Instead, "pseudo" is meant to infer that sufficiency of scientific validation and evidentiary authenticity have yet to be achieved. Philosophical efforts are a work in progress. Some will disagree, and some will recoil in horror. Regardless, the proof is in the facts, the data, the measurement, and the organic substantiation. Many schools of thought are in play; no single point of view overrides another within the scope of theoretical explorations.

Meanwhile, some schools of thought have been more commercially successful than others in the "social studies arena". In terms of mass marketing appeal, a hundred years of theorizing morphed into a major social industry. Nonetheless, mainstream and social media are rife with all con artistry. The focus here is on the concept of so-called brainwashing. If you have ever tried to wash a brain, you know how challenging that can be. From the pseudosciences come many ideas about how that is accomplished. Naturally, hope springs eternal that something might be real. In a review of three major non-fiction publications addressing the issue, illusions of self-deception are prevalent. According to the beliefs of far too many, and especially those who ought to know better, brainwashing or mind control is easily accepted as a reality. As to the books above, the authors point out that the U.S. intelligence community experimented with it for decades. They and our chief enemies (Russia and China) did likewise. The results were all the same. It is not possible and does not exist.

     Regardless, in the pseudosciences and the "social studies arena," it seems everything can be true simply based on a belief. Conduct a few interviews, frame a context to prime thinking, cite a few "peers," etc., and before you know it, you have "science." But, such notions make for fascinating science fiction and thriller movies, fictional stories, and sophomoric social rhetoric. Similarly, the unreality of reality TV shows presents examples of related Ponzi schemes. Or, actually, variations on that particular scam. Belief in the viability or success of something nonexistent is supported by gain without risk. And, the more people who believe in the imaginary, the better the outcome. Aside from being an organically untestable hypothesis, storytelling has been effective in spreading a variety of myths. That includes a form of fortune-telling called "criminal profiling". In one online magazine devoted to the many fields of "psychology", the author's discussion begins and ends without questioning evidentiary viability.

     Of that concept in question, the efficacy of a foundational premise ought not to assume the absence of facts. Nonetheless, most often, particularly in academia, things are easily overlooked. It is as though such a notion is an accepted process without questioning the assumptions being made. Yet, in another online publication, the author asserts that "washing a brain" is pseudoscientific and demeaning to common sense. A definitive work by a seasoned journalist explores the phenomena of unique aspects of the paranormal. The U.S. government, within the expanse of the intelligence community, spent decades, and to this day, investigating such things as "brainwashing". Every variety of experts participated in evaluating whether or not such a possibility existed. After exhaustive efforts, the conclusion was quite anticlimactic: it does not exist and cannot be done. Meanwhile, the mainstream media, as usual, enjoyed sensationalizing the bogus concept in favor of fictional storytelling.

     More reality TV unfolds. A novel, a movie, and many sci-fi spinoffs run with it. Like many other fads and trends of social and intellectual regression, the idea takes hold. Now a popular theme across the "infotainment" industry, most readily accept the "pseudoscientific" conjecture as real. By the way, if the "mind" is an illusion, a metaphor for organic brain functions, how do you control something that does not exist? The answer to that question is obvious. Hope springs eternal that fairy tales will come true . Immediate gratification yearns for subjective validation, as bias influences investigative processes. Assuming something is real does not make it viable without sufficient scientific validation. In yet another national publication, a researcher investigates news stories purporting the existence of "brainwashing". Again, negativity unfolds.

     In reviewing the non-fiction works of one journalist and at least four major publications, the efficacy of alleged "mind control" remains in the storytelling facets of Hollywood, from Operation Paperclip to the extraordinary studies in anomalous mental phenomena, including amazing innovations at Area-51, the U.S. government has been heavily involved in such research. Back in the 1950s, for example, as the Cold War heated up, an enterprising journalist coined the term "brainwashing." One such enterprising personality saw an opportunity for personal enrichment. Of course, this is typical in government, media, or academia. Just about everyone is out to promote themselves in one way or another. Exceptions are always duly noted. As the cherries ripen in the unfertile fields of imaginative discourse, cherry picking is an easy harvest. Nonetheless, a writer of that era explores the propaganda of international competitive interests.

     Investigating communist efforts to control people's "minds" took on special interests. For some, fixation became fixed, and somehow, a "scientific" process made control of humans possible. But, primarily, this fascination helped promote journalistic entrepreneurial endeavors. Controversially, some suggest the possibility of contrived efforts by Western intelligence agencies. To accentuate the idea in response to opposing totalitarian threats, "brainwashing" could be used as a propaganda tool. Yet, behind the scenes, various intelligence operations vigorously studied the probability of such capacity to invoke control over targeted humans. After decades of research, the conclusions were disappointing for those involved. There is no such thing as "brainwashing" or "mind control". Such notions are wishful illusions. A question arises at the outset of a closer look. For instance, the term "mind" is a metaphor. It does not exist. So, to say you want to control a "mind" infers you want to control something that is not there.

     Unfortunately, the term or word phrase is carelessly tossed around in modern American society. And, in a culture where the "truth decays," confusion easily arises, and controversy muddles into a framework of disinformation. This is very much the case in law enforcement operations, particularly where "forensic sciences" are concerned. Science continues the pitched battle between the real and the surreal. In the middle of science fiction and science fact, logical analysis for rational discussion gets a hazily muddled reception. Imagine how fun and fascinating it is to witness the blather of a non-expert "influencer" expounding on a criminological issue. Remember that this blogger has no expertise but sets out to promote himself or herself as some sort of sleuth. A good example in the realm of cryptozoology is the self-appointed cryptozoologist investigator. What are the credentials of the alleged expert?

     Now, go back and apply the theme to that of the "brainwashing" advocacy. What would a competent investigator do? How extensively would your research devolve into such a range of magical thinking? Deliberate gullibility, along with purposeful ignorance, helps avoid accountability. What is the truth, and who do you trust? And the answer is nothing and no one. That is until you prove the factual relevance of any assertion through evidence. However, in mainstream American society, accepting personal unsubstantiated bias as the essential reality is commonplace. Opinion, gossip, and rumor have now replaced credibly proved scientific validation. Likewise, forsaking individual responsibility for one's actions precludes complicity. By the mere utterance of "brainwashing," a defense argument ensues. Excuses abound for an assortment of "antisocial" behaviors. The notion of such a thing offers the egregious subversion of an untestable hypothesis. There is simply no scientific basis for the existence of any such manifestation. The realms of consciousness remain complicated.

     As cyclical forms of emotional reactivity and anti-intellectual achievements, generational configurations come and go in trendy forms of communal escapism. Many look for ways to sedate dull lives in a gluttonous consumer culture. A more wussified, pampered populace relishes in mysterious things in an American society that has grown weak by rampant cultural cowardice. Hardcore science becomes relegated to the dusty shelves in vacant libraries. In the 1990s, with the moviemaking fixation on alien invasions, interest in UFOs peaked. Sightings were prevalent. And then, with the advent of the 21st century, interest in such cosmic mysteries saw a dip in mainstream fascination. UFO sightings decreased in the number reported, in contrast to previous decades. Some UFO groups lost membership and disbanded. Where did all the UFOs go? Did aliens stop visiting the planet and abducting humans? Were the aliens no longer interested in their BDSM fascinations by probing people?

     The authors pondered the shift in UFO flirtations in one academic journal studying art and culture. One theory is that the growth of the internet allowed the spread of skeptical information. Supposedly, the free exchange of information allowed competing interests to balance the sway toward more viability of evidence. The evidence about UFOs piloted by alien visitors was nonexistent. If you can believe such things, polling data suggests the rise and fall of beliefs in UFOs between 1991 and 2001. However, by the onset of the 2016 national elections, believability has risen to 50%. That contrasts with the 20% back in the 1990s. More recently, surveys suggest an even higher number of believers.

     Additionally, other research tends to support the slant toward increasing credence given to otherworldly beliefs. With each decade, despite technological and scientific advances, magical thinking pervades the mainstream. From institutional assessment (academia) to national surveys, indications infer that nearly 75% of Americans adhere to some aspects of paranormal believability. Generally speaking, that suggests that 3 in 4 people think and behave by their consideration of the supernatural. Likewise, the embellishment of personal affinity with non-scientific conjecture allows thoughts to be based on feelings versus factual analysis. Sentiment, emotion, attitude, and sensory impression devolve to the default basis of beliefs absent sufficient scientific basis. Similarly, the modern era is marked by purposeful credulity to accept things at a very superficial level. Typically, rumors, gossip, and opinions erode the essential relevance of evidentiary validation.

     From a criminological perspective, this is where eyewitness testimony is always subject to critical examination. Not only was the investigator carefully evaluated for bias, but the claimant was also. For the sake of a credible investigation, everyone is held accountable. So many factors are at play within the intentional framework of the thinking processes. In one scientific journal, a writer asserts that "brainwashing" has zero scientific validation. No concrete basis exists for any such thing, so it falls into the abyss of magical thinking. Such a notion could be considered one of those dream-inspired wish-fulfillment mechanisms. As hope springs eternal for an easy excuse for certain behaviors, the idea of "brainwashing" fails to cleanse intentional antics toward personal responsibility. Yet, as the article above suggests, the term is an easy default to attach a label to a set of complex behaviors. Since the early days of the Cold War, when competing intelligence agencies conducted all kinds of human experiments, the term was popular in mainstream media. Reporters embellished the concept.

     Flash forward to the 21st century, where intellectual achievement is supposedly evolving; the storytelling remains consistently erroneous. Without fundamental analysis and assessment of evidentiary substantiation, subjective validation favoring confirmation bias prefers quick and easy answers. It is as though "brainwashing" is the default option when things become too difficult to explain or understand. Why is that? Is American culture more dumbed down than ever before? Does belief in "brainwashing" provide a convenient way out of social accountability? The term has become so pervasive that acceptance seemingly infers scientific authenticity. However, in the spectrum of criminology, where are the facts? How is it proved?

     Regarding a survey of a half dozen or more college texts relative to the fields of criminology, no reference to anything called "brainwashing" is discussed. The term typically emerges more often than not in mainstream media. This includes the social media alleged "influencers" attempting to be "scientists". People with limited knowledge of science and how scientific investigation works lend themselves to such believability. As to the concept and terminology, neither in the psychological industry nor the medical field is the notion of a "brain being washed," a compelling scientific concept. Frequently, researchers place the idea where it belongs, in the storytelling of the science fiction genre. In an investigative journal assessing the rigors of scientific methodology, one author looks at cults and associated religious movements. While some would call the process "programming", as though designing software for a computer, the investigator challenges such notions.

     Questioning such simplistic and biased conjecture, the writer suggests that the lack of rigorous scientific validation places such ideation in the realm of pseudoscience. Arguing in favor of free will and the unique individuality of people, the article above argues against contemporary notions. Furthermore, the suggestions of brainwashing, as in a cultic setting, serve to defame contemporary research explanations on the subject matter. By way of an "untestable hypothesis," the conjecture of something called "mind control" is tossed about absent serious regard for evidentiary substantiation. As to the concept, aside from controversial misunderstandings, misdirection, and outright fraud, controlling another person's beliefs, thoughts, behaviors, values, etc., makes for good fictional creativity in movie making. To radically overhaul another's mental framework without consent, participation, and willing cooperation falls into the nebulous depths of wishful fantasies. Yet, modern society prefers simplistic answers.

     By contrast, brainwashing and radicalization are words very carelessly used in mainstream society. Corporate media, blogs, and related salacious flog casually apply the terms to various antisocial behaviors as if such concepts are well-established both legally and scientifically. For the savvy investigator, the realization is that human behavior is highly complex. Understating the depths of thinking remains extraordinarily intricate. Consequently, several considerable research scientists (i.e., real sciences such as biology and physics) agree that defining consciousness and the workings of the "mind" is not quantifiable. Predictability is nonexistent. Cerebral functions operate at a subatomic level and defy the possibilities for easy calculation. Simplistic conjectures based on lazy assumptions do not help advance better understanding.

     The social constructs of UFOs and the specious conjecture of "brainwashing" are offered as examples of personal deception. These are choices made rationally by the individual in accepting things that cannot be proved by available evidence. Across the dynamics of mainstream cultural interactivity come the many-faceted wants, desires, and wishful thinking of many interactions. Normalcy is promulgated for a superficial semblance of one-size-fits-all. Most people want simplistic, mediocre, unsubstantiated, and non-scientific excuses for an illusion of commonality. Such supposition devolves into the mainstream collective collusion for the mystical desire for purposefully naïve explanations. By social construct, the meaning defaults to easy rationalization in the context of contrived communal consensus. Others differ and disagree. As culture chaos creeps into social discourse, an era of anti-science has arisen. As a reflection of that, a sense of "infantile narcissism" surfaces, whereby children disguise themselves as adults.

     Regarding childish proclivities for the vanity of self-absorption, the "social studies arena" is riddled with such behavioral antics in that aloof and safe environment of college higher education and throughout society in general. However, a small percentage of self-evolving souls prefer a more mature range of differentiation. Nonetheless, the prideful assertions of self-importance are mirrored in the magical thinking relative to UFOs and brainwashing. When applied to scientific inquiry, such emptiness and yearning for self-validation interfere with the objectivity for evidentiary authenticity. In formulating an objective hypothesis, a need for falsifiability becomes eroded to "prove" personal preference. As to the framework of "magical thinking", fiction subverts facts and warps reality. As "hope springs eternal", where space vessels piloted by "godly" visitors come to the rescue, "brainwashing" adherents summon similarities in elusive implausibility. Anecdotal evidence so frequently surfaces in the pretext of viability.  

     Aside from subjective evidentiary inferences or fallacies, adherents cling to confirmation bias in relying on unsubstantiated assertions. To substantiate personal beliefs, adherence to ambiguous concepts asserts specious claims despite contradictory evidence. Opinion, rumor, and gossip become staples in searching for elusive provability. Questionable reliance on mysterious and unexplained phenomena prefers the seduction of wonderment versus factual reality. Meanwhile, at the box office, science fiction, scary stories, and macabre tales entertain audiences and enhance bank accounts. In the process, 80% of the U.S. population believes in mythic notions beyond any level of viable probability. As such, there are fine lines between scientific inquiry and fairy-tale thinking. Of which, the truth falls into regressive decomposition.