Do you know the name Patty Hearst? Or is that too much of a “boomer” reference?
Patty Hearst was an heiress who was kidnapped by bank robbers and eventually joined them as a willing participant. She was a victim of “Stockholm syndrome,” a psychological concept that describes an emotional bond that some hostages can develop with their captors.
In common parlance, we might say Patty Hearst was “brainwashed.” Same with military or police officers who commit atrocities. They were just “following orders.”
Take Internet conspiracy rabbit holes or other ideologies. People claim they were “radicalized online.” Or if someone gets cancelled, they may claim that their “implicit bias” caused them to say/act the way they did.
People are “brainwashed” into the alt-right, into religious cults, or into thinking that the U.S. military-industrial complex represents a liberal “rules-based international order” and has our best interests at heart.
Experts say unconscious bias drives our behaviours and actions. That snap judgments and “gut feelings” are better than thinking and reasoning.
They say we can be “brainwashed” against our will.
But what if these beliefs are wrong? What if you can trust your gut and still get things wrong?
What if no one is getting brainwashed? What if some people simply make bad choices?
There is No Such Thing as the “Unconscious Mind”
“Brainwashing” and the “unconscious mind” are two sides of the same coin. Both suggest that people can be controlled without realizing it. But they’re social constructs.
Sigmund Freud invented the idea of the ‘unconscious mind’—the notion that most of our thoughts and motives are hidden beneath the surface, like an iceberg.
This concept has no bearing on reality.
Being “brainwashed” is a way to avoid responsibility for one’s thoughts and actions.
Pop psychology tells us that unconscious biases rule our lives and that others can manipulate us without our awareness. But a closer look at the science—and philosophy—reveals something else.
In Open Minded, authors David R. Shanks and Ben R. Newell challenge the idea that unconscious forces drive behaviour. They show that psychological claims about intuition, implicit bias, and priming fail to replicate.
And if you can’t replicate a study, then it’s a shit study no one should take seriously.
Take snap judgements (or “thin-slicing”). This is just pattern recognition. And without underlying expertise, it often fails.
A surgeon doesn’t ‘just’ trust her gut—her instincts are backed by years of education and experience. Without that foundation, gut feelings are just guesses.
All decisions involve some level of awareness, even when they feel habitual and automatic.
“Brainwashing” is a convenient excuse to avoid personal responsibility. As it is when one refers to one’s “mental health,” “unconscious drives,” or “determinism.”
The idea that one can be brainwashed or radicalized without knowing it serves as a way to escape blame. If someone had no control over their beliefs, how would they leave a cult? Change their mind? Deprogram themselves?
Countless examples of people breaking free from cults, religions, or radical ideologies exist. “Stockholm syndrome” isn’t inevitable or irreversible.
Human agency is real. We have the power of choice. There’s no reason to invent the term “brainwashing” or refer to an “unconscious mind,” when incentives explain behaviour.
Incentives Shape Behaviour
Social incentives shape behaviour—not the unconscious.
Why do people join cults? A variety of reasons. They may find it fills a social need.
Why do people fall down Internet rabbit holes? Perhaps they seek status or meaning. Conforming to “woke” or “anti-woke” politics is about social pressure, not unconscious programming.
The unconscious mind is not a scientific fact but a moral and linguistic construct. It’s a concept that people can use to excuse behaviour and control others. It’s a way of denying responsibility.
People make decisions based on available information and incentives. There is no such thing as mysterious unconscious manipulation.
People choose their beliefs based on social incentives, self-interest, and rationalizations. Calling someone “brainwashed” is a post-hoc excuse that allows us to shift blame away from the person in question.
Even when influenced by social or psychological pressures—we are always responsible for our actions.
The concept of “unconscious” removes individual agency from the equation. When people say, “It wasn’t my fault; my unconscious made me do it” (or some variation of this), they are making a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
People learn behaviours through training, repetition, and reinforcement. Our habits, experiences, and socialization drive our behaviour, not some hidden unconscious force.
We engage in self-deception. We refer to the subconscious instead of saying, “I chose to act that way. I just don’t want to admit it.”
What some refer to as “unconscious processes” are just well-practiced actions. Walking, typing, and making a coffee first thing in the morning isn’t evidence of a separate unconscious mind. You’ve gotten so good at these actions you’ve developed cognitive efficiency.
Unconscious drives don’t control behaviour. “Mental health” is a metaphor. A good therapist should focus on personal responsibility. Not past traumas or “hidden forces.”
We should hold people accountable for their actions. Claims that an unconscious mind lets us off the hook due to a vague “implicit bias” are not scientific.
People don’t join cults or go down ideological rabbit holes because someone has hypnotized them. They join because it gives them meaning, community, or a sense of belonging.
That’s not “brainwashing”—that’s incentives at work.
Why This Matters
Over one hundred years or so, we’ve shifted from a society that values agency and personal responsibility to one that increasingly denies agency and assumes all behaviour and action result from a predetermined biochemical process.
What happens when we let “the unconscious” dominate our thinking?
Radicals, criminals, and extremists get a free pass because they can claim they weren’t fully in control. Yet, our Western legal system is based on the idea that one has moral responsibilities.
We’ve seen the political weaponization of “unconscious bias,” where people are labelled implicitly racist because of the demographic they belong to. Governments and corporations use the unconscious as an excuse for control.
“You need this anti-racist training because you’re biased, even if you don’t think you are!”
Or “We need to censor this misinformation to protect you from unconscious radicalization!”
Open Minded does a solid job of debunking the faulty science of implicit bias training. Officially called the Implicit Association Test (IAT), psychologists developed the test in the 1990s to measure “unconscious biases” about race, gender, age, and other categories.
It works by categorizing words or images quickly. For example, if I do a test and make quick associations between certain categories (e.g., black is bad, and white is good), the testers may interpret this as evidence of implicit bias.
The idea is that the IAT reveals hidden attitudes even if people deny having them. You might have already taken one of these. The IAT is hugely influential in corporate diversity training, university admissions, government policies (especially regarding discrimination), and the legal profession.
But the IAT is a scam. You take the test today, and you’re “unconsciously racist.” Take it tomorrow, and—surprise—you’re not. A real scientific test doesn’t change results based on mood, fatigue, or what you had for breakfast.
The IAT is measuring cognitive noise, not a deep-seated bias.
Consider: shouldn’t people with high IAT scores behave in biased ways? Studies show little to no correlation between IAT scores and real-world behaviour.
No one is saying discrimination doesn’t exist. It does. But explicit biases are at fault, whether it’s the old Jim Crow laws in the American South or the modern structural factors that lead to economic inequality.
People can override their biases when they are motivated to act fairly. Explicit policies, not implicit prejudices, are behind social inequalities.
Explicit values matter more than implicit bias. It’s why racist beliefs have declined dramatically over the last fifty years. People’s stated attitudes predict their behaviour more accurately than the IAT.
People adapt and change their behaviour based on context. How you behave at work will differ from how you behave casually hanging out with friends.
Additionally, some biases reflect cognitive shortcuts rather than internal prejudice.
For example, a person who sees a firefighter may assume he or she is brave—not because of unconscious bias but because experience suggests firefighters are trained for danger.
Not all stereotypes are negative or harmful.
We’re pattern-recognition animals. And this influences our decision-making. A white male hiring manager may favour candidates with familiar traits not because of racial bias but because of perceived shared experiences.
Replicable (and therefore reputable) studies show that people actively suppress biased responses when they make an effort to be fair. Judges and legal professionals are the most significant examples.
Believing that the IAT can reveal unconscious bias is a problem because there’s no evidence that it does or that can even change behaviour.
Some studies suggest “unconscious bias training” actually makes people more defensive about bias. It also creates a false sense of progress (thinking training alone solves discrimination).
It encourages moral licensing. People feel they’ve “done enough” despite not changing their behaviour. It also gives the licensing class the power to decide whether you’ve been “cured” of your “unconscious biases.”
Bias exists, but it’s not unconscious. It’s the combination of learned experiences, culture, and conscious values.
Instead of assuming unconscious bias is the cause of discrimination, we should:
Recognize the importance of social norms, laws, and individual choice in shaping behaviour. Personal responsibility is the antidote.
Focus on measurable, real-world interventions rather than unreliable psychological tests. People can change their minds, override impulses, and make conscious choices.
Challenge the pseudoscience that overstates the power of implicit bias without strong evidence. Critical thinking wins out over “gut feelings.”
If we stop excusing bad behaviour with the unconscious, we can create a culture of accountability.
Reclaiming the Mind
There is no subconscious mastermind controlling you. You are the author of your life. You are responsible for your thoughts and actions.
No excuses.
Next time you hear someone say they were “brainwashed” or “couldn’t help it,” ask yourself—did they really have no control? Or are they dodging accountability?
Eat an entire sleeve of Oreo cookies? Don’t blame the unconscious mind. You did it.
Tell yourself you’re only going out for a few drinks but end up taking an Uber home at 3am? Blame yourself.
Get kidnapped and grow to love your captors and help them rob banks? No one will blame you for being in a tough situation and making less-than-optimal choices.
But don’t feed yourself the BS that you were “brainwashed.”
You did what you had to do. Nobody brainwashed you. You chose. And you’ll choose again tomorrow. And the day after that. There’s no unconscious mastermind pulling the strings.
There’s just you—and the choices you make. Own it.