
This Is Your Brain on Cults. You Probably Have Many Questions.
On the television drama 'Severance,' a sleek dystopian mood piece patently designed for Our Times, employees of a nebulous corporation volunteer to have their home and office selves psychically partitioned. A brain implant allows 'outies' to go on with the business of being a person in the world, blissfully ignorant of the classified work their 'innies' do in a bland, windowless facility five days a week, and vice versa.
In the actual, unsevered universe we still live in, dissociation is not yet an elective outpatient surgery and mind control retains its status as a societal boogeyman, the stuff of Manchurian candidates and prison camps, death cults and Kool-Aid.
That consciousness can be so pliable and vulnerable, so susceptible to outside forces as to turn itself against logic or values, is a proven bug in the human operating system. The hows and whys of it remain less understood, despite decades of anecdotal evidence and exploration.
Not that a legion of medical professionals, research scientists and salacious limited streaming series haven't tried. The subject has also spurred a robust literary genre, to which two engaging if imperfect entries can now be added: 'The Instability of Truth,' by the Harvard historian of science Rebecca Lemov, and 'Blazing Eye Sees All,' by Leah Sottile, a podcaster and freelance journalist for outlets including Rolling Stone and The New York Times Magazine.
Taken together, the books have a bit of a Goldilocks problem: Lemov's is thoughtful, well supported and perhaps unavoidably academic. Sottile's is easily the more accessible effort, full of wild anecdotes about lost continents and blue-skinned gurus; it can also be heedlessly loosey-goosey, light on corroborating facts and critical distance from its troubled subjects.
'The Instability of Truth' is set up not unlike a syllabus, beginning with American P.O.W.s in the Korean War and moving through notable case studies like Patty Hearst, the C.I.A.'s MK-ULTRA program, Facebook-feed algorithms and the rise of so-called crypto cults. A recurrent theme is public shame: The war veterans who converted to Communism were dubbed weak, amoral and unpatriotic; headlines positioned Hearst as a rich girl dabbling in radical chic, playacting revolution for kicks.
That many of the P.O.W.s were beaten and starved and then fed a careful, relentless regimen of propaganda and coercive persuasion, or that Hearst was locked in a closet for 59 days and repeatedly raped, often did not rate mention in the accounts of their offenses. The consensus seemed to be that they had been given autonomy over their own minds and bodies, and failed miserably.
To be fair, Lemov points out, the public and even dedicated specialists initially lacked the vocabulary that might have softened those judgments. Trauma as a causal root was still years away from mainstream currency, and deprogramming efforts proved both medically and legally murky, full of their share of pitfalls and charlatans.
Though she offers vivid snapshots of individual cases and often interjects her own experiences in chatty, personable ways, Lemov's detailed analyses can read as somewhat weedy and dense for a layperson. Sottile, in contrast, wastes little time dangling the sensational Smurf-tinted bait in 'Blazing Eye Sees All': a Kansas-born mother of three and former McDonald's manager named Amy Carlson who came to call herself Mother God.
Carlson claimed to be a 27,000-year-old refugee from the apocryphal land of Lemuria, subsequently reincarnated as Jesus, Cleopatra, Joan of Arc and Marilyn Monroe (among others) on her path to set humanity free. She also drank so much colloidal silver — a popular New Age cure-all — that her skin took on the dusky hue of an unrinsed blueberry.
Mother God's belief system was an often incomprehensible mishmash of self-aggrandizing fantasy, conspiracy and light antisemitism; still, it spoke to an increasingly large audience of seekers and lost souls who were promised that her glorious ascent to a fifth dimension was imminent. (Viewers of the 2023 HBO docuseries 'Love Has Won' may know exactly how soon.)
As Sottile recounts it, Carlson's story was part of a long lineage — or more of a matrilineage, from the proto-spiritualist Fox sisters, who in the mid-1800s used snaps and séances to reach the other side, to 20th-century mediums like the former prom queen J.Z. Knight, who channeled the stentorian spirit of an ancient warrior named Ramtha.
Many of these self-styled sages claimed deep connections to 'lost' civilizations and espoused elaborate mythologies that touted specialized diets, supplements, 'angel numbers' and high-vibration colorways. A lot of them also enthusiastically embraced the material perks that their followers' fervent financial support provided, even as they grew increasingly paranoid and isolated from their flocks.
More than once, Sottile floats the idea that New Age practices gave women voice and agency in a world where that is hard to find. It's a thought worth exploring, though one that also seems to let some uniquely harmful people off the hook: religious chicanery, the great feminist equalizer!
A penchant for elisions and overbroad statements ('No one wants to be a God. Not really,' Sottile asserts at one point, after having spent some 250 pages methodically proving otherwise) also tends to mar an otherwise compelling and colorful read. The entertainment value is evident; the aftertaste is queasy and a little sad.
Where both writers find consensus — other than the loony historical footnote of the former first lady Nancy Reagan's outsize fixation on astrology — is the essential humanity of their subjects, many of whom it would be too easy to put at a disparaging distance.
On 'Severance,' the show's split characters eventually begin to uncover the more sinister aims of their supposedly benevolent employer, a mega-corporation whose arcane codes and credos hint at its own cultish leanings. The cognitive dissonance of that will surely be resolved, give or take a season, by some canny mix of science and screenwriting. But no one outside a TV show wakes up and says, 'I'd like to lose my mind today.' There are many ways to detach from perceived reality or even basic good sense, whether it's the Manson Family or a peer-to-peer marketing scheme that sells brightly patterned leggings, and not a lot of proven methods to get it back.
The brain is a soft black box whose ideologies regularly tip toward extremes: Look no further than the diverse demographics of those who have come to furiously reject vaccines. (Hence the memorable designation of some of the fringier elements of New Age conspiracy as 'pastel QAnon.') Then again, maybe even the most passionate of those true believers will change their minds; it happens all the time.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
How To Make AI Your Playmate For Life: 4 Easy Steps
Playing is not only for children. It is time to infuse the rest of our existence on earth with joy, ... More curiosity and playful discovery. Ai might help Today marks the UN International Day of Play, a reminder that play is not a luxury but a fundamental human right deserving protection throughout our lives. As we celebrate this recognition, we face a critical question: Will artificial intelligence become the catalyst for reigniting humanity's inherent drive to play, explore, and discover? Or will it inadvertently suffocate the very curiosity that fuels our growth and development? The answer lies not in the technology itself, but in how we choose to integrate it into our learning landscapes. Play is not merely childhood's pastime — it is the fundamental engine of human development that continues throughout our lives. "Play disarms fear, builds connectedness and teaches social skills and competencies for life." This statement from research of the Karyn Purvis Institute of Child Development captures the essence of what neuroscientists and developmental psychologists have long understood: play and curiosity exist in a symbiotic relationship, each feeding and amplifying the other. The science is unequivocal. Research from Harvard's neuroscience and child development experts shows that "allowing a learner to indulge their curiosity allows them to focus their effort on useful information that they do not yet possess." When we play, we create safe spaces for experimentation, failure, and discovery. When we're curious, we seek out playful interactions with our environment. This cycle doesn't diminish with age — it simply transforms, becoming more sophisticated and nuanced as we develop. Yet modern society has increasingly compartmentalized play as something reserved for children, creating artificial boundaries that separate "serious" learning from "frivolous" exploration. This fragmentation has contributed to what many educators describe as a curiosity crisis, where standardized learning environments prioritize conformity over creativity, answers over questions. Enter artificial intelligence with the potential to revolutionize how we approach lifelong learning and play. When thoughtfully implemented, AI can serve as humanity's most powerful ally in rekindling our natural propensity for exploration and discovery. Consider the immense potential of AI-powered learning environments that adapt to individual curiosity patterns. In the words of Harvard researchers, "AI companions that ask questions during activities like reading can improve children's comprehension and vocabulary." But this is merely the beginning. Imagine AI systems that recognize when learners are most curious, that present challenges precisely calibrated to maintain engagement without overwhelming, that create personalized pathways for exploration based on individual interests and learning styles. The beauty of AI lies in its ability to make learning genuinely playful again. Unlike traditional educational tools that often impose rigid structures, AI can create dynamic, responsive environments that mirror the natural patterns of play. It can generate infinite variations of problems, create immersive scenarios that blur the lines between learning and gaming, and provide immediate feedback that encourages experimentation rather than punishment for mistakes. Moreover, AI democratizes access to personalized learning experiences. For neurodivergent children particularly, "AI can be a powerful tool" that adapts to different cognitive styles and learning needs, ensuring that every individual can access the joy of discovery in ways that resonate with their unique neurological makeup. However, the promise of AI comes with profound risks that we must acknowledge and actively guard against. The same technology that could liberate human curiosity could just as easily extinguish it. The most insidious threat lies in AI's potential to provide answers too quickly, too easily, and too completely. When we can simply ask an AI assistant for information, we may lose the motivation to wonder, to question, to explore independently. The messy, uncertain process of discovery — which is where true learning happens — gets bypassed in favor of efficient information delivery. There's also the risk of algorithmic conformity. AI systems trained on existing data may inadvertently promote conventional thinking patterns, subtly discouraging the kind of divergent thinking that leads to breakthrough insights. When AI platforms optimize for "correct" answers rather than creative exploration, they may inadvertently create new forms of educational standardization that are even more powerful than traditional approaches. Perhaps most concerning is the potential for AI to create learned helplessness. If learners become dependent on AI assistance for problem-solving, they may lose confidence in their own ability to navigate uncertainty and ambiguity — skills that are fundamental to both play and curiosity. The surveillance aspects of AI systems also pose risks to the kind of uninhibited exploration that genuine play requires. When every interaction is monitored, analyzed, and optimized, the freedom to make mistakes, to pursue tangential interests, and to engage in purposeless exploration may be compromised. The key to harnessing AI's potential while avoiding its pitfalls lies in intentional design that prioritizes curiosity cultivation over information delivery. This requires a fundamental shift in how we conceptualize AI's role in learning and development. First, AI systems should be designed to ask better questions rather than provide better answers. Research emphasizes that effective learning happens "by harnessing children's natural curiosity and their proclivities to experiment, explore, problem solve, and stay engaged in meaningful activities." AI can amplify this natural tendency by posing intriguing questions, presenting puzzling scenarios, and creating cognitive gaps that learners feel compelled to fill. Second, AI should embrace and encourage productive failure. Instead of immediately correcting mistakes, AI systems should create environments where errors become springboards for deeper exploration. This mirrors the natural pattern of play, where trial and error is not only acceptable but essential. Third, AI should be designed to fade into the background, empowering human agency rather than replacing it. The goal should be to create scaffolding that supports independent exploration rather than dependence on technological assistance. Neuroscience research from the National Institute for Play shows that play experiences rewire neuron connections at the front end of the brain. As a consequence of that mechanism, playful social experiences may provide an opportunity to develop flexible behavioral strategies when novel and uncertain situations arise as an adult. This finding has important implications for how we structure AI-enhanced learning environments throughout the lifespan. Configured deliberately, and with a prosocial intent, AI has the potential to create what we might call "neurological playgrounds" — digital environments that stimulate the same neural pathways activated during physical play. These spaces could provide opportunities for adults to engage in the kind of exploratory behavior that is crucial for neuroplasticity and continued cognitive development. The research on curiosity and cognition suggests that "curiosity play uses existing knowledge and skills, encourages the struggle to master new competences, and is a process of manipulating, exploring, discovering and practicing." AI systems that support this process could help maintain cognitive flexibility and learning capacity throughout the human lifespan. To ensure that AI serves as a catalyst for curiosity rather than its destroyer, we need practical frameworks that guide implementation. The acronym PLAY offers a structure aligned with the four dimensions of human experience: P - Purpose (Aspiration): AI should help learners connect with their deeper sense of purpose and aspiration. Rather than simply delivering content, AI systems should help individuals explore their interests, values, and goals, creating learning pathways that feel personally meaningful and intrinsically motivated. L - Love (Emotion): Emotional engagement is crucial for both play and learning. AI should be designed to evoke positive emotions — wonder, excitement, joy, and the satisfaction of discovery. This means creating experiences that feel delightful rather than merely functional, that celebrate progress and curiosity rather than just achievement. A - Awareness (Thought): AI should enhance metacognitive awareness, helping learners understand their own thinking processes, learning patterns, and curiosity triggers. This involves creating reflection opportunities, making thinking visible, and encouraging learners to question their own assumptions and approaches. Y - Yearning (Sensation): The physical and sensory dimensions of learning should not be forgotten in digital environments. AI can create multisensory experiences that engage the body as well as the mind, recognizing that deep learning often involves physical interaction with the environment. We face an important moment in human history. The artificial intelligence revolution offers us an opportunity to rediscover and cultivate the power of play and curiosity that has driven human progress for millennia. But this outcome is not guaranteed — it requires conscious choice, thoughtful design, and vigilant attention to the values we embed in our technological systems. The question is not whether AI will influence how we learn and grow — it already is. The question is whether we will use this powerful tool to create a world where curiosity flourishes, where play continues throughout the lifespan, and where the joy of discovery remains a fundamental part of the human experience. AI, when properly harnessed, can be our partner in this essential work. The choice — and the responsibility — remains ours.


Forbes
9 hours ago
- Forbes
Harvard Gains More Allies In Its Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
Several more parties have announced their support for Harvard University's lawsuit against the Trump administration's freezing of more than $2 billion in federal grant money. Last week, 18 of the nation's leading research universities requested that a federal judge allow them to file a legal brief supporting Harvard's lawsuit to recover the funding being withheld by the Trump administration. That request was granted. Now, several more institutions, higher education organizations and coalitions —including teaching hospitals, Harvard alums, and state attorneys general — are coming forward to file amicus curiae (or 'friend of the court') briefs in support of the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Here's a quick summary of four of the more noteworthy filings. Six more institutions have joined the original 18 universities that requested that Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who's presiding over the federal lawsuit, allow them to file an amicus brief. On Monday, that coalition filed a 19-page amicus brief, that lays out how funding cuts for scientific research endangers a 'longstanding, mutually beneficial arrangement between universities and the American public. Terminating funding disrupts ongoing projects, ruins experiments and datasets, destroys the careers of aspiring scientists, and deters investment in the long-term research that only the academy—with federal funding—can pursue, threatening the pace of progress and undermining American leadership in the process.' Signing the brief were: American University; Boston University; Brown University; California Institute of Technology; Colorado State University; Dartmouth College; Georgetown University; Johns Hopkins University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Michigan State University; Oregon State University; Princeton University; Rice University; Rutgers University; Stanford University; Tufts University; University of Delaware; University of Denver; University of Maryland, Baltimore; University of Maryland, College Park; University of Oregon; University of Pennsylvania; University of Pittsburgh; and Yale University. Attorneys General Also on Monday, a group of 21 attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of a summary judgment in Harvard's favor. They argue that, in addition to endangering Harvard's research, the funding freeze threatens the economies and health of their states. Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin were the amici states filing the brief. They wrote that, 'beyond threatening current jobs and businesses, such a freeze would halt career development for promising new scientists and debilitate the pipeline for future innovators in Amici States. It would also prevent research into lifesaving medicines and transformative technologies with potential to improve the health and life of Amici State residents. In short, the federal government's current attack on research universities is, in multiple respects, an attack on the states themselves.' A dozen Boston-area teaching hospitals filed their own amicus brief claiming that the grant terminations at Harvard 'will have the consequence of threatening the Hospitals' work to continually advance medical science.' According to the hospitals, 'the funding cuts will have the unintended, yet real, consequence of damaging the foundation upon which the Hospitals develop medical breakthroughs for their patients. Basic science research—often conducted at universities like Harvard—enables hospitals to do clinical research and develop breakthrough treatments or cures for disease. The Hospitals expand on the insights derived from the basic science research to launch clinical trials, and ultimately, treat and cure patients. The termination of Harvard's federal research grants threatens to stunt future discoveries and medical advances.' Former Harvard students have also joined the fray. More than 12,000 Harvard alumni filed a 14-page brief, condemning the 'Government's reckless and unlawful attempts to assert control over the core functions of Harvard and its fellow institutions of higher education.' The alumni include individuals from Harvard's graduating classes for every single year from 1950 to 2025, and they represent all 50 states, D.C., U.S. territories, and dozens of countries around the world. 'The Government's escalating attacks—and this case—are about much more than funding. The Government strikes at the very core of Harvard: the longstanding practices and values of openness, free inquiry, and mutual respect, and its founding commitment to veritas—the quest for truth above all,' the brief states. And the alumni contend that 'the Government's end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms.' Harvard has asked that Judge Burroughs grant a summary judgment in the case before September 3, claiming that after that deadline, the administration will argue that it can't reinstate the frozen funds. Oral arguments on the matter are scheduled for July 21.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nvidia CEO says quantum computing is at an inflection point
PARIS (Reuters) -Quantum computing technology is at an inflection point, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang reiterated on Wednesday at the VivaTech conference in Paris. Quantum calculations could crack problems that currently would demand years of processing from Nvidia's most advanced AI systems. Quantum computing will solve "some interesting problems" in the coming years, Huang added. The CEO made similar comments in March at Nvidia's annual software developer conference when he spoke about the potential of quantum computing, walking back comments he made in January when he said useful quantum computers were 20 years away. In March, Huang also announced a new quantum computing research lab in Boston, set to collaborate with Harvard and MIT scientists.