human lineage first appeared in Eurasia and not Africa."

Migrating out of Africa

In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin proposed that hominins descended out of Africa. Considering the relatively few fossils available at the time, it is a testament to Darwin's astuteness that his hypothesis remains the leading theory.

Since Darwin's time, we have unearthed many more fossils and discovered new evidence in genetics. As such, our African-origin story has undergone many updates and revisions since 1871. Today, it has splintered into two theories: the "out of Africa" theory and the "multi-regional" theory.

The out of Africa theory suggests that the cradle of all humanity was Africa. Homo sapiens evolved exclusively and recently on that continent. At some point in prehistory, our ancestors migrated from Africa to Eurasia and replaced other subspecies of the genus Homo, such as Neanderthals. This is the dominant theory among scientists, and current evidence seems to support it best — though, say that in some circles and be prepared for a late-night debate that goes well past last call.

The multi-regional theory suggests that humans evolved in parallel across various regions. According to this model, the hominins Homo erectus left Africa to settle across Eurasia and (maybe) Australia. These disparate populations eventually evolved into modern humans thanks to a helping dollop of gene flow.

Of course, there are the broad strokes of very nuanced models, and we're leaving a lot of discussion out. There is, for example, a debate as to whether African Homo erectus fossils should be considered alongside Asian ones or should be labeled as a different subspecies, Homo ergaster.

Proponents of the out-of-Africa model aren't sure whether non-African humans descended from a single migration out of Africa or at least two major waves of migration followed by a lot of interbreeding.

Did we head east or south of Eden?

Not all anthropologists agree with Begun and his team's conclusions. As noted by New Scientist, it is possible that the Nikiti ape is not related to hominins at all. It may have evolved similar features independently, developing teeth to eat similar foods or chew in a similar manner as early hominins.

Ultimately, Nikiti ape alone doesn't offer enough evidence to upend the out of Africa model, which is supported by a more robust fossil record and DNA evidence. But additional evidence may be uncovered to lend further credence to Begun's hypothesis or lead us to yet unconsidered ideas about humanity's evolution.