> Indoctrination is not forced on a person by a specific agent but rather is the result of passive exposure over long periods of time. I do not think that indo

> Indoctrination is not forced on a person by a specific agent but rather is the result of passive exposure over long periods of time. I do not think that indoctrination is being done by passive exposure only. This 1970 book: https://www.amazon.com/Canvassing-Peace-manual-volunteers-pages/dp/B0015OCYOU https://www.amazon.com/Canvassing-Peace-manual-volunteers-pa... (and yes, this is the Zimbardo of Stanford experiment) describes the tactic that was successful in starting the piece movement. The first step Zimbardo recommends when going from home to home - is to ask to sign some document that almost nobody will refuse to sign. Not “Stop the war now”, but more like “Investigate reports of war crimes”. Who will refuse to sign under such a noble request? What? Do you support war crimes?? A lot of signatures was collected. But there was no need to send these collective signatures anywhere. Zimbardo states (as a scientific fact, lol) that after a person signed something in support of some (anti-war in this case) position - the person’s perception changes. He will become a little bit more receptive to anti-war arguments than to pro-war ones. (Other purpose of this first canvassing was to find people who already are passionate about your cause and sign them on as volunteers). As I can see this tactic - not passive indoctrination, but active involvement via small first steps - is used rather widely on our planet these days. The most cynical variant is “give some little money to our noble cause!” - those being indoctrinated are financing the indoctrination campaign themselves. That is, if Zimbardo is right.