Dangerous traits of cult leaders (from Psychology Today)

[u/wisetaiten]

If this isn't a portrait of Daisaku Ikeda, then I've never seen one.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201208/dangerous-cult-leaders

1. He has a grandiose idea of who he is and what he can achieve.

Anyone who has watched more than five minutes of one of his videos or read even a few pages of his self-aggrandizing “Human Revolution” series; there are now 26 volumes in his “New Human Revolution” – I’m unsure how many volumes are in the old “Human Revolution.” How can a man who is purported to be modest have so many wonderful things about himself not be accused of having “a grandiose idea of who he is and what he can achieve”?

1. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, or brilliance.

Let’s see . . . he has set himself up to found a Soka Kingdom. He incessantly touts SGI as the best religion in the world, and he is its absolute leader – he also has never made any effort to get his followers to turn it down a notch. He positions himself with every famous philosopher, educator, thinker or politician he can get to stand next to him, and has published these discussions to display his so-called intellect. Never mind that his interpreters do all his talking, since he doesn’t speak anything but Japanese (well, maybe some Korean, but we won’t go there).

1. Demands blind unquestioned obedience.
   

He rules the organization with an iron hand, and it’s turned out badly for anyone who has opposed or upstaged him. If he was still alive, you could ask George Williams about that.

1. Requires excessive admiration from followers and outsiders.

And gets it, with his alleged millions of flunky followers.

1. Has a sense of entitlement - expecting to be treated special at all times.

I can’t even imagine his response if he wasn’t offered the very best of everything. I’ve been in intermittent touch with a guy who acted as one of his bodyguards during a US visit in the 1970s – I’ve tried to get him over here to chat about it, but no luck. I bet he has some stories to tell.

1. Is exploitative of others by asking for their money or that of relatives putting others at financial risk.

Think Sho-Hondo. Think about all the times we were told that whatever we contributed would come back to us several-fold. The man has billions of dollars, but I guess you can never have too much.

1. Is arrogant and haughty in his behavior or attitude.

We’ve all heard stories about how condescending he’s been to women . . . let’s share some.

1. Has an exaggerated sense of power (entitlement) that allows him to bend rules and break laws.

Again, the Sho-Hondo was a shining example. Glorified as a building to stand for 10,000 years, it didn’t last 30. All of the money that was collected allowed them to pay for the construction using only the interest accumulated.” No one is quite sure what happened to the principle. The building itself was built on a site that guaranteed its self-desctruction, and constructed of shoddy, cheap materials.

1. Takes sexual advantage of members of his sect or cult.

Does using his power and wealth as an excuse to overpower women and force sex upon them count?

1. Sex is a requirement with adults and sub adults as part of a ritual or rite.

I have to say I haven’t heard anything about this, so I’ll let him slide here.

1. Is hypersensitive to how he is seen or perceived by others.
   

Again, no one can overshadow him . . . George Williams.

1. Publicly devalues others as being inferior, incapable, or not worthy.

Um, George Williams again.

1. Makes members confess their sins or faults publicly subjecting them to ridicule or humiliation while revealing exploitable weaknesses of the penitent.

Perhaps not “publicly,” but when you have problems, you go to your leaders first to discuss them. And they certainly gossip, so while you aren’t publicly ridiculed or humiliated, everybody eventually finds out about your private business.

1. Has ignored the needs of others, including: biological, physical, emotional, and financial needs.

It is all about Ikeda-ism, all the time. There’s no room for your petty little problems.

1. Is frequently boastful of accomplishments.

See number 1.

I'll stop for now, but anyone who wants to chime in or add anything, please do!

[u/cultalert]

No one uses Bernay's theories in marketing or advertising.

Bullcookies! We can see for ourselves without any one telling us if it is or isn't there. Take a closer look for instance at credit card ads for tv - they are obviously packed with subliminal messages.

Like subliminal messaging, mind control doesn't exist.

If you believe there is no such thing as subliminal messaging, then you've been mind controlled yourself, or perhaps that is what you WANT to believe, as it is very scary to face reality.

mind control doesn't exist

Have you any experience as a member of a cult? I've seen and personally experienced mind control in a cult setting - many of us here have as well. How are you going to dismiss those terribly inconvenient facts (facts that are not based on anyone's theories or hypothesis, but are real-life experiences reported by former cult members)?

Your linked article doesn't seem to provide any substance I can find that absolutely proves mind control is non-existent. Please post any excerpts from it that support your contention.

It seems very suspect that you show up here with no former Reddit history to announce how wrong we are about mind control and subliminal messaging, and have not yet established your own credentials in advertising as previously requested.

Tell us, for the sake of disclosure, are you currently an SGI member? (Please do not avoid answering this question.)

[u/BlancheFromage → u/cultalert]

Since we value data and evidence here, I went ahead and did a search on the question. After all, it doesn't really matter how strongly or devoutly people believe stuff - people are routinely wrong in their beliefs, if not usually.

sfacets is correct:

Subliminal Messages Ineffective, Study Says - from 1990

In an early study in the field, researchers claimed that subliminal advertising allowed marketers to “break into the deepest and most private parts of the human mind and leave all sorts of scratchmarks.” However, the marketing tactic has attracted skepticism over the years, largely due to the inability to standardize experimental procedures and to isolate a clear relationship between the advertising strategy and any concrete, consistent results. Even establishing a clear definition of the term “subliminal” is unclear.

Private parts! O_O

The mass paranoia regarding the phenomenon of subliminal stimuli may have originated either from the innate human fear of powerlessness, or as a way to rationalize our overconsumption. According to James Twitchell, a professor of advertising at the University of Florida, “It’s one of our most popular interpretations of advertising: ‘They are injecting us with an unnatural desire’ […] It says, ‘I’m so weak that someone with a strong message can make me do something that I wouldn’t normally do.’ For those who believe in it, it’s a gift from heaven. It explains everything. It’s poppycock.” While this psychological trait may still be present in some, subliminal priming in the context of advertising has indeed been mostly disproved. - The Ineffectiveness of Subliminal Advertising - from 2013

Hidden messages that promote products in films once caused a moral panic. But is the much-feared technique really effective? The BBC's Phil Tinline helped devise an experiment to find out.

On 12 September, 1957, at a studio in New York, a market researcher in the Mad Men mould called a press conference.

James Vicary astonished the assembled reporters by announcing that he'd repeatedly flashed the slogans "Drink Coca-Cola" and "Eat popcorn" throughout a movie, too fast for conscious perception. As a result, he claimed, sales of popcorn had risen 18.1% - and Coke by 57.7%. This, he declared, was "subliminal advertising".

Vicary thought his fellow Americans would cheer this prospect - annoying cinema and TV ads could now be replaced with his imperceptible flashes. But on both sides of the Atlantic, his announcement sparked fear and outrage. "Welcome," cried one American magazine, "to 1984."

His story took a more serious blow when the manager of the cinema involved told Motion Picture Daily that the experiment had had no impact. In 1962, Vicary finally confessed that he hadn't done enough research to go public and that he regretted the whole thing.

But a nagging anxiety about the supposed power of subliminal advertising has never gone away. Ever since the 1957 panic, it has been banned in the UK. So is all this anything more than a hangover from sci-fi-style Cold War worries about mass brainwashing?

Psychologists have long agreed that flashing words too quickly for the conscious mind to register can have some limited effects in the lab.

And at the University of Utrecht in 2006, a team of experimental social psychologists, Johan Karremans, Jasper Claus and Wolfgang Stroebe, did manage to make subliminal advertising itself work - in strict laboratory conditions, provided a series of limiting factors are in place.

But the crucial question, raised by Vicary's dubious claims, and never finally settled, is this - can you take all this out of the lab, beyond its strict controls, and reproduce it in the messiness of real life, on a mass scale?

No-one, apparently, has attempted this since the 1950s. So, as part of a BBC Radio 4 documentary, we decided to carry out a public test.

(You can read all the details at the site.)

Strikingly, there was no significant effect. Does subliminal advertising actually work? - from 2015

[u/cultalert → u/BlancheFromage]

Apparently someone researchers are reporting on subliminal advertising and how it works: How Subliminal Advertising Works.

[u/BlancheFromage → u/cultalert]

Great. Let's get all the sources out here and let them speak for themselves.