What do you think?
Rate this book
Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change
"Classic Returns!....In this expanded edition of the 1978 original, Conway and Siegelman continue their study of the altering of the American psyche, which has led to the rise of religious cults, super Christian sects, private citizen militias, and other phenomena that dominate today's headlines. Probably more timely now than when first published, this is an important title for academic and public libraries." - Library Journal "Their book is judicious, sensible, well-researched and very frightening." - New York Times Book Review "It is a book of investigative reporting at its best." - New York Post "What Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate, Conway and Siegelman may well be to the cults." - United Press International "Credible and chilling . . . The second edition of SNAPPING is as important a resource in understanding spreading societal chaos as the first edition was in explaining the chaos of cults." - Minneapolis Star-Tribune "Important. . . . this book provides a tool to exercise judgment, monitor incoming information, and interpret what has become an increasingly intrusive battle for our minds. . . . At its core, it is language that holds the key to our mental health or to our destruction. What George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' is to literature, 'SNAPPING' is to non-fiction." - Albuquerque Journal "In a prophetic vein. . . . SNAPPING is not only fascinating and frightening reading, it is also extremely well-written. . . . The escalating pattern of cult fanaticism and religious-political terror that the authors call a 'death spiral' seems to be widening. If we do nothing to understand and ultimately reverse that pattern, it will pull more and more innocent people into its vortex." - Cleveland Jewish News "For anyone threatened with snapping, this book is a dispassionate, valuable study of an often frightening phenomenon." - People "There is no doubt that Conway and Siegelman are opening the door on areas of human understanding that have never been examined and that are in urgent need of study." - New Society "SNAPPING is an exciting and responsible and original piece of research that has taught this old poop amazing new ways to think about the human mind." - Kurt Vonnegut "SNAPPING is by far the best and most scientific treatment of the cult problem yet published. For the scientist, politician, clergy or parent, it is valuable and wonderfully readable." - John G. Clark, M.D. Asst. Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School "Conway and Siegelman . . . place cultic behavior in the wider context of the communication revolution of our time. . . Indeed, SNAPPING unfolds as a traveling detective investigation. . . . they very capably trace and analyze the course of the phenomenon and . . . contribute greatly to our understanding of it." - The Cult Observer "Conway and Siegelman are onto something important. . . . SNAPPING is a fascinating book with frightening implications." - Edward T. Hall, author of The Silent Language "[The] classic book on cults, still the best book ever. . . . Believe me, folks, these are the real experts." - Geraldo Rivera
380 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1978
36 people are currently reading
332 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
July 30, 2017
This book presents a theory of abrupt personality change the authors, Flo Conway and Jim Siegleman, call snapping. These changes are described as happening in cults, encounter groups, and other activities involving extreme practices and constant information assault. According to Conway and Siegleman this phenomenon has arisen as a result of the rapid accumulation of information that penetrates our lives on an almost daily basis. Snapping they believe is an information disease. In the book they related personal stories of snapping both from people recovered or recovering and those that were close to them. They also sought out experts from emerging areas of study. These areas include information theory, holography, catastrophe theory, and chaos theory. In the last part of the book they focus on the social implications of the snapping phenomenon. There Jim Jones and David Koresh and their endings at Jonestown and Waco are studied, as well as the new militia groups. They have a postscript on later events. The book also contains an appendix containing the statistical data from their correlational study presented in the text.
I had no real issues with Conway’s and Siegleman’s anecdotal evidence as well as their correlational study. But, anecdotal and correlational studies do not show cause and effect, as they admit. They also admit the difficulty in designing and carrying out controlled studies, especially as far as ethical considerations are concerned. My big issues are with their use of the more recent mathematical theories that they attempt to enlist to give their theory of snapping some teeth. I also think they over play the dangers posed by snapping. Yes, there are dangers, but are they really going to bring widespread disruption to society?
I have so many comments on specific parts of the text I am hesitant to give them all. Perhaps I can keep to the most salient, which is still a lot. All of my comments are critical, except for the first one. Citations are by Kindle locations, given in brackets [].
[385] The first thing I noted was, when as a way of introduction to the authors case study method, they said: “No investigator, journalist or social scientist who heads into a group in search of ‘the experience’ can possibly capture the experience of those who have made a personal commitment to that group.” My thought here was: not to mention the danger to themselves, either by succumbing or from being found out.
[884] “Historically, it [speaking in tongues] has its origin in the New Testament, in the Acts of the Apostles.” The problem here is that the historical accuracy of any book in the Bible, let alone Acts, can be called into question, so historically could be a stretch.
[1769] “In recognizing the mind’s unlimited creative potentials . . .” Vast maybe, but not unlimited. Let us get the facts straight, and not exaggerate in a purported work of science.
[2020] “Information, not matter or energy, is the stuff of human consciousness.” While the informational view may have benefits in describing the “stuff,” it is the “matter and energy” that make it possible. I am aware of people that would argue that the universe is information, but I am not convinced. The best we can say is that the universe appears to follow mathematical patterns and equate these patterns with information.
They bring in the notion of the hologram and its information storage capabilities to explain the mind. In general critique, if the brain is a hologram, where is the original light like that is used to illuminate real holograms. What or who is supposed to supply it? Holography was brought up by Karl Pribram to capture experimental evidence that memory was not localized. This maybe true, but does holography really explain it in light of the need for an original frequency of light that brings coherency to the memory brought forth as in a holographic image? Antonio Damasio explains how memories could be remembered using brain structures and functioning in his book The Self Comes to Mind without the use of the amorphous hologram.
They also claim holography makes sense of the phenomenon of consciousness. The mind appears to be nonphysical in some manner. The holographic image is seen above the actual holographic plate that records the picture. But, light is compose of photons or waves or an excitation in a field. The image is still compose of light, so in a sense it is physical, just as the mind may well be shown to be.
[2329] “’All of a sudden these things are no longer mere wisps of imagination,’ Pribram said with a smile. ‘They turn out to be, mathematically, precisely describable ideas.” Has any one done a mathematical calculation of an actual memory? Pribram again: “’I think the hologram notion is in fact a real change in our scientific paradigm. It makes studiable by scientific tools all things that have been dismissed as mystical and subjective and so on.” Has anyone used holography to mathematically describe particle physics if it is really a new paradigm, let alone the “mystical and subjective”?
[2337] “But from our vantage point, Pribram’s model remained vastly superior to competing theories—and the only one to plausibly explain and physically reproduce the experience of consciousness itself.” By what calculation or experiment are they basing their opinion. (see also above on Damasio and his book)
Holography may have a use as a metaphor, like their use of catastrophe theory later in the book, fully admitted by the scientist they most rely on, to be one, but as a way of actually studying consciousness or any other phenomena of the mind, it is sorely lacking.
[2380] Speaking of the intersection of “cybernetics and information theory”: “. . . human beings comprise an entirely different order of organization in nature, one that thrives, survives and adapts, not from pre-programmed genetic codes, unconscious processes or conditioned behavior, but a ceaseless flow of experience that shapes every aspect of our minds and our day-to-day lives.” (italics mine) Without the genetics and unconscious processes there would be no mind or experience. In addition why should this be different for other animals, at least mammals (with similar brain structures to humans). Are they saying that these animals do not have experiences or a mind. This is just anthropocentric. And, what about epiphenomenalism (consciousness is just an aside with no useful purpose), which has not be shown to be impossible?
[2396] “The mind in its infinite capacity for communication . . .” Again the mind does not have an infinite capacity for imagination or anything else.
[2412] “Like the other organs of the body, the heart which runs on blood, the lungs which run on air, the brain—the seat of the mind and main stage of awareness—runs on experience.” This is all wrong. The heart does not run on blood, it pumps it; the lungs do not run on air, they exchange it; and the brain does not run on experience, it creates it.
[2428] Talking about sensory deprivation experiments, the brain causes hallucination “not from chemical or physiological causes such as drugs or lack of food or sleep, but from the simple lack of experience.” Again this is not correct. It is not lack of experience; it is lack of sensory input, which the brain partly uses to create experience.
[2477] “. . . although a person’s memory of recent events deteriorates with age, his earliest experiences and the organic connections that embody them literally grow stronger and more salient over time.” (italics are the authors) However, memories are inherently faulty. What is remembered may not be exactly what happened, but they can still spark intense emotions. Have they not heard of Elizabeth Loftus’s work?
[2790] Moving on to catastrophe theory originating with Rene Thom they admit that “Thom never intended catastrophe theory to be a tool of prediction, but rather a mathematical model and visual image.” While modeling may help in illustrating behavior, it is not scientific theory because, as he admits, it makes no predictions.
[2889] “. . . no one had found fault with Thom’s mathematics.” This was there expert, Hans Bremermann’s thought, who later on fully admits this. [2897] “. . . he had felt, along with Thom himself, that catastrophe theory was not so much a scientific theory as a new mathematical language, a rich scientific metaphor.” (italics are the authors) Metaphors are fine (think of Richard Dawkins’ “selfish gene”), but if they are going to use catastrophe theory as scientific theory of snapping, they have to prove it is scientifically accurate.
[2924] “’These deprogrammers have found something,’ he [Bremermann] said. “These states of rapture and depression. It really fits the catastrophe model much better than I would have imagined . . .” Yes, but does it do it mathematically? After all that is what you use a mathematical theory for in science.
[2939] Again quoting Bremermann: “’In other words, instead of falling down a cliff, you can walk down slowly, in a roundabout way, and reach the exact same point.” In other words it can be made to fit anything. Plus, if snapping is supposed to be a rapid change in personality, the slow walk, would indicate that things do not always snap.
[2971] “The disease [snapping] is not physiological in origin; in most instances, it does not appear to damage or destroy the basic biological machinery of the brain.” First of all, nothing occurring in the mind is without physiological events in the brain. Second of all, if it destroy the basic physiology of the brain, the person would be most likely comatose or brain dead or just plain dead, not snapped.
[2988] “There is no way of identifying the brain of a schizophrenic . . .” This is not true now. I do not know about when they wrote the book, but I suspect it was. The ventricles in the inside of the brain of schizophrenics (it is demeaning to refer to people as schizophrenic; it is more appropriate to say those people with schizophrenia) are enlarged. Also: “As we have already seen, it is not the empty physical structure of the computing machine that corresponds to the brain—to the adult brain, at least—but the combination of this structure with the instructions given it at the beginning of a chain of operations . . .” What is an empty physical structure. This seems like an oxymoron. The real issue here is what or who is providing the instructions? This is one reason why I think the hardware/software analogy of brain is not a very good one.
[3013] “These ritualized communication practices [those of cults] are as powerful as any physical force in their potential to disrupt and impair the brain’s information processing activities.” Not to split hairs, but they are physical forces—sound waves, photons, molecules, and touch.
[3050] “. . . that other individuals may come to understand how how their own afflictions were brought about—and realize that they can happen to anyone.” Have they ruled out any genetic contribution, such as a greater susceptibility to suggestion.
[4173] “. . . higher holographic communication processes.” Just throwing this term around with no explanation does not show anything.
[5167] “The first recognized strange attractors [of chaos theory] derived from the maddeningly imprecise science of meteorology, was named the ‘butterfly effect.’ Its swooping curves, depicting tiny movements that may cause sudden and cataclysmic events, explained, in theory at least, how ‘butterfly flapping its wing in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas.’” First, meteorology is not imprecise; the fault lies in that it is not precise enough. The models, besides sensitive dependence on initial conditions, do not manage to capture all the parameters. This is the major reason why predictions so often fail in meteorological models. Second, the shape of the strange attractor is not the reason it is called the butterfly effect; although, the strange attractor image produce by Edward Lorenz did resemble a butterfly. But, it was not modeling any actual weather system; it was just an evolution of the nonlinear equations Lorenz used. The effect produced by that pesky butterfly flapping its wing, which by the way does not cause anything as big as a tornado. Theoretically (very so), it may be true that its flapping wings could influence the behavior of far off weather phenomena, but realistically this just does not produce that much of an effect.
[5198] “At the center of the action was the strange attractor, the group leader whose personal charisma and alluring beliefs draw intrigued searchers into his expanding orbit of influence.” A group leader that acts as an attractor would be an example of a single point attractor, not a strange one. Also a single orbit attractor would not be strange either. Strange attractors have varying centers of attraction that switches its centers of attraction as the dynamics of a chaotic system evolves. There would have to be two leaders of differing views for the structure of a strange attractor to apply, and the attraction would vary, but this does not seem to occur in cults. The leader may be strange and may be attractive, but he or she would not be a strange attractor in mathematical terms.
[5224] They use figure 4 showing a “double spiral” of the Mandelbrot set “on to a three-dimensional plane” as an example of the dynamics of the Branch Davidians’ situation in Waco. It is amazing how they can claim this other than a metaphor, and as previously said a wrong one at that. I wish they could get their mathematics right. There is no way a plane is a three-dimensional object. I think they might of meant that it is a projection of a three-dimensional computation of this portion of the Mandelbrot set onto a plane that can be view on a flat surface like a page or computer screen.
[5322] “In the new terms of chaos science, the sect’s endtimes prophecy was itself a strange attractor—a predetermined point . . .” Again, get it right. A single point is not a strange attractor other than in the authors’ minds.
[5779] They use another figure (5) here. I must say again: this is an image, not an actual calculated iteration using the mathematics of chaos theory to describe the Waco incident.
[6892] “With the death toll from the new terror climbing geometrically . . .” Once again they are mathematically ignorant or fail to show what they claim. A geometric progression increases by a certain factor (e.g. multiplying by 2) applied to the previous term. This is an example of a geometrical increase: (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, . . .). Where is the simple data to show this type of increase. By a lot of their rhetoric you would think we are in imminent danger of revolution. Yes, there are reasons for concern with the militia groups they talk about, but thinking we are doomed is just hyperbole.
[6900] “The fact [Oklahoma City bombing] said something about the spread of cult-like groups in the nineties and something more about the state of mind in America generally.” It says nothing in general about the state of mind of Americans.
[6917] In their final paragraph of the text they write: “Now, in the twenty-first century, it appears, this new peril in the life of the modern mind we call snapping is pushing people and nations into darkness from which humankind will not recover until this cycle of madness and terror is broken.” People have been predicting doom in every generation. How is their prediction any better then some of the cults they talk about. Snapping may be a phenomenon that is occurring in certain people, but to claim it is an all out epidemic is ridiculous. They do not even give the percentage of the population that snapping represents.
Here are some further points of criticism. I would challenge that there is not a personality change in the snapping phenomenon. What seems to change is the destruction of personality, not its replacement, as change would imply. They also seem to suffer from what others would call physics envy, wanting the exactness of these sciences that is not achievable for psychological phenomena, at least currently. But, their use of modern mathematical theories do not even rise to this level of exactness.
While the authors’ phenomenological aspects are good and revealing, their attempt to ground their theory in modern mathematical theories without any actual calculation going on is less than admirable. Where is the evidence in the form of actual mathematical calculations. “Where’s the beef?” To use these theories as metaphors may be acceptable, but at least get it right—their flubbing of chaos theory is the glaring example here.
It is funny: I was reading along enjoying their book, but then they started in with these mathematical theories, and I snapped. I was not planning to be so critical, but their botching of these theories to support their theory changed my mind and in a hurry. I cannot say I really enjoyed the book, even as an exercise in criticism as with some other books I have read. When these authors stuck with the descriptive they did alright, but theory wise they did a poor job of it.
I cannot really recommend this book to anyone. Maybe if your interested in personal stories and some historical aspects of cult and cult-like groups, but to wade through the rest of the book just does not seem worth it. If I knew then what I know now about the book I would have never read it.
I had no real issues with Conway’s and Siegleman’s anecdotal evidence as well as their correlational study. But, anecdotal and correlational studies do not show cause and effect, as they admit. They also admit the difficulty in designing and carrying out controlled studies, especially as far as ethical considerations are concerned. My big issues are with their use of the more recent mathematical theories that they attempt to enlist to give their theory of snapping some teeth. I also think they over play the dangers posed by snapping. Yes, there are dangers, but are they really going to bring widespread disruption to society?
I have so many comments on specific parts of the text I am hesitant to give them all. Perhaps I can keep to the most salient, which is still a lot. All of my comments are critical, except for the first one. Citations are by Kindle locations, given in brackets [].
[385] The first thing I noted was, when as a way of introduction to the authors case study method, they said: “No investigator, journalist or social scientist who heads into a group in search of ‘the experience’ can possibly capture the experience of those who have made a personal commitment to that group.” My thought here was: not to mention the danger to themselves, either by succumbing or from being found out.
[884] “Historically, it [speaking in tongues] has its origin in the New Testament, in the Acts of the Apostles.” The problem here is that the historical accuracy of any book in the Bible, let alone Acts, can be called into question, so historically could be a stretch.
[1769] “In recognizing the mind’s unlimited creative potentials . . .” Vast maybe, but not unlimited. Let us get the facts straight, and not exaggerate in a purported work of science.
[2020] “Information, not matter or energy, is the stuff of human consciousness.” While the informational view may have benefits in describing the “stuff,” it is the “matter and energy” that make it possible. I am aware of people that would argue that the universe is information, but I am not convinced. The best we can say is that the universe appears to follow mathematical patterns and equate these patterns with information.
They bring in the notion of the hologram and its information storage capabilities to explain the mind. In general critique, if the brain is a hologram, where is the original light like that is used to illuminate real holograms. What or who is supposed to supply it? Holography was brought up by Karl Pribram to capture experimental evidence that memory was not localized. This maybe true, but does holography really explain it in light of the need for an original frequency of light that brings coherency to the memory brought forth as in a holographic image? Antonio Damasio explains how memories could be remembered using brain structures and functioning in his book The Self Comes to Mind without the use of the amorphous hologram.
They also claim holography makes sense of the phenomenon of consciousness. The mind appears to be nonphysical in some manner. The holographic image is seen above the actual holographic plate that records the picture. But, light is compose of photons or waves or an excitation in a field. The image is still compose of light, so in a sense it is physical, just as the mind may well be shown to be.
[2329] “’All of a sudden these things are no longer mere wisps of imagination,’ Pribram said with a smile. ‘They turn out to be, mathematically, precisely describable ideas.” Has any one done a mathematical calculation of an actual memory? Pribram again: “’I think the hologram notion is in fact a real change in our scientific paradigm. It makes studiable by scientific tools all things that have been dismissed as mystical and subjective and so on.” Has anyone used holography to mathematically describe particle physics if it is really a new paradigm, let alone the “mystical and subjective”?
[2337] “But from our vantage point, Pribram’s model remained vastly superior to competing theories—and the only one to plausibly explain and physically reproduce the experience of consciousness itself.” By what calculation or experiment are they basing their opinion. (see also above on Damasio and his book)
Holography may have a use as a metaphor, like their use of catastrophe theory later in the book, fully admitted by the scientist they most rely on, to be one, but as a way of actually studying consciousness or any other phenomena of the mind, it is sorely lacking.
[2380] Speaking of the intersection of “cybernetics and information theory”: “. . . human beings comprise an entirely different order of organization in nature, one that thrives, survives and adapts, not from pre-programmed genetic codes, unconscious processes or conditioned behavior, but a ceaseless flow of experience that shapes every aspect of our minds and our day-to-day lives.” (italics mine) Without the genetics and unconscious processes there would be no mind or experience. In addition why should this be different for other animals, at least mammals (with similar brain structures to humans). Are they saying that these animals do not have experiences or a mind. This is just anthropocentric. And, what about epiphenomenalism (consciousness is just an aside with no useful purpose), which has not be shown to be impossible?
[2396] “The mind in its infinite capacity for communication . . .” Again the mind does not have an infinite capacity for imagination or anything else.
[2412] “Like the other organs of the body, the heart which runs on blood, the lungs which run on air, the brain—the seat of the mind and main stage of awareness—runs on experience.” This is all wrong. The heart does not run on blood, it pumps it; the lungs do not run on air, they exchange it; and the brain does not run on experience, it creates it.
[2428] Talking about sensory deprivation experiments, the brain causes hallucination “not from chemical or physiological causes such as drugs or lack of food or sleep, but from the simple lack of experience.” Again this is not correct. It is not lack of experience; it is lack of sensory input, which the brain partly uses to create experience.
[2477] “. . . although a person’s memory of recent events deteriorates with age, his earliest experiences and the organic connections that embody them literally grow stronger and more salient over time.” (italics are the authors) However, memories are inherently faulty. What is remembered may not be exactly what happened, but they can still spark intense emotions. Have they not heard of Elizabeth Loftus’s work?
[2790] Moving on to catastrophe theory originating with Rene Thom they admit that “Thom never intended catastrophe theory to be a tool of prediction, but rather a mathematical model and visual image.” While modeling may help in illustrating behavior, it is not scientific theory because, as he admits, it makes no predictions.
[2889] “. . . no one had found fault with Thom’s mathematics.” This was there expert, Hans Bremermann’s thought, who later on fully admits this. [2897] “. . . he had felt, along with Thom himself, that catastrophe theory was not so much a scientific theory as a new mathematical language, a rich scientific metaphor.” (italics are the authors) Metaphors are fine (think of Richard Dawkins’ “selfish gene”), but if they are going to use catastrophe theory as scientific theory of snapping, they have to prove it is scientifically accurate.
[2924] “’These deprogrammers have found something,’ he [Bremermann] said. “These states of rapture and depression. It really fits the catastrophe model much better than I would have imagined . . .” Yes, but does it do it mathematically? After all that is what you use a mathematical theory for in science.
[2939] Again quoting Bremermann: “’In other words, instead of falling down a cliff, you can walk down slowly, in a roundabout way, and reach the exact same point.” In other words it can be made to fit anything. Plus, if snapping is supposed to be a rapid change in personality, the slow walk, would indicate that things do not always snap.
[2971] “The disease [snapping] is not physiological in origin; in most instances, it does not appear to damage or destroy the basic biological machinery of the brain.” First of all, nothing occurring in the mind is without physiological events in the brain. Second of all, if it destroy the basic physiology of the brain, the person would be most likely comatose or brain dead or just plain dead, not snapped.
[2988] “There is no way of identifying the brain of a schizophrenic . . .” This is not true now. I do not know about when they wrote the book, but I suspect it was. The ventricles in the inside of the brain of schizophrenics (it is demeaning to refer to people as schizophrenic; it is more appropriate to say those people with schizophrenia) are enlarged. Also: “As we have already seen, it is not the empty physical structure of the computing machine that corresponds to the brain—to the adult brain, at least—but the combination of this structure with the instructions given it at the beginning of a chain of operations . . .” What is an empty physical structure. This seems like an oxymoron. The real issue here is what or who is providing the instructions? This is one reason why I think the hardware/software analogy of brain is not a very good one.
[3013] “These ritualized communication practices [those of cults] are as powerful as any physical force in their potential to disrupt and impair the brain’s information processing activities.” Not to split hairs, but they are physical forces—sound waves, photons, molecules, and touch.
[3050] “. . . that other individuals may come to understand how how their own afflictions were brought about—and realize that they can happen to anyone.” Have they ruled out any genetic contribution, such as a greater susceptibility to suggestion.
[4173] “. . . higher holographic communication processes.” Just throwing this term around with no explanation does not show anything.
[5167] “The first recognized strange attractors [of chaos theory] derived from the maddeningly imprecise science of meteorology, was named the ‘butterfly effect.’ Its swooping curves, depicting tiny movements that may cause sudden and cataclysmic events, explained, in theory at least, how ‘butterfly flapping its wing in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas.’” First, meteorology is not imprecise; the fault lies in that it is not precise enough. The models, besides sensitive dependence on initial conditions, do not manage to capture all the parameters. This is the major reason why predictions so often fail in meteorological models. Second, the shape of the strange attractor is not the reason it is called the butterfly effect; although, the strange attractor image produce by Edward Lorenz did resemble a butterfly. But, it was not modeling any actual weather system; it was just an evolution of the nonlinear equations Lorenz used. The effect produced by that pesky butterfly flapping its wing, which by the way does not cause anything as big as a tornado. Theoretically (very so), it may be true that its flapping wings could influence the behavior of far off weather phenomena, but realistically this just does not produce that much of an effect.
[5198] “At the center of the action was the strange attractor, the group leader whose personal charisma and alluring beliefs draw intrigued searchers into his expanding orbit of influence.” A group leader that acts as an attractor would be an example of a single point attractor, not a strange one. Also a single orbit attractor would not be strange either. Strange attractors have varying centers of attraction that switches its centers of attraction as the dynamics of a chaotic system evolves. There would have to be two leaders of differing views for the structure of a strange attractor to apply, and the attraction would vary, but this does not seem to occur in cults. The leader may be strange and may be attractive, but he or she would not be a strange attractor in mathematical terms.
[5224] They use figure 4 showing a “double spiral” of the Mandelbrot set “on to a three-dimensional plane” as an example of the dynamics of the Branch Davidians’ situation in Waco. It is amazing how they can claim this other than a metaphor, and as previously said a wrong one at that. I wish they could get their mathematics right. There is no way a plane is a three-dimensional object. I think they might of meant that it is a projection of a three-dimensional computation of this portion of the Mandelbrot set onto a plane that can be view on a flat surface like a page or computer screen.
[5322] “In the new terms of chaos science, the sect’s endtimes prophecy was itself a strange attractor—a predetermined point . . .” Again, get it right. A single point is not a strange attractor other than in the authors’ minds.
[5779] They use another figure (5) here. I must say again: this is an image, not an actual calculated iteration using the mathematics of chaos theory to describe the Waco incident.
[6892] “With the death toll from the new terror climbing geometrically . . .” Once again they are mathematically ignorant or fail to show what they claim. A geometric progression increases by a certain factor (e.g. multiplying by 2) applied to the previous term. This is an example of a geometrical increase: (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, . . .). Where is the simple data to show this type of increase. By a lot of their rhetoric you would think we are in imminent danger of revolution. Yes, there are reasons for concern with the militia groups they talk about, but thinking we are doomed is just hyperbole.
[6900] “The fact [Oklahoma City bombing] said something about the spread of cult-like groups in the nineties and something more about the state of mind in America generally.” It says nothing in general about the state of mind of Americans.
[6917] In their final paragraph of the text they write: “Now, in the twenty-first century, it appears, this new peril in the life of the modern mind we call snapping is pushing people and nations into darkness from which humankind will not recover until this cycle of madness and terror is broken.” People have been predicting doom in every generation. How is their prediction any better then some of the cults they talk about. Snapping may be a phenomenon that is occurring in certain people, but to claim it is an all out epidemic is ridiculous. They do not even give the percentage of the population that snapping represents.
Here are some further points of criticism. I would challenge that there is not a personality change in the snapping phenomenon. What seems to change is the destruction of personality, not its replacement, as change would imply. They also seem to suffer from what others would call physics envy, wanting the exactness of these sciences that is not achievable for psychological phenomena, at least currently. But, their use of modern mathematical theories do not even rise to this level of exactness.
While the authors’ phenomenological aspects are good and revealing, their attempt to ground their theory in modern mathematical theories without any actual calculation going on is less than admirable. Where is the evidence in the form of actual mathematical calculations. “Where’s the beef?” To use these theories as metaphors may be acceptable, but at least get it right—their flubbing of chaos theory is the glaring example here.
It is funny: I was reading along enjoying their book, but then they started in with these mathematical theories, and I snapped. I was not planning to be so critical, but their botching of these theories to support their theory changed my mind and in a hurry. I cannot say I really enjoyed the book, even as an exercise in criticism as with some other books I have read. When these authors stuck with the descriptive they did alright, but theory wise they did a poor job of it.
I cannot really recommend this book to anyone. Maybe if your interested in personal stories and some historical aspects of cult and cult-like groups, but to wade through the rest of the book just does not seem worth it. If I knew then what I know now about the book I would have never read it.
June 6, 2019
Great!
October 19, 2020
SNAPPING is an exciting and responsible and original piece of research that has taught this old poop amazing new ways to think about the human mind.
Kurt Vonnegut
Conway and Siegelman are onto something important. . . . SNAPPING is a fascinating book with frightening implications.
Edward T. Hall [The Silent Language]
Classic Returns! ...In this expanded edition of the 1978 original, Conway and Siegelman continue their study of the altering of the American psyche, which has led to the rise of religious cults, super Christian sects, private citizen militias, and other phenomena that dominate today's headlines. Probably more timely now than when first published, this is an important title for academic and public libraries.
Library Journal
Their book is judicious, sensible, well-researched and very frightening.
New York Times Book Review
Credible and chilling... The second edition of SNAPPING is as important a resource in understanding spreading societal chaos as the first edition was in explaining the chaos of cults.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
Important... this book provides a tool to exercise judgment, monitor incoming information, and interpret what has become an increasingly intrusive battle for our minds... At its core, it is language that holds the key to our mental health or to our destruction. What George Orwell's Animal Farm is to literature, Snapping is to non-fiction.
Albuquerque Journal
There is no doubt that Conway and Siegelman are opening the door on areas of human understanding that have never been examined and that are in urgent need of study.
New Society
Kurt Vonnegut
Conway and Siegelman are onto something important. . . . SNAPPING is a fascinating book with frightening implications.
Edward T. Hall [The Silent Language]
Classic Returns! ...In this expanded edition of the 1978 original, Conway and Siegelman continue their study of the altering of the American psyche, which has led to the rise of religious cults, super Christian sects, private citizen militias, and other phenomena that dominate today's headlines. Probably more timely now than when first published, this is an important title for academic and public libraries.
Library Journal
Their book is judicious, sensible, well-researched and very frightening.
New York Times Book Review
Credible and chilling... The second edition of SNAPPING is as important a resource in understanding spreading societal chaos as the first edition was in explaining the chaos of cults.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
Important... this book provides a tool to exercise judgment, monitor incoming information, and interpret what has become an increasingly intrusive battle for our minds... At its core, it is language that holds the key to our mental health or to our destruction. What George Orwell's Animal Farm is to literature, Snapping is to non-fiction.
Albuquerque Journal
There is no doubt that Conway and Siegelman are opening the door on areas of human understanding that have never been examined and that are in urgent need of study.
New Society
September 1, 2008
This is a great book about cults use mind control and how the mind subjects itself to turn off and function like a machine only responding to pre-programed responses and only think in doctrine. The book also dives into coercive deprogramming which, though highly effective, is illegal and could cause harm during the floating stage. Steven Hassan, the father of voluntary exit counseling that "snapping" was a harsh experience for him has developed methods to promote independent thought without the almost devastating snapping experience.
This is an excellent book about how mind control works and illustrates great ways of reversing it, it's slightly dated. This is a must read for those interested in psychology or exit-counseling but one must keep in mind that involuntary deprogramming is not only illegal but dangerous to the deprogrammed if the person doesn't snap and presses charges and/or suffers other forms of retaliation from the cult and also to the cultist after snapping.
This is an excellent book about how mind control works and illustrates great ways of reversing it, it's slightly dated. This is a must read for those interested in psychology or exit-counseling but one must keep in mind that involuntary deprogramming is not only illegal but dangerous to the deprogrammed if the person doesn't snap and presses charges and/or suffers other forms of retaliation from the cult and also to the cultist after snapping.
February 19, 2014
This book showed me that the religious conversion experience wasn't supernatural, but rather psychological in nature, common to all religions and pseudo-religions. While the book deals with cults, mainstream religions are tamer versions of the same thing, a difference of degree, rather than kind.
May 13, 2022
I found this book very dated. Maybe it was important when it was published? Modern research of sociology, linguistics, and psychology has moved on from here in understanding high demand and fanatical groups.
abandoned
October 16, 2016The first 20% was fairly good, but the book as a whole suffers from poor standards of journalism. As soon as the authors start talking about deprogramming, bias and hysteria reign. I couldn't make myself finish it. I reached the limit of subjective panic I'm willing to expose myself to.
June 24, 2025
A dazzling exposé. I found the information on the Divine Light Mission quite helpful for my own personal research and understanding.
The simplified illustrated version of Thom's elementary catastrophe curve was very reminiscent of illustrated Black Hole theory.
The simplified illustrated version of Thom's elementary catastrophe curve was very reminiscent of illustrated Black Hole theory.
January 1, 2024
I'm not gonna lie, I finished this book, but skimmed some of it. I was mentioned in a book I read about cults. This book is a study of "the sudden, drastic alteration of personality" that became a phenomen on the 1070's. This is mainly seen in religious cults and self improvement therapies. It didn't cover the "snapping" of mass killers. Once again, I was surprised by all the cults I had never heard of.
April 4, 2024
First read this back in the 1980's when I began working with cult survivors - mostly Christian spin-offs. It was an invaluable source then and continues to be now in my work with survivors of religious abuse, cults, and other controlling groups. Highly recommend this book.
December 18, 2021
Forgot I read this book. Exposes cults like EST and does a fine job of explaining the brainwashing processes.
February 18, 2017
This book explains a recurring phenomemon in the cult I was part of for 22 years.
December 23, 2019
Cases of conversion experiences from individuals who were put into vulnerable states by groups like Scientology and the Hare Krishnas to exploit them for money or power. The author tries to rationalize these self-experienced "snapping" episodes with a holographic theory of the brain and a theory of "information diseases". The cybernetics/chaos theory stuff doesn't really add much substance to this.
Pin points humanistic psychology as the roots of much cult dynamics and poo poos on mainstream psychology for not "getting it" and having gone down the pharmacological route along with privatization leading inevitably to people searching for better private alternatives.
Claims the Manson family, Patty Hearst and Berkowitz weren't "ordinary" criminals but actually "victims" and the legal system should accept no one as being responsible for personality transformations pushed upon them... but is anyone really ever fully guilty by this logic?
Wants a clear line of demarcation between legit and false religions as well as abusive and helpful mental health techniques which I doubt can be created. China gets tough on cults and is denounced as totalitarian whereas the US state department has protected cults like Scientology in foreign countries.
A lot of this comes across as propaganda for the "deprogrammer" Ted Patrick who kidnapped and forcefully returned adults to their parents. Anyone not playing along with the dominant culture can be accused of being "programmed" and in need of reeducation to return to the appropriate visions of Jesus.
Pin points humanistic psychology as the roots of much cult dynamics and poo poos on mainstream psychology for not "getting it" and having gone down the pharmacological route along with privatization leading inevitably to people searching for better private alternatives.
Claims the Manson family, Patty Hearst and Berkowitz weren't "ordinary" criminals but actually "victims" and the legal system should accept no one as being responsible for personality transformations pushed upon them... but is anyone really ever fully guilty by this logic?
Wants a clear line of demarcation between legit and false religions as well as abusive and helpful mental health techniques which I doubt can be created. China gets tough on cults and is denounced as totalitarian whereas the US state department has protected cults like Scientology in foreign countries.
A lot of this comes across as propaganda for the "deprogrammer" Ted Patrick who kidnapped and forcefully returned adults to their parents. Anyone not playing along with the dominant culture can be accused of being "programmed" and in need of reeducation to return to the appropriate visions of Jesus.
November 1, 2023
Although this book is nearly 45 years old, it's absolutely as relevant today as it was in the late 1970s. The actors have changed and expanded somewhat. New things exist now that causes the "snapping" phenomenon - where someone's personality seems to change completely after their involvement with a religion, a personality cult, a self-help technique, a wellness regimen, a political cult, or something else near to that. All over the subreddit "Qanon Casualties", one can read story after story of someone they were close to becoming "completely different".
There are ways someone can be pulled back from any such organized ideology, but it takes time and effort and some knowledge in what to do. Cult deprogramming has earned a bad reputation - mainly from the cult members themselves, but sometimes what they warn their cult members about turns out to be true! Alas though, there are methods for cult deprogramming.
This is not always "just harmless" or a First Amendment right or freedom. It may be, but in some cases can become violent, self-destructive, or otherwise objectively harmful. Telling the difference may not always be easy.
There are ways someone can be pulled back from any such organized ideology, but it takes time and effort and some knowledge in what to do. Cult deprogramming has earned a bad reputation - mainly from the cult members themselves, but sometimes what they warn their cult members about turns out to be true! Alas though, there are methods for cult deprogramming.
This is not always "just harmless" or a First Amendment right or freedom. It may be, but in some cases can become violent, self-destructive, or otherwise objectively harmful. Telling the difference may not always be easy.
July 30, 2013
I read this book years ago, but it keeps coming back to me. After reading Pilgrim's Wilderness by Tom Kizzia, which was upsetting when you realize how people met and knew this family but SAW what they wanted to see: a wholesome loving healthy Christian family... when in reality evil, cruelty, anger existed and rules under the guise of Robert Hale's personal cult...
April 14, 2012
I'm currently reading Snapping and I think it is a wonderful essay of the personality of the mind and its persuasiveness to cults, therapies and sects.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews